# Discussion Thread for TC Top Recommended Piano Trios List



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

We've come to some amount of consensus, and that is to compile a recommended list of piano trios. And since I initiated the discussion, and no one has objected, I will facilitate and compile and run our nominating and voting. 

This thread is to discuss the overall procedure. 
There are several questions we need to answer and settle upon. And there may be issues that arise as we proceed, which can be settled here in this thread. Let's keep this thread for discussion and the other thread for nominating and voting only. 

Do we only nominate and vote on the standard trio: piano, cello and violin?
Do we allow other instrument combinations of trios? (clarinet, violin and piano) (horn, violin, piano)
Do we allow the Baroque trios that include 2 violins, and basso continuo, which was often cello and harpsichord, making four instruments?
Do we allow violin, viola and piano?
Are there any piano trios with electronics, or singers or percussion struck by one of the three performers etc? Are these eligible?

Are we in agreement on the nomination and voting? I really like the procedure used by Nereffid in the pre 1700 list. Summary: nominate 15 without ranking them. Works that receive the most nominations will be voted on. Voting on 10 favourites in order of preference. We enshrine 10 works each time. I will write out the full text of the procedure in our voting thread. 

I will be running this from my PC at work, after hours. So each nomination and voting round will begin and end on a weekday. There will always be a week-end in between the start and close of a round. Does this matter? Approximately one week to nominate and one week to vote. So it could take 20 weeks to get a list of 100 works. I could make it always the same, say Tuesday to Tuesday. The end of nominating and voting will occur at the end of my day PST (UTC-8). I might nominate and vote myself from home on my ipad mini, but the process of collating and writing will be easier from work on the PC. 

If I make an error while working on this, please don't hesitate to say so. Check my counting, check my math etc. You can call me on any errors, please just do it with civility. I'm new at this. 

I hope we get many people to nominate and vote. The more people who participate the better the final list. With more people there is a broader taste in music and more chance to hear something new. We won't compile the definitive and official list. It is merely a starting point to explore the wonderful work of piano trios.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Might mention also string trios -- Haydn and Mozart each wrote one, and Beethoven wrote five, all quite good.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I would prefer standard trios (Piano, violin, cello), but I'm happy with Piano, violin, and viola as well. 

I'm happy with the voting process used on the pre-1700 list.

I like relatively long nomination and voting rounds so everyone has plenty of time to listen to the works.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Piano quartets plus could easily still make a list of their own, so I'm fine with sticking to just trios for this project. I think each list will end up around 100-150 each if not the full 200.

From the previous thread:


Balthazar said:


> I would prefer trios only as well. Option C is essentially a re-do of the existing list. I think that the greatest benefit to a new list is the prospect of discovery of unfamiliar pieces. That happens to a far greater degree in a more focused list (i.e., without having to scroll down beyond the obligatory Trout et al. quintets and quartets).
> 
> For those newer to classical music, the original list still stands as a starting point for piano chamber exploration.
> 
> But, as Simon says, any of the options are fine.





tortkis said:


> I prefer a) for the same reason stated by SimonNZ and Balthazar. Besides famous Classical piano trios, I hope a lot of good modern ~ contemporary works will be discovered.


I still prefer the inclusion of all piano trios, as I think it may otherwise be a missed opportunity to explore the more obscure combinations that have less repertoire, and I don't think the inclusion of these works will have that much diluting influence on the final list. However, I'm fine with sticking to just standard trios if that's what the majority wants.

Besides the expected addition of clarinet trios, Oboe-Bassoon-Piano has a conspicuous number of contemporary works, thanks to the Poulenc Trio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oboe-bassoon-piano_trio

As suggested by KenOC, we could also extend it to all chamber trios, seeing that string trios were left out of the string quartet project, and also seeing the conspicuous number of modern chamber works following Debussy's Flute-Viola-Harp combo. However, I suspect at this point that the participants want to stick to trios with piano, and these could also easily fit into a Mixed & Wind Ensembles project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flute,_viola_and_harp

As for the voting method I don't mind which scoring method you choose. The older method had ranked votes in the nomination round so that the lowest vote got 6 points, 2nd lowest got 7 points, etc. allowing people to give more weight to their favorite works. The pre-1700 method nomination rounds only ranked nominations by number of nominations. I think the former works better when participants have more familiarity with the repertoire while the latter works better when participants are exploring obscure works.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

May I suggest:

1 - Skip the baroque, too many problems of definition there.
2 - All works for piano, violin, and cello
3 - Other works for any three instruments so long as the composer called them trios, or they're commonly known as trios.

Arrangements are worth thinking about. Beethoven arranged his second symphony for piano trio -- and it's really good! Would that count?


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2016)

I support either (1) Pure piano/violin/cello trios or (2) Any trios (string trios, woodwind trios, mixed trios, whatever), but I don't support an intermediate solution. Go all exclusive or go all inclusive, so there's no way to justify nitpicking.

Also, shout out to TurnaboutVox, who casually urged me to come here.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

nathanb said:


> I support either (1) Pure piano/violin/cello trios or (2) Any trios (string trios, woodwind trios, mixed trios, whatever), but I don't support an intermediate solution. Go all exclusive or go all inclusive, so there's no way to justify nitpicking.
> 
> Also, shout out to TurnaboutVox, who casually urged me to come here.


All trios containing a piano is a pretty clear cutting line too.  Welcome back!


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I say any trio as long as it contains a piano.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> All trios containing a piano is a pretty clear cutting line too


This will do it for me also.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2016)

Actually, I change my mind and agree with pjang. Because hey, there's always this:


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

My preference is for the traditional piano trio: piano, cello and violin, simply because it has a rich history. But I don't mind if we include any instrument combination as long as there is a piano. But we need to decide before we start, not during. 

If we include any instrument combination of three instruments that includes the piano, it would still be mostly the standard lineup of piano, cello and violin. And it would solve the issue of violin, viola and piano etc. If we include any combination of three instruments the composer called a trio, then this is wide open. The standard line up of piano, cello and violin will get lost in the conflated list.

I agree that we should not include those difficult to classify Baroque trio sonatas, with four instruments. I'd be inclined not to include transcriptions because once that box is opened, where does it stop?

I like the voting method used for the pre 1700 list, as it seemed easier. But I don't mind which system we use, as long as we don't change the nomination and voting process rules part way through. If we rank during the nomination process too, then there is more counting for me, but I can manage. 

I just got a cd from the library of Haydn trios, nos 39, 43-45. He wrote that many?! Where does one begin? I will listen to this cd and what you people nominate.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

senza sordino said:


> I just got a cd from the library of Haydn trios, nos 39, 43-45. He wrote that many?! Where does one begin? I will listen to this cd and what you people nominate.


Haydn is in trouble once again. He wrote a whole pile of trios that are very good. But they're just not _that _good. Sorry FJ, that's just the way it is.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

All trios with a piano is my preference. Because I want to nominate Kurtag's "Hommage à R. Sch." for piano, viola and clarinet!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Just to reiterate my opinion on the nomination round: ranking should be meaningless - you either want something in the voting round or you don't. Whether it's my 1st favourite out of 10 or your 10th favourite out of 10, it's still in both our top 10s. And the fact that it's high on just a handful of people's top 10 shouldn't trump the fact that it's not on most everyone else's top 10 at all - this I call the Tyranny of the Pushy. 
It's also worth noting that once we started the revised rules nobody complained or seemed to notice anything different - I think as long as the process seems fair then nobody really cares about the details, so the moderator's convenience should be a deciding factor. And I think the variable number of works in each voting round made the voting a smidgin more interesting because there was a bit more at stake.

I'd prefer piano+violin+cello, although as noted above piano+1+1 won't produce a hugely different list (at least in the upper reaches).


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I should chip in here as a former list facilitator that I thought that ranking nominations and giving them points made the compilation of the weekly results very complex and time consuming.

I was always doubtful of the value of two voting rounds as the results of one often to some extent contradicted the other.

So if in the pre-1700 list you used a simpler method that worked, did not need to be revised and attracted no complaints, we should use it again for this one.


P.S. Part of my reason for supporting all piano+1+1 trios is that the list of non-standard p+1+1 works is not large, and they'll not support a separate list project of their own.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I should chip in here as a former list facilitator that I thought that ranking nominations and giving them points made the compilation of the weekly results very complex and time consuming.
> 
> I was always doubtful of the value of two voting rounds as the results of one often to some extent contradicted the other.
> 
> ...


My reasoning as well, and that the non-standard works won't dilute the ultimate list by much anyway, and you may miss out on some obscure gems which happen to have one wrong instrument.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

This sounds like a lovely project, I'm looking forward to participating. I agree that any trio containing a piano could be included.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I kinda like the idea of any trio - I feel this would allow a lot of works that otherwise might not make any lists and would open the door to a lot of newer music, while keeping the definition clear enough.

Traditional piano trio will make the list skew old, for better or worse.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I should chip in here as a former list facilitator that I thought that ranking nominations and giving them points made the compilation of the weekly results very complex and time consuming.
> 
> I was always doubtful of the value of two voting rounds as the results of one often to some extent contradicted the other.
> 
> ...


Interesting that ranking nominations often contradicted the voting. That is a good reason not to rank your nominations. Plus, not ranking nominations made things simpler. Who wants it more complex when there is a simpler way?



Nereffid said:


> Just to reiterate my opinion on the nomination round: ranking should be meaningless - you either want something in the voting round or you don't. Whether it's my 1st favourite out of 10 or your 10th favourite out of 10, it's still in both our top 10s. And the fact that it's high on just a handful of people's top 10 shouldn't trump the fact that it's not on most everyone else's top 10 at all - this I call the Tyranny of the Pushy.
> It's also worth noting that once we started the revised rules nobody complained or seemed to notice anything different - I think as long as the process seems fair then nobody really cares about the details, so the moderator's convenience should be a deciding factor. And I think the variable number of works in each voting round made the voting a smidgen more interesting because there was a bit more at stake.
> 
> I'd prefer piano+violin+cello, although as noted above piano+1+1 won't produce a hugely different list (at least in the upper reaches).


"Tyranny of the pushy" - good one! That's why the post 1950 list got irritating for me and why I stopped participating. To be fair, it was a completely different voting method. Please explain to me why there can be a different number of pieces to vote on each week?



pjang23 said:


> My reasoning as well, and that the non-standard works won't dilute the ultimate list by much anyway, and you may miss out on some obscure gems which happen to have one wrong instrument.


I agree, the non standard lineup of piano, plus any two other instruments won't dilute the list too much. There will still be a large majority of piano, cello and violin works. "Miss out because they have the wrong instrument" - good one - that one comment has me change my mind to include any piano trio, piano plus any two instruments.



MoonlightSonata said:


> This sounds like a lovely project, I'm looking forward to participating. I agree that any trio containing a piano could be included.


Welcome back!

Overall, we still haven't really reached a clear consensus on what to include. (Perhaps I'm wrong, and we have reached a consensus.) I think we're leaning toward piano+any two instruments that is still called a trio. A couple of you are asking for any combination of three instruments, which could be all strings, all winds, or piano + two instruments. I'm still going to wait a couple of days before beginning the nominating round to sort this out. If you could do me a favour and reply with a clear choice and I will tally the results.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I voted for standard trio, but I'm happy with either standard trio or Piano+1+1.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2016)

Just a side note, I'm down for standard piano trios, any trio with piano, or any trio, and most people are leaning away from "any trio", but "any trio" would mirror the duo list I did, at least. Not that that one was a big success.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> Please explain to me why there can be a different number of pieces to vote on each week?


For instance, in round 1 of the Pre-1700 list, 10 works got 10 or more votes, 3 others got 9, 2 others got 8, and 3 others got 7. So I could have put 10 in the voting round but I think it's more interesting to have more works in the voting round than would be enshrined. The next options were therefore 13, 15, or 18 works. I decided on 15, meaning the cutoff was 8 nominations. As it happens, one of the works with 8 nominations was enshrined, whereas one with 12 nominations wasn't. (Which is to say: 12 people had it in their top 15, but when it came to ranking in the voting round it came nowhere near the top 10. It was renominated in round 2 and was enshrined at no.15.)
Then in round 2, 11 works got 7 or more votes, another 5 got 6 votes, and 4 others got 5 votes; so this time the options were 11, 16, or 20 works. I decided on 16, and in future rounds I always tried to keep it in the mid-teens.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

My preference is for piano+1+1 but I'll participate willingly given any other outcome. 

I think of string trios as close cousins of the string quartet family, and more distantly related to the piano trios. The keyboard instrument seems to make quite a difference to my perception of the work.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

My preference would be the standard trio (piano, violin, cello), but if some other option is chosen, that'd be cool.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I would vote for piano and any two instruments, but I would certainly still participate in any of the others.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Count me in. I have no preference.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

senza sordino said:


> Overall, we still haven't really reached a clear consensus on what to include. (Perhaps I'm wrong, and we have reached a consensus.) I think we're leaning toward piano+any two instruments that is still called a trio. A couple of you are asking for any combination of three instruments, which could be all strings, all winds, or piano + two instruments. I'm still going to wait a couple of days before beginning the nominating round to sort this out. If you could do me a favour and reply with a clear choice and I will tally the results.


I'm for piano + any two over any three instruments if there was any ambiguity.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

arnerich said:


> I say any trio as long as it contains a piano.


This works for me. Along with the Nereffid voting procedure!


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

What about Piano Trio with voice...?


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

TurnaboutVox said:


> What about Piano Trio with voice...?


That would've been part of the art song project. Brahms Op.91 songs with viola, Barber's Dover Beach, Schubert's Shepherd and the Rock come to mind.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> What about Piano Trio with voice...?


I don't know. How many could this be? Is it like string quartet and voice, which was allowed if I remember correctly. And what about electronics / tape effects etc?



Nereffid said:


> For instance, in round 1 of the Pre-1700 list, 10 works got 10 or more votes, 3 others got 9, 2 others got 8, and 3 others got 7. So I could have put 10 in the voting round but I think it's more interesting to have more works in the voting round than would be enshrined. The next options were therefore 13, 15, or 18 works. I decided on 15, meaning the cutoff was 8 nominations. As it happens, one of the works with 8 nominations was enshrined, whereas one with 12 nominations wasn't. (Which is to say: 12 people had it in their top 15, but when it came to ranking in the voting round it came nowhere near the top 10. It was renominated in round 2 and was enshrined at no.15.)
> Then in round 2, 11 works got 7 or more votes, another 5 got 6 votes, and 4 others got 5 votes; so this time the options were 11, 16, or 20 works. I decided on 16, and in future rounds I always tried to keep it in the mid-teens.


I think I get it, and I'm sure it will be more clear as I start counting and tallying nominations myself.

I do believe we're coming to a consensus that is piano + any two instruments = piano trio. I will start the nomination process tomorrow, Thursday. I would like to keep the same day to start and end nominating and voting, rather than a floating day. But that might change as we go forth.

I will also say this in the opening post of the nomination: I would like at least one person to write in their nomination: Composer, Piano trio #? in Key, catalogue #, nickname. Just so I don't have to look up all this information myself. I think if the instrument combination is piano+cello+violin you can just call it a piano trio, but if there is another combination of instruments then you need to specify which instruments.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I kinda like the idea of any trio - I feel this would allow a lot of works that otherwise might not make any lists and would open the door to a lot of newer music, while keeping the definition clear enough.
> 
> *Traditional piano trio will make the list skew old,* for better or worse.


I think that investigation and the results will show the opposite, which is why I'm voting for the standard trio option.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

My preference would be for piano + any 2 instruments -- but as always I'm happy to go with whatever the majority favors.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

I think piano +2 would be interesting (Brahms's Horn Trio can be included, for example). I am also fine with piano+violin+cello only.

It seems a bit strange to group string trios and piano trios together. I read somewhere that piano can be treated as 2-voice in general, so piano trio is equivalent to string quartet in terms of the voice structure. (is it correct?)


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> I think that investigation and the results will show the opposite, which is why I'm voting for the standard trio option.


In that case it will be educational for me, since I honestly don't know many modern/contemporary pieces for traditional trio.

On reflection I think piano + 2 or piano + violin + cello are both good options and I'd be happy with either.

I wonder if a "non-traditional chamber grouping" list would be feasible in the future. A lot of my personal favorites fit that description.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> In that case it will be educational for me, since I honestly don't know many modern/contemporary pieces for traditional trio.
> 
> On reflection I think piano + 2 or piano + violin + cello are both good options and I'd be happy with either.
> 
> I wonder if a "non-traditional chamber grouping" list would be feasible in the future. A lot of my personal favorites fit that description.


Three to eight (?) players, required to represent at least strings/winds, strings/percussion, or winds/percussion, with piano not counting as percussion. Of course, even then, clarinet quintets and whatnot would probably dominate the first round, but it would certainly be interesting...


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

nathanb said:


> Three to eight (?) players, required to represent at least strings/winds, strings/percussion, or winds/percussion, with piano not counting as percussion. Of course, even then, clarinet quintets and whatnot would probably dominate the first round, but it would certainly be interesting...


Yup, the plan is to do a final mixed ensembles list to catch all the remaining ensembles. Might want to include non-quartet string ensembles in that too, but that's a discussion for a later date.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> In that case it will be educational for me, since I honestly don't know many modern/contemporary pieces for traditional trio.
> 
> On reflection I think piano + 2 or piano + violin + cello are both good options and I'd be happy with either.
> 
> I wonder if a "non-traditional chamber grouping" list would be feasible in the future. A lot of my personal favorites fit that description.


It will be an education for me too. A brief look on wikipedia (for what it's worth) showed quite a few modern works for the traditional lineup for piano cello and violin. Piano trio repertoire And now that we include any two instruments plus piano, there will be a lot to choose from.



pjang23 said:


> Yup, the plan is to do a final mixed ensembles list to catch all the remaining ensembles. Might want to include non-quartet string ensembles in that too, but that's a discussion for a later date.


All chamber music that isn't a duo, piano trio or string quartet will still yield quite a large repertoire.

I've started the nominating process. Piano plus any two instruments.

Please continue to discuss here. I hope I've done it correctly. Please don't hesitate to point out any errors in the procedure or my counting.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I am looking forward to seeing how this project develops
My knowledge of Piano Trios is limited, but enough to give this a go. I shall be particularly interested in the newer works that will be nominated and listening to them.
I got a lot of pleasure from the string quartet list and hope this will be same
Thanks to Senza Sordino for collating this
Right, off to Spotify to find a piano trio including mouth organ and spoons, cos there must be one out there for me to champion


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I just finished listening to this disk.
View attachment 88630

and I thought it was super, a very interesting and entertaining listen. 
Bartok, Khatchaturian, Milhaud and Stravinsky.

The Bartok I already knew, I have a recording of Bartok at the piano, Benny Goodman and Joseph Szigeti, it's terrific and I will be advocating this piece. But also on this disk the other three pieces were great, especially the Milhaud Suite for clarinet, violin and piano. My first listen and I thought it was outstanding, a lively and fun first movement, lyric second movement, a nice duet of violin and clarinet in the third and a jazzy fourth movement. I will be advocating this piece too.

KenOC asked earlier if transcriptions are eligible. I answered that it could open up lots of issues, but I didn't really answer. It's not my place to answer one way or another, it's our list, not mine, I merely facilitate its compilation.

Apparently LvB transcribed his second symphony for piano trio. And on the disk I just listened to, Stravinsky transcribed his L'Histoire du Soldat as a suite for clarinet, violin and piano. Would these be eligible?

I will listen to some Hummel tomorrow morning, so much to listen to, so little time. He's a composer I don't ever listen to. I've got some Rachmaninov to listen to, plus Chopin, Smetena, Schumann, Bridge, Korngold, Martinu etc. I've made written listen and it sits next to my stereo.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

senza sordino said:


> Apparently LvB transcribed his second symphony for piano trio. And on the disk I just listened to, Stravinsky transcribed his L'Histoire du Soldat as a suite for clarinet, violin and piano. Would these be eligible?


We've generally left out transcriptions since they offer little discovery value.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

senza sordino said:


> I just finished listening to this disk.
> View attachment 88630


I'll listen to this disc on streaming. Thanks for the head's up.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

I know I am way behind here, but just to raise a point (someone else had to have mentioned): limiting to _piano_ trios limits the overall list. That is, I cannot imagine the majority of those that are going to take part in this exercise _know_ at least 100 piano trios. I think I know 100 _trios_, but piano trios is far more limited.

You started, so I apologize for my lateness. Just sharing my thoughts. (I am participating to my capabilities regardless!)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes, I think 100 is a bit ambitious. I'll probably drop out after the second or third round just for lack of knowledge and familiarity.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Avey said:


> I know I am way behind here, but just to raise a point (someone else had to have mentioned): limiting to _piano_ trios limits the overall list. That is, I cannot imagine the majority of those that are going to take part in this exercise _know_ at least 100 piano trios. I think I know 100 _trios_, but piano trios is far more limited.
> 
> You started, so I apologize for my lateness. Just sharing my thoughts. (I am participating to my capabilities regardless!)





KenOC said:


> Yes, I think 100 is a bit ambitious. I'll probably drop out after the second or third round just for lack of knowledge and familiarity.


I thought the idea, really the point of these, is to listen and learn as we go, exploring the recommendations of others, as well as our own revisiting and first-time listens and thereby increasing the number we know?


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

SimonNZ said:


> I thought the idea, really the point of these, is to listen and learn as we go, exploring the recommendations of others, as well as our own revisiting and first-time listens and thereby increasing the number we know?


Yup, the goal of these lists is to pool together our knowledge and venture into the unknown based on each others' listening suggestions and discoveries (and not about comparing warhorses). A giant alphabetical list of the whole repertoire would give you no idea where to start, and the final list will at least give you a starting place for your own exploration, after which I'm sure you can come up with your own personal rankings.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

pjang23 said:


> Yup, the goal of these lists is to pool together our knowledge and venture into the unknown based on each others' listening suggestions and discoveries (and not about comparing warhorses). A giant alphabetical list of the whole repertoire would give you no idea where to start, and the final list will at least give you a starting place for your own exploration, after which I'm sure you can come up with your own personal rankings.





KenOC said:


> Yes, I think 100 is a bit ambitious. I'll probably drop out after the second or third round just for lack of knowledge and familiarity.





SimonNZ said:


> I thought the idea, really the point of these, is to listen and learn as we go, exploring the recommendations of others, as well as our own revisiting and first-time listens and thereby increasing the number we know?


Yes, we learn as we go. I do not myself have the knowledge to create a list of 100, but together we do. We all add our little bit as we go along. I know that only a few of my first round nominations will go through. I will keep nominating those that didn't in next rounds, and in the mean time I will keep listening to new piano trios to make new nominations. And I will listen to many of those nominated by others. I don't know 100 trios, but I plan to keep nominating for ten rounds.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't know if I'll nominate this, but people who are taking a more keen interest in this project may be interested in checking this out:











It's a trio for clarinet, violin, and piano by Sebastian Currier. I think it deserves a place somewhere on the list, though I have no idea at which point.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I've always thought these lists would be better served if all participants had extensive knowledge before starting, but that mostly doesn't happen. Arguably, if people are hearing pieces for the first time just because others mention them during the list's creation, then once all participants have heard all the works on the list, the list should be redone to reflect everyone's revised recommendations!
In preparing my listening I found that actually piano trios (of all sorts) are not a big feature of my listening, so I'll probably only be good for about 3 nomination rounds, depending on how many "hits" I choose. But I'll try to stick with the voting round all the way.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm keen on piano trios. My list is based partly on personal preference and partly on my understanding of the generally perceived wisdom of what's best in this genre from various sources.


----------



## Guest (Sep 12, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Yes, I think 100 is a bit ambitious. I'll probably drop out after the second or third round just for lack of knowledge and familiarity.


If you have no interest in expanding your knowledge and systematically listening through the recommendations of others, then I might offer up non-participation as a solution in the first place.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Others may already be aware but I have only just spotted a previous T-C poll (similar in nature to this one) on "piano chamber works" that culminated in this thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/18616-tc-top-50-recommended.html

From this, it's easy to derive the following list of 26 "piano trios" as defined for this thread (number = rank in overall list). I'm not sure that it's an issue, but I thought I might mention it just in case other participants may wish to glance at it.

2. Beethoven: Piano Trio in B-flat "Archduke"
7. Mendelssohn: Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor
10. Dvořák: Piano Trio No. 4 in E minor "Dumky"
11. Schubert: Piano Trio No. 2 in E flat
12. Schubert: Piano Trio No. 1 in B flat
15. Ravel: Piano Trio
17. Brahms: Horn Trio in E Flat
18. Tchaikovsky: Piano Trio in A minor
20. Shostakovich: Piano Trio No. 2 in E Minor
21. Rachmaninoff: Trio élégiaque in D minor
22. Brahms: Clarinet Trio in A minor
25. Brahms: Piano Trio No. 1 in B
26. Beethoven: Piano Trio No. 5 in D "Ghost"
27. Brahms: Piano Quartet No. 2 in A
28. Haydn: Piano Trio in G Hob. XV/25
31. Dvořák: Piano Trio No. 3 in F minor
32. Mozart: Trio for Clarinet, Viola, and Piano in E flat "Kegelstatt"
34. Arensky: Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor
36. Mendelssohn: Piano Trio No. 2 in C minor
37. Schumann: Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor
40. Schumann: Piano Trio No. 3 in G minor
41. Schubert: Notturno in E flat
42. Brahms: Piano Trio No. 3 in C minor
45. Beethoven: Piano Trio in B flat No. 4 "Gassenhauer"
46. Mozart: Piano Trio in C K. 548
48. C. Schumann: Piano Trio in G minor


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

We haven't finished the first round yet and there has already been 96 different works nominated. I think in 20 weeks we can come up with a list of 100 works.

If anyone has an easy way to do this tallying of nominations I'd appreciate any advice. I put each set of nominations into an excel spreadsheet and then alphabetised by last name. (I don't need first names, but only to distinguish between those with the same last name, siblings in this case - Fanny and Felix; Felix Mendelssohn is Mendelssohn and Fanny Mendelssohn is Mendelssohn Fanny). I created a second column, counted up the nominations and wrote that number beside the piece and deleted the redundant entries. Does that make sense? Then sorted by number of nominations. 

In each round I want to post my nominations before I start to tally votes so I can't make a biased nomination. 

Please keep up the good work. Don't forget to nominate before the deadline in three days.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A piano trio game from another site, just the top 10.

1 - Brahms: Piano Trio #1 in B major, Op. 8
2 - Shostakovich: Piano Trio #2 in E minor, Op. 67
3 - Beethoven: Piano Trio #7 in B-flat major, Op. 97, "Archduke"
4 - Brahms :Horn Trio, Op. 40 in E-flat major
5 - Beethoven: Piano Trio #5, Op. 70/1 in D major "Ghost"
6 - Mendelssohn: Piano Trio #1, Op. 49 in D minor
7 - Tchaikovsky: Piano Trio Op. 50 in A minor "In Memory of a Great Artist"
8 - Schubert: Piano Trio #2, Op. 100 in E-flat major
9 - Schubert: Piano Trio #1, Op. 99 in B-flat major
10 - Brahms: Piano Trio #2, Op. 87 in C major


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

senza sordino said:


> We haven't finished the first round yet and there has already been 96 different works nominated. I think in 20 weeks we can come up with a list of 100 works.
> 
> If anyone has an easy way to do this tallying of nominations I'd appreciate any advice. I put each set of nominations into an excel spreadsheet and then alphabetised by last name. (I don't need first names, but only to distinguish between those with the same last name, siblings in this case - Fanny and Felix; Felix Mendelssohn is Mendelssohn and Fanny Mendelssohn is Mendelssohn Fanny). I created a second column, counted up the nominations and wrote that number beside the piece and deleted the redundant entries. Does that make sense? Then sorted by number of nominations.
> 
> ...


You'll probably have an easier time making a column for each voter, input a 1 for each work they vote on and take a total across columns so Excel will do the counting for you. It will also help you in the voting round when the votes are scored.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

pjang23 said:


> You'll probably have an easier time making a column for each voter, input a 1 for each work they vote on and take a total across columns so Excel will do the counting for you. It will also help you in the voting round when the votes are scored.


Sorry, I don't understand, I don't usually work with Excel. Where do you put the 1 for each work they vote on?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

If mmsbls is in column D and a work he voted for, Arensky Trio, is in row 9, you put a 1 in cell D9. To determine the total votes for Arensky, sum the numbers from B9 through the last column of voters (say AA9). You can also sum the column D (from the first through last work) to see how many votes mmsbls had as a check. In the voting round you will put numbers 1 through 10 based on the rank of the member's vote.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

And an easy way to sum the number of votes a work has is to use Excel's built-in sum function. Using mmsbls's example, if the "total-points" column is column T, to find the total votes for the Arensky Trio you would input (without quotes) "=SUM(B9:S9)" in cell T9. Copy and paste the cell to all the other cells of column T to get the point total for every piece.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Thanks for your help. I'm still confused but I'll muddle through. I'm at home right now, and excel is at work.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> Thanks for your help. I'm still confused but I'll muddle through. I'm at home right now, and excel is at work.


Here's a screenshot of my spreadsheet for one of the nomination rounds in the pre-1700s list:







(click to enlarge)

There's a column for each voter, and a 1 for every work they nominated. The "SCORE" in column D just sums everything from column E to the right.
_(Columns A and B aren't necessary, but I put them in so I could keep track of what each work's score was in the previous round, and what position it was enshrined at in this round. The shading is again for my own convenience, showing which works went to the voting round.)_
Note from the tabs at the bottom that I had a seprate sheet for each nomination round and each voting round - for the nomination round, just copying and pasting the list of works from the previous nomination round.

I was very pleased with what I came up with to tally the votes in the voting round, but it's _way_ too complicated to demonstrate here!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A piano trio game from another site, just the top 10.
> 
> 1 - Brahms: Piano Trio #1 in B major, Op. 8
> 2 - Shostakovich: Piano Trio #2 in E minor, Op. 67
> ...


When KenOC shows one of his, I invariably show one of mine  though in this case my polls never included some key works (no Ghost, Brahms 2 or Schubert 2, for instance).

1. Ravel: Piano trio in A minor
2. Brahms: Clarinet trio in A minor, op.114
3. Schubert: Piano trio no.1 in B flat, D. 898
4. Beethoven: Piano trio in C minor, op.1 no.3
5. Debussy: Piano trio
6. Brahms: Piano trio no.1 in B, op.8
7. Mendelssohn: Piano trio no.2 in C minor, op.66
8. Dvořák: Piano trio no.4 in E minor, op.90, 'Dumky'
9. Beethoven: Piano trio in B flat, op.97, 'Archduke'
10. Brahms: Horn trio in E flat, op.40

I like the Beethoven 3 enough to have included it in my nominations, but I'm surprised to see it so high here. I think that's due to a relatively low-turnout poll; more voters might nudge its average down a bit.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

For the voting round I plan on giving you a list of about 15 piano trios from which you will choose ten in rank order. I will list these in alphabetical order and not mention how many nominations. I think if you know how many nominations a piece received it might bias you in your ordering. If I give you a list in the order from most to least nominations, I might find many people just agree with that list, rather than giving the ordering some thought. Thoughts?

P.S.
Check out the Chopin trio, it's a youthful work with lots of piano. 

P.P.S
Later this week I will hear a live performance of the Ghost trio, and early next month there will be a live performance of the Khachaturian trio for violin, clarinet and piano here in my city.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

A quick check, please. Will 'we' accept the nomination of Astor Piazzolla's arrangement for piano trio by José Bragato of "Las Cuatro Estaciones Porteñas"?

I ask because at least one website devoted to 20th century piano trios regarded it as an important work in that genre.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

TurnaboutVox said:


> A quick check, please. Will 'we' accept the nomination of Astor Piazzolla's arrangement for piano trio by José Bragato of "Las Cuatro Estaciones Porteñas"?
> 
> I ask because at least one website devoted to 20th century piano trios regarded it as an important work in that genre.


Wow. Just yesterday I placed that on my eventual nomination list but then removed it because my understanding is that Piazzolla wrote the work for a quintet. The work has been transcribed into almost every set of instruments so there's nothing special about the trio.

Still if people want to include it, I will definitely eventually nominate and vote for it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

senza sordino said:


> For the voting round I plan on giving you a list of about 15 piano trios from which you will choose ten in rank order. I will list these in alphabetical order and not mention how many nominations. I think if you know how many nominations a piece received it might bias you in your ordering. If I give you a list in the order from most to least nominations, I might find many people just agree with that list, rather than giving the ordering some thought. Thoughts?


Sounds fine to me.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

^^^ Yes, that sounds a good way to present the list.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Sounds great to me, too. 

If it's easy to do as a result of compiling this list, could you print a list of both the successfully enshrined works and another one with all the works nominated when the round is over?

There's a bunch of stuff I haven't heard that I'd like to follow up on, and it would be handy to have everything in one place. Don't worry, of course, if this is too much of a pain--it's not that onerous to go back through the thread.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Sounds great to me, too.
> 
> If it's easy to do as a result of compiling this list, could you print a list of both the successfully enshrined works and another one with all the works nominated when the round is over?
> 
> There's a bunch of stuff I haven't heard that I'd like to follow up on, and it would be handy to have everything in one place. Don't worry, of course, if this is too much of a pain--it's not that onerous to go back through the thread.


Yes, I will have a complete list of all the works that didn't make it to the voting round, and a list of the works that didn't make it past the voting round and will need to be renominated. These lists will be easy to reproduce the way that I have set up my nominating. So far 106 different works have been nominated, these will be all in one post.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

senza sordino said:


> For the voting round I plan on giving you a list of about 15 piano trios from which you will choose ten in rank order. I will list these in alphabetical order and not mention how many nominations. I think if you know how many nominations a piece received it might bias you in your ordering. If I give you a list in the order from most to least nominations, I might find many people just agree with that list, rather than giving the ordering some thought. Thoughts?


I assume that each member's votes for their top 10 will be visible to everyone, rather than sent to you by PM? The advantage of the latter, if it were adopted, is that any one member's vote will not be influenced by what others have done before them, so that in a sense you get a better result. I don't feel strongly about it, and am happy to go along with the flow.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> For the voting round I plan on giving you a list of about 15 piano trios from which you will choose ten in rank order. I will list these in alphabetical order and not mention how many nominations. I think if you know how many nominations a piece received it might bias you in your ordering. If I give you a list in the order from most to least nominations, I might find many people just agree with that list, rather than giving the ordering some thought. Thoughts?


Personally, I'd like to know the number of nominations just from an information point of view. In the pre-1700 list although there was some correspondence between nominations and final voting score I assume that's because what's popular in nominations in is also popular in votes. I did give the list of works in alphabetical order, though.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> I assume that each member's votes for their top 10 will be visible to everyone, rather than sent to you by PM? The advantage of the latter, if it were adopted, is that any one member's vote will not be influenced by what others have done before them, so that in a sense you get a better result. I don't feel strongly about it, and am happy to go along with the flow.


I have thought about this in the past, but I think one drawback is that use of PMs means the thread doesn't get bumped. And others made the reasonable point that ultimately we're talking about a difference of a few places on a list of 100 works. I think where the nominations are done in a preferred order (not like here) there's much greater use of "tactical voting" to deliberately push one work over another.
Also, seeing as one point of the list is to have a consensus, there's no real harm in one person's vote being influenced by another's.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I have thought about this in the past, but I think one drawback is that use of PMs means the thread doesn't get bumped. And others made the reasonable point that ultimately we're talking about a difference of a few places on a list of 100 works. I think where the nominations are done in a preferred order (not like here) there's much greater use of "tactical voting" to deliberately push one work over another.
> Also, seeing as one point of the list is to have a consensus, there's no real harm in one person's vote being influenced by another's.


Are we not voting in a preferred order? I had assumed we are. If not, and we're simply listing our top 10 in any order, then I agree that visible voting won't make a big difference. I'm happy to go along with whatever has been agreed and the majority favour, and just thought I'd raise the point before start.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I believe we're not voting but merely nominating. Right now, order doesn't matter. Later, the 15 trios with the most nominations will make up a list that we'll vote on in the order we like them. Do I have that right?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I believe we're not voting but merely nominating. Right now, order doesn't matter. Later, the 15 trios with the most nominations will make up a list that we'll vote on in the order we like them. Do I have that right?


I'm getting confused. I thought that the first nominating round (we each list 15 proposed works) is over on Thursday 15th, and that we are moving into the voting round where we choose 10 from the overall winners of the nominating round which are going to be listed in alphabetical order today some time. My queries above relate to the voting round, not the nominating round whether the recent one or any future ones.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> I'm getting confused. I thought that the first nominating round (we each list 15 proposed works) is over on Thursday 15th, and that we are moving into the voting round where we choose 10 from the overall winners of the nominating round which are going to be listed in alphabetical order today some time. My queries above relate to the voting round, not the nominating round whether the recent one or any future ones.


No, you're right. I guess I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying. My point was that if people vote in the voting round based on how others have voted ("tactical voting") the effect won't be hugely significant, because all it ultimately means is that a work will be a few places higher or lower in the final list; but I was also reflecting that in previous games, where _nominations_ were _also_ made as an ordered list, "tactical nominating" allowed people to nominate in such a way as to prevent a work they didn't like from making it to the voting round.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> in previous games, where _nominations_ were _also_ made as an ordered list, "tactical nominating" allowed people to nominate in such a way as to prevent a work they didn't like from making it to the voting round.


Which added to the fun...


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Sorry for the radio silence, I was out last night, then I slept, then I got up for work and spent the day earning enough money to give most to the bank, and a little left over for myself. 

We have no secrets, the voting will be in the open, not by private message. The nominating round is not ordered, but your voting is ordered. I will reveal the pieces with the most nominations in a few minutes, but not the actual number of nominations, just an alphabetical list of the top 15 pieces. You will choose your favourite 10 in order. I can let you know how many nominations if you really want. I will also reveal all the pieces not nominated to the voting round, over 100 pieces - so you can get started listening and deciding what you want to nominate for round two that will be due in two weeks. 

Voting for this round will close one week from today.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I have been trying to spend time listening to the Piano Trios that are being nominated. This has made me realise that I have never really listened to any beyond a smattering of Haydn.
This has been my loss and I am now enjoying putting this right
So far Brahms and Dvorak have really grabbed me in particular the 'Dumky' what a wonderful piece!
Will now try to concentrate on a to 10 for first voting


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I've realized I just don't have the listening time to do this project right now.  I look forward to taking advantage of everyone else's work when it's done.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

pjang23 said:


> You'll probably have an easier time making a column for each voter, input a 1 for each work they vote on and take a total across columns so Excel will do the counting for you. It will also help you in the voting round when the votes are scored.


Now I get it


mmsbls said:


> If mmsbls is in column D and a work he voted for, Arensky Trio, is in row 9, you put a 1 in cell D9. To determine the total votes for Arensky, sum the numbers from B9 through the last column of voters (say AA9). You can also sum the column D (from the first through last work) to see how many votes mmsbls had as a check. In the voting round you will put numbers 1 through 10 based on the rank of the member's vote.


I added the nominations myself, but let excel count the voting round using this method.


Trout said:


> And an easy way to sum the number of votes a work has is to use Excel's built-in sum function. Using mmsbls's example, if the "total-points" column is column T, to find the total votes for the Arensky Trio you would input (without quotes) "=SUM(B9:S9)" in cell T9. Copy and paste the cell to all the other cells of column T to get the point total for every piece.


I'm learning how to use all the functions of excel, which is a good thing - skills I can use at work too. I'm the excel expert in my department, and getting better with this project. 


Nereffid said:


> Here's a screenshot of my spreadsheet for one of the nomination rounds in the pre-1700s list:
> View attachment 88709
> 
> (click to enlarge)
> ...


The picture of the excel file helped the most, thanks. This is how I'm doing round two nominations. And how I did the round one voting. Though the voting round is easier to set up as there are fewer pieces, few rows. Yesterday I learned how to keep the first column on the left as I scroll to the end of the columns to line up each person's nominations. 


isorhythm said:


> I've realized I just don't have the listening time to do this project right now.  I look forward to taking advantage of everyone else's work when it's done.


I'm sorry to hear this this. Please feel free to participate as you can.

A general comment to all. Do you have any comments on the first round? Any questions or concerns?

A big thank-you goes to Skilmarilian for helping with the standardized format. This is great. In case you're wondering we communicated this via pm. It reminds me of the thread "does classical music have a naming problem" Yes, is my answer.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I went to the main branch of the library downtown yesterday and found a book called The Piano Trio Its History, Technique and Repertoire  by Basil Smallman Claredon Press Oxford. After reading this I'll be the local expert :lol: I've just started reading, and so far it says what I already knew that the piano trio developed from the accompanied harpsichord or piano trio. Mozart and Haydn really begin the genre, though even their piano trios have a limited cello part, mostly doubles the bass part of the piano. I can hear that when I listen. Hopefully the book is a good read as we continue this project.

I was wondering about the numbers of people participating. How many typically participate in these projects? In round one, just over 20 nominated and voted. That seems pretty good, but the more the merrier. Though I should be careful what I wish for because if more people participate then it's more work for me counting.

The second piano trio by Frank Bridge is very impressive, I think.

This project has prompted me to buy four CDs of piano trios.....so far.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

nathanb, I am going to try to listen to these 6 nominations of yours over the next week or two.

We should really get some more contemporary works amongst the enshrined, if we can possibly do so!



> Originally nominated by _*nathanb*_
> 
> Crumb: Vox Balaenae
> Feldman: For Philip Guston
> ...


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> nathanb, I am going to try to listen to these 6 nominations of yours over the next week or two.
> 
> We should really get some more contemporary works amongst the enshrined, if we can possibly do so!


Agreed. Four of the nine that just missed the cut in this voting round are contemporary / late 20th century works.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> Agreed. Four of the nine that just missed the cut in this voting round are contemporary / late 20th century works.


I meant to nominate the Takemitsu work "Between Tides" this time around and forgot to include it. I'll nominate it in the next round. I'm kicking myself (I suspect it may be one of the four) but I was besotted with the Skalkottas and Birtwistle works on the night I nominated.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Yeah, I haven't been listening to enough unfamiliar repertoire either--I'll include some new blood in my listening and probably voting soon as well.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> I was wondering about the numbers of people participating. How many typically participate in these projects? In round one, just over 20 nominated and voted. That seems pretty good, but the more the merrier. Though I should be careful what I wish for because if more people participate then it's more work for me counting.


For the Pre-1700 project, 32 people nominated in the first round, and 27 voted. The numbers fell to 22 and 21 in the second round, and declined a little after that. For rounds 7-14 it was pretty much always between 12 and 16.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> For the Pre-1700 project, 32 people nominated in the first round, and 27 voted. The numbers fell to 22 and 21 in the second round, and declined a little after that. For rounds 7-14 it was pretty much always between 12 and 16.


We're getting about 20 people nominating and voting. I suspect if we had more people participating we'd have broken the nine way tie for 13th place in round three nominating. But it is what it is. I'm thankful for all of you who did nominate. I know we've lost a few regulars recently here on TC but we will continue with whom we have.

I'm sorry I didn't participate in your pre 1700 list compilation, but I know nothing of the era.

How many pieces were nominated but not enshrined? This number might determine the ultimate number in the enshrined list. In the piano trios list we've had about 130 different pieces nominated in three rounds. I suspect it'll be a challenge to go beyond an enshrined list of 100.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> How many pieces were nominated but not enshrined? This number might determine the ultimate number in the enshrined list. In the piano trios list we've had about 130 different pieces nominated in three rounds. I suspect it'll be a challenge to go beyond an enshrined list of 100.


The final enshrined list was 162, and there were about 200 other works nominated. In fact almost 200 had been nominated after three rounds. Obviously the piano trio repertoire will be a lot smaller than the repertoire of everything written before 1700!


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Is there any chance we could speed up the voting round this time? There are fewer works and they are mostly 'core rep' - nothing unusual.

In general, I feel we could get through each round slightly quicker - if I'm not mistaken, it was something like 5 days for nominations / 4 days for voting in the quartet project. 

Of course if most people are fine with the 7 days / 7 days time frame, then no worries.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I prefer the 7/7 format, since I like to have the time to revisit and sample pieces. It's also easier to keep the days straight. However, I'm happy to follow the majority.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Getting back to trios, I listened to a few more yesterday. Very impressed by Frank Martin's Trio on Popular Irish Tunes.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> Is there any chance we could speed up the voting round this time? There are fewer works and they are mostly 'core rep' - nothing unusual.
> 
> In general, I feel we could get through each round slightly quicker - if I'm not mistaken, it was something like 5 days for nominations / 4 days for voting in the quartet project.
> 
> Of course if most people are fine with the 7 days / 7 days time frame, then no worries.





Blancrocher said:


> I prefer the 7/7 format, since I like to have the time to revisit and sample pieces. It's also easier to keep the days straight. However, I'm happy to follow the majority.


I asked the question before, do we want less time to vote? No real objections to the format of 7 days nominating and 7 days voting. It makes sense to me to keep the same day of the week, Thursdays.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

1) I want to check that Cendres by Saariaho is about 9 minutes long. It's on Spotify. I want to check that it's all there, and that I'm not only listening to the first movement. 

2) Is Voice of the Whale by Crumb about 18 minutes? One version on Spotify is one track long, and the other is broken into movements named after the different eras in Earth history. While I generally like Spotify for sampling music, there is no documentation with the music - no liner notes.

3) I chose the Saint Saens Piano Trio no 1 as a nomination. I really like the two inner movements. I also like the second piano trio for its outer movements. But I chose the first piano trio to nominate. The vote was split between the two trios in the last nominating round. Split the vote and someone else wins, where have we seen this before in real life?

4) I listened to the Joaquin Turina Piano Trios. Pretty good, but I need to listen again and make a few notes. 

5) I bought the CD of Bartok, Khachaturian, Milhaud and Stravinsky works for clarinet, violin and piano. I was so impressed when I heard this on Spotify. Now that I have the liner notes, I read that the Khachaturian s based on Uzbek folk tunes. I thought it was curious and interesting. 

6) Thanks for your excel help earlier. I found, with some help in real life, a function that counts cells with text "COUNTA", so I don't need to convert each entry to a "1" for adding nominations.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Saariaho's "Cendres" is indeed timed at 9'09" complete on my Wolpe Trio / Andreas Boettger disc.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> 2) Is Voice of the Whale by Crumb about 18 minutes? One version on Spotify is one track long, and the other is broken into movements named after the different eras in Earth history. While I generally like Spotify for sampling music, there is no documentation with the music - no liner notes.


Yes, it's about that long; the version I have (by Trio Wieck) is 21 mins.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I have been unable to find the Roussel Piano Trio on Spotify. Perhaps it is there but it might require some more create searching. What version have people been listening to? 

I have the Pierne trio lined up on Spotify to listen to later. All four trios of Raff are there too, though it looks as if only the third and fourth might be worth my time. Martinu is also there on Spotify, but not the Roussel.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

senza sordino said:


> I have been unable to find the Roussel Piano Trio on Spotify. Perhaps it is there but it might require some more create searching. What version have people been listening to?
> 
> I have the Pierne trio lined up on Spotify to listen to later. All four trios of Raff are there too, though it looks as if only the third and fourth might be worth my time. Martinu is also there on Spotify, but not the Roussel.


It's there, I've been listening to this recording. It's also on Youtube.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

I'd like to plug a recent discovery of mine: the Gernsheim piano trios. They're both wonderfully-crafted, lyrical works of the late Romantic era. Much like Gernsheim's other music, they're also very Brahmsian, which may also be a reason for his present obscurity (in addition to an awful political one) as he never really escaped his contemporary's shadow.

I was listening to them via the Arensky Trio's performances, the only recorded ones I think, on the Naxos music library. As far as I can tell, they're not on Youtube, unfortunately. There's a live performance of the second on Youtube by a different group which is better than nothing, but not quite as good as the Arensky's performance.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

If it's time for a few "plugs", I recently discovered in my collection about 10 further piano trios from a search for works including "trio" in the name using "foobar".

I now recall listening to them at various times in the past but I had forgotten about them. Several of the best, which I will probably nominate for round 4, are all by French mid to late "romantics" and are:

Louise Farrenc: Trio for Flute, Cello, and Piano, Op 45. Written 1857. Approx 25 mins. My version is by Trio Cantabile.

Edward Lalo: Piano Trio No 3 in A minor, Op 26. Written 1880. Approx 29 mins. My version is by the Leonore Piano Trio.

Cecile Chaminade: Two works:

i. Piano Trio No 1 in G minor, Op 11. Written 1881. My version by Rembrandt Trio. Approx 22 minutes.

ii. Piano Trio No 2 in A minor, Op 34. Written 1887. My version by Tzigane Piano Trio. Approx 23 mins


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> If it's time for a few "plugs", I recently discovered in my collection about 10 further piano trios from a search for works including "trio" in the name using "foobar".
> 
> I now recall listening to them at various times in the past but I had forgotten about them. Several of the best, which I will probably nominate for round 4, are all by French mid to late "romantics" and are:
> 
> ...


I like the Lalo Piano Trio, and I nominated it in the last round. I will continue to nominate it.

I found the Roussel trio on Spotify. I listened to it yesterday and really enjoyed it - the opening and closing moments are really special. Sometimes the search function on Spotify is not good enough, and it needs help. That Roussel trio was not found doing a "Roussel" search, or a "Roussel piano trio" search. I found it when I looked for that specific recording listed above by Chronochromie - thank-you.

I've got a recording of the Leonard Bernstein Piano Trio from the 1930's, a student work I think. It's pretty good and reminds me of the Ravel trio. I'll nominate this piece sometime in a later round.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

senza sordino said:


> I like the Lalo Piano Trio, and I nominated it in the last round. I will continue to nominate it.
> 
> I found the Roussel trio on Spotify. I listened to it yesterday and really enjoyed it - the opening and closing moments are really special. Sometimes the search function on Spotify is not good enough, and it needs help. That Roussel trio was not found doing a "Roussel" search, or a "Roussel piano trio" search. I found it when I looked for that specific recording listed above by Chronochromie - thank-you.
> 
> I've got a recording of the Leonard Bernstein Piano Trio from the 1930's, a student work I think. It's pretty good and reminds me of the Ravel trio. I'll nominate this piece sometime in a later round.


I hadn't noticed that you nominated the Lalo work in round 3. It is a very good work in my view, and I think I will be nominating it too. I can't understand why it's not better known.

Of the others I mentioned, I think that the two piano trios by Cecile Chaminade are also well worth listening to. I have quite a lot of her work. She wrote lots of piano music which was very popular at one time, some of being standard material for teaching intermediate level piano to students. I like this composer a lot, right across the entire range of her output. Her songs too are delightful. She is probably my second favourite female composer after Clara Schumann, although I must admit that I'm also strongly drawn to Amy Beach.

I don't have the Roussel work, nor the Bernstein. I'll try to get hold of a "youtube" versions of these if I can. I'm not signed up with "spotify".

I've been very fortunate in not having to spend out loads on acquiring much new material, as about 95% of all my classical music was given to me by my parents. They have a huge collection running into several thousands of CDs. I spent about two years ripping large sections of it and storing it as MP3 on a hard disk. Sometimes I'm amazed at what I discover in there. The Lalo work for instance was lurking in there, and I had forgotten all about it until I ran a search using the excellent "foobar" software. Once I played it, I recognised it almost instantly, so I guess I must have played it through when I first ripped the CD a few years ago.

The only piano trio I didn't already have among those that have been selected so far was the work by Ives. I managed to acquire an MP3 copy from a friend last week (the sound quality was quite ropy), played it a few times and decided it's not my cup of tea. I do like several other Ives' work but not this one


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I've just listened to the piano trio of Franco Alfano, 1929 Concerto for Violin, Cello and Piano. I liked it a lot. I had never heard of him until recently. This piece is doing well in the fifth round of the piano trios list. He's the guy who finished Puccini's Turandot. Hmmm, you learn something everyday.

I'd like to promote Gabriel Pierne's Piano Trio, Op 45. It's a super piece. I hadn't heard of him or heard this piano trio until recently. There's a recording out there performed by the Wanderer Trio coupled with the Faure trio. That's a disk I would like to get my hands on. 

I need to listen to Gubaidulina: Quasi Hoquetus, for viola, bassoon, and piano before the end of this nomination round. Any recommended recordings? I hope it's available on Spotify

There is so much good music to listen to and so little time. The election is over tomorrow so I can get back to listening to music. 

The Rebecca Clarke Piano trio is not doing as well in this fifth round as her piece did in the previous round. That's too bad as it too is a super piece worthy of recognition. 

I find it truly amazing that there is so much music out there to explore. And invariably someone each round nominates a piece written by a composer I've not heard of before. That does say something of my vast ignorance, but also that there is a lot of music available for everyone.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I loved the very contrasting Lachenmann and Dvorak 2nd trios - I had heard neither before. Over the next day or two I will try to listen a second time to the Zemlinsky trio, the Bloch Nocturnes, and the Korngold trio.

This is proving fun - I have listened to over 130 trios in the course of this, around half completely new to me.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I hope everyone is enjoying this TC compiled list of piano trios. I am. I've purchased about four CDs of music that really impressed me. If we go to ten rounds to compile 100 piano trios, we're halfway. I know the nominating and voting procedures haven't satisfied everyone, and for that I apologize, but it is easy. It's probably only one hour a week of my time.

What can anyone tell me of the piano trios of Sibelius. I know he wrote them when he was young so he'd have something to play with his siblings. Are they worth listening to? No one has ever nominated them. I love his symphonies, would I love his trios?

Are we agreed that arrangements are not eligible? Stravinsky L'Histoire du Soldat for piano trio is impressive. In fact, this whole disk is terrific.
View attachment 90288


I'm going to continue to nominate the Tanayev, Rebecca Clarke and Gabriel Pierne piano trios. And I can see that some of our regulars have some pieces they continue to nominate. Each round they get closer and closer to being in the voting round.

I've been keeping listening notes. I've half filled a child's 72 page exercise book of notes, nominations, votes. That's for my benefit, that doesn't include the excel file I keep of all of your nominations and votes.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> I hope everyone is enjoying this TC compiled list of piano trios. I am. I've purchased about four CDs of music that really impressed me. If we go to ten rounds to compile 100 piano trios, we're halfway. I know the nominating and voting procedures haven't satisfied everyone, and for that I apologize, but it is easy. It's probably only one hour a week of my time.
> 
> What can anyone tell me of the piano trios of Sibelius. I know he wrote them when he was young so he'd have something to play with his siblings. Are they worth listening to? No one has ever nominated them. I love his symphonies, would I love his trios?
> 
> ...


I'm enjoying the chance to get to know the trio literature better. I'm glad that you nominated a Turina trio this week. I have his trios on CD and I've always liked them, but somehow they had slipped my mind when making my lists of nominations.

Thanks for jogging my memory! This has motivated me to revisit his trios and perhaps I'll decide to include one of them on this week's list.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> What can anyone tell me of the piano trios of Sibelius. I know he wrote them when he was young so he'd have something to play with his siblings. Are they worth listening to? No one has ever nominated them. I love his symphonies, would I love his trios?


Blancrocher (I think) recommended that I listen to some of his early string quartets last year, and I was quite impressed by them. Thinking that I might have a similar experience with his piano trios I can recall giving those more than one listen on Spotify on my summer hols in 2015, but they were extremely early pieces and not in fact that rewarding. But you might not agree, and they are there on Spotify.

My latest listening has been:

Henze - Adagio adagio (Boulanger Trio)
Friedrich Cerha - 5 movements for piano trio; Nachtstucke (Pacific trio) - the former is a wonderful piece which I shall nominate shortly.
C. Franck No. 1 in F#minor, Op 1/1 (Richter et al)
Alfano Concerto (Magill, Dunn, Darvarova)
Gubaidulina Quasi Hoquetus
Mozart K502 (Kungsbacka trio)
Bruch 8 pieces for Clarinet, Viola and & Piano Op 83; Kol nidrei, Op 47 arr. for CV&P (Trio Apollon)
Lekeu trio (Spiller Trio)
Turina Op 35 & Op 76 trios and Circulo, Op 91 - which I was very taken with - (Trio de Madrid)


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I've got a backlog of listening to do. I have two empty spots to fill my fifteen nominations for round seven. I will choose from this list of pieces I've yet to hear. 

Glinka Trio for clarinet, bassoon and piano
Dvorak Piano Trio no 1
Weber Trio for flute, cello and piano
Raff Piano Trios 3&4
Saariaho Light and Matter
Borodin trio (it's unfinished)
Alkan Trio for piano, violin and bass (is the instrumentation correct?)
Weinberg Piano Trio
Rubbra Piano Trio in one movement 
Spohr Piano Trio no 2
Sinding Piano Trio no 2
Villa Lobos #3
Martinu Piano Trio no 1
Beach Piano Trio in Am
Reger Piano Trio no 2
Reinecke Trio for piano clarinet and horn
Ireland Piano Trio #3
Brahms (the one he wrote after he died)

That's a lot of listening and I'm not sure if I can find them all on Spotify. I won't get to listen to all of them before Thursday's deadline for nominations. And I like to listen to pieces two or three times to form an opinion about a piece. 

Does anyone else have a list of Piano Trios on their future listening list they'd like to share?


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

I've got a few works that I've heard but haven't considered for nomination yet, and 3 big recommendations. These might be of interest to you guys, or not. 

*Listened to, but not yet nominated:*

Akhunov, Tchaikovsky 
Akhunov, We are not in the garden …
Bax, Piano Trio in B-flat
Cassado, Trio
Enescu, Serendae Iointaine 
Feldman, Durations III
Gerhard 1
Higdon, Trio "Pale Yellow" and "Fiery Red."
Hindemith, Heckelphone Trio Op. 47
Khachaturian, Clarinet Trio
Korngold, Trio
Lalo 1
MacMillan 2
Maxwell Davies, A Voyage to Fair Isle
Mealor, Borderlands
Nyman, The Photography of Chance
Nyman, Time will pronounce
Saint-Saens, Tarantelle
Schumann: Märchenerzählungen
Suk, Elegie
Taneyev, Trio
Turina 1
Weber, Flute Trio

*Three strongly recommended works:*

Babajanian: Piano Trio in F-sharp minor
Knotts, David: _The Long Way Home_
Turina: Piano Trio No. 2 in B minor


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

> Originally posted by *Skilmarillion*
> Schumann: Märchenerzählungen


Lord, I clean forgot this. I prefer it to any of Schumann's standard piano trios and know it very well. D'oh!


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Lord, I clean forgot this. I prefer it to any of Schumann's standard piano trios and know it very well. D'oh!


Well enough to pronounce it?


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> Well enough to pronounce it?


Steady now...


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

senza sordino said:


> Does anyone else have a list of Piano Trios on their future listening list they'd like to share?


For several rounds now, I've been plugging away unsuccessfully with nominations for two piano trios by Cecile Chaminade. These are Op 11 Piano Trio No 1, and Op 34 Piano Trio No 2.

I really do think that they are both very good works, and worth a listen. They're both very "romantic" and have a distinctive flavour that I find attractive.

Of the two, my favourite is Op 34. This is a three movement work, and the second movement is particularly beautiful.

There are versions of both works that are available on Spotify: Op 11 by the Rembrandt Trio and Op 35 by the Chausson Trio. I have both of these, but my particular favourites are by the Tzigane Trio.

A slight caution: with the Chausson Trio's version of Op 34, there is occasional audible breathing, which drives me nuts, but that apart it's not bad.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> For several rounds now, I've been plugging away unsuccessfully with nominations for two piano trios by Cecile Chaminade. These are Op 11 Piano Trio No 1, and Op 34 Piano Trio No 2.
> 
> I really do think that they are both very good works, and worth a listen. They're both very "romantic" and have a distinctive flavour that I find attractive.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I will listen to those two piano trios by Chaminade as soon as possible. There is a lot on my listening list. I, too, have been plugging away trying to champion a couple of trios since the beginning, which, in my humble opinion, are outstanding: Taneyev and Milhaud.

I've got a recording of the Leonard Bernstein Piano Trio. He wrote it in the 1930's, an early work of his. It's pretty good and I will nominate this sometime.

I like to listen to a piece of music at least twice to nominate it. And I make a few notes about each piece and rank them out of five stars. It's been a while since I've heard a five star piece. And now I am at the point where I am nominating and voting on 4 and 3 star pieces.

My ranking system:
5 stars Outstanding, profound, something extraordinary
4 stars Very good to excellent, will listen many more times
3 stars fine, no problems with the piece, nice
2 stars ok, not great, forgettable
1 star bad, I just wasted my time, will not listen to the piece again - ever.

Few pieces are either a five or a one. We've enshrined all the fives and a few of the fours, we're now shuffling a few more fours and the threes, in my humble opinion. I find it difficult to distinguish the threes.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Turina is really nice. I listened to Trío Arbós on Naxos. The music is so rich and tuneful. 

All the trios by Akhunov are very good. Maybe in the tradition of Russian sentimentalism, of excellent quality.

I want to hear the piano trios by Walter Zimmermann (not B.A.) Does anyone know if any recording of these works is available?
Ephemer, violin, cello, piano (1981)
Garten des Vergessens, violin, cello, piano (1981-84)
Gold, oboe, cello, piano (2003)


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

tortkis said:


> Turina is really nice. I listened to Trío Arbós on Naxos. The music is so rich and tuneful.


I agree. I have made two unsuccessful attempts to get this included, in voting rounds 5 and 6. I first heard it several months ago on a radio programme. The performers were the very famous trio comprising: Heifetz, Pennario, Piatigorsky. It's excellent, like so many of their recordings.

Another very good work is Lalo's Piano Trio No 3 in A minor. I've nominated this several times.

Yet another is Schumann's Fantasiestücke for piano trio, Op 88. It's better in my opinion than his Op 132 Märchenerzählungen.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I found this disk this morning on Spotify

View attachment 91365


Raff Piano Trio no 1. This piece is well worth a listen. Th first movement has plenty of contrasting themes: quiet to loud, fast and slow. The second movement is fast and delightful. The third slow, and the final movement has plenty of tension relieved by a slow and contemplative section. I really enjoyed this piece and will nominate it soon.

I was specifically looking for the Bloch Three Nocturnes. It's on this disk.

Also on this disk is a very short one movement Piano Trio of Honneger. It's a filler only, in my opinion

And also on this disk is Frank Martin Trio on Popular Irish Themes. This is a jolly, lively and folksy piece. Yet it's also modern and quirky. It's very interesting and enjoyable.

Also, I'm asking a question of everyone involved in our Piano Trio list. Is there any interest in going beyond 100 pieces? I have my opinion but I'll keep that to myself because I don't want to influence your opinion.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> Also, I'm asking a question of everyone involved in our Piano Trio list. Is there any interest in going beyond 100 pieces? I have my opinion but I'll keep that to myself because I don't want to influence your opinion.


Yes, I am interested in going further. I would be happy to keep going to 150 or even 200 piano trios. I never paid that much attention to the genre before, but now I've fallen in love with it!


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

I've said before that I'd be happy to go as far as we can possibly go, and you can count me in for anything beyond 100 as piano chamber music is my favorite genre and is rarely given its due attention.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I am also interested in going beyond 100, with plenty of listening time in between rounds. For the same reasons as Bettina and Pjang23.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Yes, I am interested in going further. I would be happy to keep going to 150 or even 200 piano trios. I never paid that much attention to the genre before, but now I've fallen in love with it!





pjang23 said:


> I've said before that I'd be happy to go as far as we can possibly go, and you can count me in for anything beyond 100 as piano chamber music is my favorite genre and is rarely given its due attention.


Okay, well this is interesting. I don't mind continuing with this list. I was worried that we were running low on consensus and we're down in participation. For this voting round, only four nominations was enough to make it to the voting round, whereas in the first rounds seven or so nominations were required to make it to the voting round.

If you want to continue, I'm game. Indeed, I discovered two good trios this morning. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but we have collectively nominated and enshrined over two hundred different trios, the repertoire is there to continue.



TurnaboutVox said:


> I am also interested in going beyond 100, with plenty of listening time in between rounds. For the same reasons as Bettina and Pjang23.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'll keep going, too--it's a fun thread, and the lower participation makes it easier to keep up with things.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

You're doing a fine job coordinating the project, senza sordino. And I'm not in the _least_ trying to flatter you into continuing to lead it!


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Curveball: my thinking is, 100 would be a nice cap. That's how many were listed in the duos project. 

The quartets went to 200, but that's a genre with huge breadth and depth across eras, and is kind of the quintessential chamber music genre.

If the trios are to go over 100, maybe the number of works that have to be voted for can be cut down from 10.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> Curveball: my thinking is, 100 would be a nice cap. That's how many were listed in the duos project.
> 
> The quartets went to 200, but that's a genre with huge breadth and depth across eras, and is kind of the quintessential chamber music genre.
> 
> If the trios are to go over 100, maybe the number of works that have to be voted for can be cut down from 10.


Let's see what happens when we're in the 10th round. I'm reluctant to change to rules during the process, though decreasing the number of pieces to vote on is a minor change. I'd like to know what others think. That said, I make a point of listening to all or most of the pieces in the voting round before voting. That way I can always vote for ten pieces.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2017)

Honestly I think nominating 20 and voting for 5 is good for getting more of a consensus out of fewer participants in the late rounds.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

What if we continue past 100, all the way to 150? I don't mind. Though I'm running out of pieces to nominate, many of you have many more. 

Would you like to complete rounds nine and ten as before: nominating fifteen and voting on ten pieces, enshrining ten at a time?

Then would you like to complete rounds eleven to fifteen by nominating up to twenty and voting on five, enshrining ten pieces at a time?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'd be fine with your suggestions for completing the rounds out to 15.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> Then would you like to complete rounds eleven to fifteen by nominating up to twenty and voting on five, enshrining ten pieces at a time?


I'm confused about this...if we did it that way, wouldn't we be enshrining five pieces, not ten?

In any case, your suggestions sound good to me. I hope that we do decide to take it all the way to 150. There are more trios that I would like to nominate in future rounds, and I look forward to discovering new trios through listening to everyone else's nominations!


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Bettina said:


> I'm confused about this...if we did it that way, wouldn't we be enshrining five pieces, not ten?
> 
> In any case, your suggestions sound good to me. I hope that we do decide to take it all the way to 150. There are more trios that I would like to nominate in future rounds, and I look forward to discovering new trios through listening to everyone else's nominations!


From our list of nominations, we would vote on twelve to seventeen pieces as we've been doing. But you'd only have to vote for five of them, ten would be enshrined.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I'm certainly game to go to 150. I am enjoying my piecemeal exploration of new trios, which I fear will stop without the stimulus of this project!


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

There are two CDs I have on my new wishlist. I found this cd well reviewed in the January edition of Strad magazine. 
Lincoln Trio plays Babajanian, Rebecca Clark and Frank Martin. I own none of the pieces on any other CD. 









and Taneyev and Rimsky Korsakov









For round ten we are down to 10 participants. I know some of you want to reach 150 trios on the list. Some are ready to end here at 100. I say lets split the difference and create a list of 125 trios on the enshrined list. We will have three more rounds, but the rules change slightly. Nominate up to twenty, there will be 12 to 17 pieces that we vote on. Then vote for your favourite five pieces to enshrine nine in round eleven, eight in rounds twelve and thirteen. How does that sound?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> There are two CDs I have on my new wishlist. I found this cd well reviewed in the January edition of Strad magazine.
> Lincoln Trio plays Babajanian, Rebecca Clark and Frank Martin. I own none of the pieces on any other CD.
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds good to me. A list of 125 trios would be great. Thanks again for coordinating this project!


----------

