# Discussion Thread for TC Top [50] Recommended Solo Repertoire List



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

A while ago, senza sordino posted a number of TC recommended list ideas that could be facilitated in the future. He made the "TC Top 100+ Recommended Piano Trios List", a thread that is soon to come to a close. Hence, with one thread's passage, I decided to adopt another one of senza's ideas: "The TC Top [50] Recommended Solo Repertoire List". I prematurely started said list before being advised by pjang23 not to get things going until I had already 'worked out the kinks' of the project on its own discussion thread. So here we are, ready to finalize how I plan to operate this recommended list in the near future.

There are many questions to answer, and I would to start with interest. Do people want to see another one of _these_ threads? I, for one, am ready to put in the work for this project if people are willing to nominate/vote for works and such. The solo repertoire is an interesting genre among the vast world of classical music, and is very diverse, from the Bach cello suites to Debussy's _Syrinx_ for flute solo. It consists of anything written for an instrument that is not a solo instrument (piano, guitar, harp, etc.) ―alone. I would like everyone to express their interest levels of the idea in this thread.

Judging by feedback on how the piano trios list went, I am planning on using the original system of ranked nomination. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, this is the way I will run the thread. Any objections? Let's hear 'em.

Finally, there are countless questions pertaining to eligibility that we need to address.



senza sordino said:


> My question is do we nominate each of the Paganini Caprices, Rode Caprices, Bach Cello Suites and Bach Sonatas and Partitas separately? Do we include guitar but exclude piano? Etc


Surely suites, sonatas, and partitas by Bach should be individual because they constitute different BWV numbers. Paganini and Rode are an entirely different problem because each caprice is classified as "Op. _x_ No. 1", "Op. _x_ No. 2", etc. I'm leaning towards _yes_, but if each caprice is going to be nominated by someone (which could very well happen), then _no_.

It is truly a tough decision as to whether guitar and harp works should be included or not. These two instruments do not have such a huge repertoire for them to be automatically ruled out like the piano, but they _are_ solo instruments. You never see a guitar sonata where the guitar is accompanied by piano, do you? By definition, guitar, harp, marimba?, etc. should be excluded, but I am open to discussion.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns about a reccomended list for solo repertoire need to take place here. I am excited to see where this may take us in the future.

-Portamento


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2017)

First off, why only 50 for such a huge genre?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Other projects have started with a target number but essentially left the final number of works open until interest and participation could be better judged. If this project struggles to produce 50 (i.e. participation dwindles significantly before then), it should not progress past 50. If on the other hand participation and interest is strong as 50 is approached, then by all means continue.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

nathanb said:


> First off, why only 50 for such a huge genre?


_Is_ it a huge genre? I put the '50' in square brackets precisely because the number was open to change. I didn't expect it to be questioned so soon, however. For me, the genre of solo repertoire isn't all that large. It's vast... but not large. There isn't much to discover after the suites and sonatas of Bach, Reger, Ibert, and Karg-Elert, who are some of the only composers to contribute repeatedly to the genre. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not all that concerned with the number of recommended works on the list; that can always be changed if I find that at one point there are too many left out works deserving to be listed. We'll cross _that_ bridge when we get there.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I think we should rank our nominations. It's easier for the organizer if nominations are not ranked, only votes. But ranking nominations would help decrease the number of pieces tied for a rank order to settle on which pieces we vote. And it gives priority to my listening. I regret not doing this for the piano trios list - sorry. 

I'm inclined not to include the guitar. I would prefer a separate TC recommended list for works for guitar, solo and with ensemble. I've proposed this before and no one was interested. So if we decide to include solo guitar here, I'd be fine with that. But my preference is for an entire list exclusively for works for guitar with ensemble or solo. 

Since the Bach solo cello and violin do have different BWV numbers then I guess each is a separate entry. But I can potentially see the first 20 pieces completely dominated by Bach. Paganini and Rode will have to settle for one entry for all 24 pieces because each is a single opus number. 

The repertoire is probably vast. What's the difference between vast and large? There's a lot of contemporary music I don't know about. And for a vast (or is that large) range of instruments. 

Is there any music for solo voice with no accompanying instrument? And would this be eligible?


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Here are a few of my thoughts:

- 50 seems like a good starting point provided some things are grouped together.

- I would be inclined to group the respective Bach pieces together. But I would leave separate pieces for different solo instruments entirely, like Berio's _Sequenzas_ and Kurtág's _Signs, Games, and Messages_.

- I think solo voice should be included.

- I don't really understand why a solo instrumental list should exclude solo guitar (as well as other plucked strings) because it is a solo instrument? Shouldn't that be the whole point of including it? If there's enough interest to do an entire separate guitar project, then I can sort of understand excluding them here.

- Ranked nominations may work well, but I understand concerns over the domination of a minority of voters. I think, though, if this were coupled with the current voting list lengths of about 15 pieces (from which 10 are enshrined), then the two-stage process will be a good enough filter. So if for instance a piece made the voting list from only a couple of passionate voters while no one else likes it, the piece would likely not advance through the voting round.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2017)

Portamento said:


> _Is_ it a huge genre? I put the '50' in square brackets precisely because the number was open to change. I didn't expect it to be questioned so soon, however. For me, the genre of solo repertoire isn't all that large. It's vast... but not large. There isn't much to discover after the suites and sonatas of Bach, Reger, Ibert, and Karg-Elert, who are some of the only composers to contribute repeatedly to the genre. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Well... it's massive to me. I could rattle of a few hundred great things right now. But I could be in the minority, I suppose.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Trout said:


> - 50 seems like a good starting point provided some things are grouped together.


Yes, and it can always be changed if need be.



> - I would be inclined to group the respective Bach pieces together. But I would leave separate pieces for different solo instruments entirely, like Berio's _Sequenzas_ and Kurtág's _Signs, Games, and Messages_.


I think the Bach pieces should be individual because they are cataloged as individual BWV numbers. This means that Paganini's 24 caprices would be listed as one entry because they are all under Op. 1. I agree with you on the second issue ―otherwise things will get too complex for no reason.



> - I think solo voice should be included.


Agreed.



> - I don't really understand why a solo instrumental list should exclude solo guitar (as well as other plucked strings) because it is a solo instrument? Shouldn't that be the whole point of including it? If there's enough interest to do an entire separate guitar project, then I can sort of understand excluding them here.


A guitar is almost always played by itself, so therefore almost all guitar repertoire would qualify; the same with the harp. I am leaning towards not including guitar, harp, and other instruments that usually play alone because I don't want those works dominating the list, which is dedicated to solo repertoire for instruments that don't normally play solo. I think that there is enough interest to have a separate guitar works list.



> - Ranked nominations may work well, but I understand concerns over the domination of a minority of voters. I think, though, if this were coupled with the current voting list lengths of about 15 pieces (from which 10 are enshrined), then the two-stage process will be a good enough filter. So if for instance a piece made the voting list from only a couple of passionate voters while no one else likes it, the piece would likely not advance through the voting round.


That is a good idea. Currently, I am looking at how past projects have operated, and by the looks of it, making a hybrid of the original and current systems will be beneficial.



nathanb said:


> Well... it's massive to me. I could rattle of a few hundred great things right now. But I could be in the minority, I suppose.


If so, and there is enough interest in the project after 50 works have been listed, then by all means we can continue.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Portamento said:


> I think the Bach pieces should be individual because they are cataloged as individual BWV numbers. This means that Paganini's 24 caprices would be listed as one entry because they are all under Op. 1.


Thanks for clarifying what does and doesn't count as a single work. I was unsure about that when I nominated some of Paganini's caprices. In my list, I ultimately chose to count them as separate pieces, simply because I think that some are worthy of nomination and some are not. But you make a good point which has led me to rethink my position: Paganini published them as a single opus, so they should be considered as a unit. Thanks again for explaining the protocol for that issue.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

This is kind of irrelevant, but I was wondering if we could maybe do most recommended composers/conductors/performers/ensembles, etc. or something else than just pieces? Or did TC decide not to do that already?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> This is kind of irrelevant, but I was wondering if we could maybe do most recommended composers/conductors/performers/ensembles, etc. or something else than just pieces? Or did TC decide not to do that already?


That's not a bad idea. I would be very interested to try it in the future. To my knowledge, TC hasn't decided to make lists for pieces only...


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Portamento said:


> I think the Bach pieces should be individual because they are cataloged as individual BWV numbers. This means that Paganini's 24 caprices would be listed as one entry because they are all under Op. 1. I agree with you on the second issue ―otherwise things will get too complex for no reason.


Grouping based on catalog is always liable to have problems, even if it's convenient and works most of the time. The BWV catalog, for example, was not created by Bach himself (in fact, not published until 1950) which makes it less certain to know this is how the pieces _should_ be grouped. I would argue that because the sonatas and partitas were published together (and I think the Cello Suites too) plus how they have been performed and recorded that they should be grouped together respectively. The BWV catalog also designated 24 spots to each prelude and fugue in Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, yet you hardly ever see that set broken up beyond its two books.



> A guitar is almost always played by itself, so therefore almost all guitar repertoire would qualify; the same with the harp. I am leaning towards not including guitar, harp, and other instruments that usually play alone because I don't want those works dominating the list, which is dedicated to solo repertoire for instruments that don't normally play solo. I think that there is enough interest to have a separate guitar works list.


I suppose that's a good point. Checking the classical music project, there are 22 solo guitar/lute pieces enshrined while only 25 other non-keyboard solo pieces suggesting guitar would dominate this list too. (But by that same token, do you want 12 or more Bach pieces dominating the front end of the list too? ) And would this include electric guitar?

Another question we should resolve is should solo pieces with an accompanying tape or electronics should be included? If you want some examples, consider Reich's Violin Phase, Babbitt's Philomel, and Fujikura's Sparking Orbit among many others.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Trout said:


> Grouping based on catalog is always liable to have problems, even if it's convenient and works most of the time. The BWV catalog, for example, was not created by Bach himself (in fact, not published until 1950) which makes it less certain to know this is how the pieces _should_ be grouped. I would argue that because the sonatas and partitas were published together (and I think the Cello Suites too) plus how they have been performed and recorded that they should be grouped together respectively. The BWV catalog also designated 24 spots to each prelude and fugue in Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, yet you hardly ever see that set broken up beyond its two books.


Hmmm... this makes me rethink my position on the matter. You make a good point, actually. The Well-Tempered Clavier we don't have to worry about as it won't be included in this list, but the cello suites we do. I guess if the Paganini caprices are going to be listed as one entry, then the cello suites and violin/flute partitas/sonatas should be listed as one as well.

_Rule of thumb:_ If the works were published together, then they will serve as one entry.



> And would this include electric guitar?


I doubt it.



> Another question we should resolve is should solo pieces with an accompanying tape or electronics should be included? If you want some examples, consider Reich's Violin Phase, Babbitt's Philomel, and Fujikura's Sparking Orbit among many others.


Again, I think for the purposes of this list we should count electronics as an instrument. So _no_ for now.

*Any other things we need to agree on before I write a final summary of the rules we've ironed out?*


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> This is kind of irrelevant, but I was wondering if we could maybe do most recommended composers/conductors/performers/ensembles, etc. or something else than just pieces? Or did TC decide not to do that already?


Irrelevant for you, probably, but not all of us. I find compiling a list based on similar instrumentation easier and makes more sense than trying to compare Mahler's second symphony to a Shostakovich String Quartet etc. And I think a list of performers / composers/ ensembles might sound interesting but again I think it would be difficult to compare a countertenor to a symphony orchestra. I prefer comparing apples to apples, and I can't compare apples and oranges. But that's my opinion, take it for what it's worth.



Trout said:


> Grouping based on catalog is always liable to have problems, even if it's convenient and works most of the time. The BWV catalog, for example, was not created by Bach himself (in fact, not published until 1950) which makes it less certain to know this is how the pieces _should_ be grouped. I would argue that because the sonatas and partitas were published together (and I think the Cello Suites too) plus how they have been performed and recorded that they should be grouped together respectively. The BWV catalog also designated 24 spots to each prelude and fugue in Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, yet you hardly ever see that set broken up beyond its two books.
> 
> I suppose that's a good point. Checking the classical music project, there are 22 solo guitar/lute pieces enshrined while only 25 other non-keyboard solo pieces suggesting guitar would dominate this list too. (But by that same token, do you want 12 or more Bach pieces dominating the front end of the list too? ) And would this include electric guitar?
> 
> Another question we should resolve is should solo pieces with an accompanying tape or electronics should be included? If you want some examples, consider Reich's Violin Phase, Babbitt's Philomel, and Fujikura's Sparking Orbit among many others.


That's a good point regarding Bach and the BWV numbers. Personally I'd group the entire set of violin sonatas and partitas together and group the entire 6 cello suites together and separate from the violin.

I'd prefer not to include guitar as its solo repertoire is large and could dominate. Moreover, the guitar suits itself well to solo work, but other orchestra instruments are not well suited for solo work, and thus that's what makes pieces for these other instruments so challenging to write.

Works for organ should not be included, I think.

I don't know much about worksthat include electronics. So I don't have an opinion.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> Irrelevant for you, probably, but not all of us. I find compiling a list based on similar instrumentation easier and makes more sense than trying to compare Mahler's second symphony to a Shostakovich String Quartet etc. And I think a list of performers / composers/ ensembles might sound interesting but again I think it would be difficult to compare a countertenor to a symphony orchestra. I prefer comparing apples to apples, and I can't compare apples and oranges. But that's my opinion, take it for what it's worth.


I wasn't proposing putting them all on one list. There would be a separate list for composers, maybe one for string ensembles, or another for conductors. Or am I interpreting what you said wrong?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I wasn't proposing putting them all on one list. There would be a separate list for composers, maybe one for string ensembles, or another for conductors. Or am I interpreting what you said wrong?


No you're not interpreting what I said incorrectly, I misunderstood you.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

*Below is how I plan to facilitate this list:*

Each round, users will get to nominate up to ten of their favorite works in the solo repertoire, ranked. The 15 works that recieved the most nominations will move on to the voting round (number of "points" from ranking serve as tie-breakers). Users must then vote for their top ten favorites on the list to be enshrined. Tie-breakers on _this_ list will be decided by me asking the users which of the two works they prefer. From the next voting round onwards, the list of enshrined works will be updated as per the group decision.

Additionally, when a post recieves a "like", it means I have counted their vote/nomination.

_Any questions or objections?_

_Eligibility:_
A user may nominate works for one player/instrument, as long as that instrument isn't one that already has a sizable solo repertoire that would dominate the list (piano, guitar, harp, etc.). Solo voice is acceptable, but an instrument accompanied by electronics is not (? ―no one is yet to give a second opinion on this).

_Grouping:_
The general rule of thumb as to how works will be grouped is as follows: if multiple works were published together, then they will count as one entry. This means that the Paganini caprices will count as one entry because all 24 were published under _Op. 1_ and the Bach cello suites and violin sonatas/partidas will also count as one each, even though both constitute six BWV numbers.

*Does all of this sound good?* If so, I can get the green light from mmsbls and we can get this list up and running.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

These rules seem fine to me. Also you don't need approval from me or any moderator to start. When you're ready, fire it up.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Well, you need to 'un-close' the thread and probably detele all comments...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I forgot about the closed thread. Just let me know when you're ready to start up again.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

As soon as possible would be nice. Thanks.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I opened the thread but left the comments. I think you can post the new rules and ask for nominations again.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

> Can we get some clarification on what's allowed and what's not? Piano/Guitar/Organ makes perfect sense. Harp? Can someone show me where the harp repertoire is any bigger than the violin repertoire, because I'd love to hear more. As for electronics, I feel like there needs to be some clarification there as well; tons of works that include electronics are performable with only one player, and they've been allowed thus far in other categories...





> Is... [Gérard Grisey's Prologue] really considered a stand-alone work? I've always considered the parts of Grisey's cycle to be fairly inseparable, even if parts of it are quite often performed by themselves due to their different instrumentation. But I could be wrong.


Just a few of the many questions that need to be answered before the list starts up again. Opinions?

Should electronics and a solo instrument be considered a duo? I originally thought that it should be, but I have been prersuaded otherwise.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Is there any interest in answering these questions?


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

Just check out the individual syllabi in various music exam boards. They have excellent suggestions.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Portamento said:


> Is there any interest in answering these questions?





Portamento said:


> Just a few of the many questions that need to be answered before the list starts up again. Opinions?
> 
> Should electronics and a solo instrument be considered a duo? I originally thought that it should be, but I have been prersuaded otherwise.


I think if you want this project to move ahead, you might just have to take the bull by the horns and make a few executive decisions. While I facilitated the piano trios project we had discussions throughout, not everything was worked out before we began. And I had to just make a decision. This is your project. Input from others is necessary but the facilitator makes the final call.

I suggest right now you post the leading works so far. If among those pieces there is some confusion or dispute, let's sort it out. Once we see a leaders list, we could vote. Or if some prefer, start all over and renominate for round one.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

There's been some discussion on the voting thread about the guidelines for this solo repertoire project, especially involving questions of electronics and sound icons. It might be better for those discussions to take place in this thread, rather than cluttering up the voting thread. Just a suggestion (I hope I'm not being too bossy!), and of course it's up to Portamento as to where he wants the discussion to take place...I just wanted to bump this thread to remind everybody that this is a good place for people to post questions and thoughts about the project.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Bettina said:


> There's been some discussion on the voting thread about the guidelines for this solo repertoire project, especially involving questions of electronics and sound icons. It might be better for those discussions to take place in this thread, rather than cluttering up the voting thread. Just a suggestion (I hope I'm not being too bossy!), and of course it's up to Portamento as to where he wants the discussion to take place...I just wanted to bump this thread to remind everybody that this is a good place for people to post questions and thoughts about the project.


Good idea. Though I think the sound icon discussion is over, future ones should occur here.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Do you think that I should continue to allow 2 weeks for nomination? To be honest, participation is pretty low, and there have usually not been any ballots cast past the first week (or few days, even). A litttle annoying, seeing as I bump the thread and within a day it goes back to the second page.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Portamento said:


> Do you think that I should continue to allow 2 weeks for nomination? To be honest, participation is pretty low, and there have usually not been any ballots cast past the first week.


One week would be enough for me. That's how we did it for the piano trio project, and it seemed to work out fine for everyone.

As for participation, I'm not sure how to get more people involved. It's a great project and I wish that more people would get on board! Maybe it would help if you (and the rest of us participants) posted more solo pieces in the current listening thread, to draw more attention to the genre...? Next time that I listen to anything solo, I'll try doing that just in case it might boost participation.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

nathanb said:


> Are electric guitar pieces allowed? The repertoire size not being remotely comparable to the typical classical guitar, and all?


I am leaning towards yes, but I'd like to see what others think first.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Portamento said:


> I am leaning towards yes, but I'd like to see what others think first.


Sounds good to me - but I must admit that I don't have any informed opinions on the matter. I'm very much an acoustic person and I confess that I am totally ignorant of everything else!


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

I was personally ambivalent and somewhat indifferent about including electric guitar pieces. I would happy to learn more about that repertoire, but it feels weird to differentiate between allowable guitars. Plus I'm not a fan of changing the rules midway through a project even though we did agree to include pieces with electronic or tape accompaniment.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2017)

Trout said:


> I was personally ambivalent and somewhat indifferent about including electric guitar pieces. I would happy to learn more about that repertoire, but it feels weird to differentiate between allowable guitars. Plus I'm not a fan of changing the rules midway through a project even though we did agree to include pieces with electronic or tape accompaniment.


I guess I thought (1) it would still be ok to bring up because I'm pretty sure there's no electric guitar piece that would've made it in at this point anyway and (2) the only reason, I think, for differentiating from the classical guitar is because the traditional guitar has such a substantial repertoire on its own. I'm fine either way.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

nathanb said:


> I guess I thought (1) it would still be ok to bring up because I'm pretty sure there's no electric guitar piece that would've made it in at this point anyway and (2) the only reason, I think, for differentiating from the classical guitar is because the traditional guitar has such a substantial repertoire on its own. I'm fine either way.


I think Trout is right on this one. I can see electric guitar pieces as being included in a top recommended guitar works list somewhere down the road (so they should'nt be included here).


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

As _Round 4 Voting_ ends in just over 24 hours, I thought this would be an appropriate time to bring up the future of this project. With the way participation has been dropping, _Round 5_ will in all likelihood _be_ the last round (concluding the list with 50 entries).

Thoughts?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I've always preferred it when these games are based on the notion that there are enough "obvious" choices that, after the first round of _really_ obvious works, you need another 4 or 5 rounds before you get to the "oh, hey, we forgot about..." phase, which itself would have rich pickings and last several rounds. I was lucky with the Pre-1700 list that there were at least a dozen regular participants, and works needed support from at least 5 people to make it to the voting round. Whereas I note that for the solo list there are 4 works up for round 4 voting that were nominated by only 1 of us, and only 3 that were nominated by more than 2 of us. 
With so few participants, individual preferences have a greater impact. So once the notion of nomination-by-consensus declines, the game starts to outlive its usefulness for me, and the list to my mind has less value for non-participants. 
But I accept that others like to use these games as a discovery process instead.

I think ending with round 5 is a good idea.


----------

