# On the arbitrarines of music polls



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Polls ranking this or that work, or this or that composer, in a long list abound on TC. I get that, on the one hand, they are just a bit of fun. On the other they are sources of information on the worth of works and composers that people use to shape their understanding of classical music as a whole.

However, I submit that polls are pretty darn arbitrary. The main problem is different understandings of worth: of 'best' or 'favorite'. 

Like, some people are going to rank the Ring, or WTC, highest because of influence, while others are going to rank one of them highest because they sit down and listen to it most often. Now, 'influence' and 'listening pleasure' are not by any means equivalent. In a more specific poll asking about influence someone might rank WTC highest, while in a more specific poll asking about listening pleasure, this very same person might rank the Ring highest. 

It gets worse. 'Listening pleasure' might even diverge from 'listens to most' for many people, meaning someone might rank Beethoven's 5th highest if they understood 'listens to most' to be the proxy for 'best/favorite' while that very same person might rank B's String Quartet 13 highest if they understood 'listening pleasure' to be the proxy. 

In short, people's different subjective measures or proxies for 'best/favorite' mean polls will be comparing apples with oranges.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

I don't want to get into details but for those who REALLY want to understand how a preference poll can work, read into social choice theory.

The best thing we've got right now is the "quadratic voting" system, but it is too hard to implement on this forum.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It is traced statistically that in comparing a beginning-intermediate group of Classical listeners with an experienced group, the beginners group has already begun to rate popular composers significantly higher than the experienced group, perhaps due to a lack of knowledge of the others. Thus knowing the diversity and disagreements on this forum alone, it totally begs the same question of the advanced group: are people just saying X style is better than a very different _Y style_ because they appreciated X style earlier on and that is how they hear quality? Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Chopin. These are the first names people listen to in Classical, and yet you can't objectively prove you'd like them more if you grew up for years listening to a different set of composers like Mahler, Dohnányi and Bloch. In fact, you may eventually learn to like the Big 3 more because of that same group-think bias that tells you you should. Because the 'greats' are already who is more popular to begin with, a bias towards how you start to listen and interpret quality has already begun day 1 for most people. Just by first starting to listen.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> It is traced statistically that in comparing a beginning group of Classical listeners with an experienced group, the beginning group has already begun to value popular composers significantly more than the advanced group. Thus it totally begs the question: Knowing the diversity and disagreements of tastes on this forum alone, are people just saying X is better than Y because they grew up around X and that is how they hear music? Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Chopin. These are the first things people listen to in Classical, and yet you can't objectively prove you'd like them more if you grew up listening to Brahms, Mahler and Dohnányi. A bias towards how you hear quality has already begun day 1.


Interesting thought. This is a deep question.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

There seems to be some idea on this forum that an objective assessment can be achieved regarding specific classical works. IMO, this is an absurd premise. Absurd, 1) because there is little value in coming up with such a list, even if possible, and 2) there is no criteria available to create such a list beyond individual members's personal preferences.

Assessing classical works, or any music, is entirely subjective. It would not matter in the least if Bach's _Well-Tempered Clavier _were sitting atop this list, there would still be members who do not agree that it is the "best" work. And they would be 100% entitled to that assessment.

For me, there is absolutely no value in attempting to create such a list, and the amount of energy spent on that process is also absurd, IMO.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> For me, there is absolutely no value in attempting to create such a list, and the amount of energy spent on that process is also absurd, IMO.


I'm somewhat less pessministic, as I've personally _used_ the polls and lists over the last 5 years to discover a lot of great music. However, when it drops below the top 5 or 10 works in a list, things become rediculous.

Is it actually true that most people think some relatively minor composer's best symphony is better than beethoven's 4th? I doubt it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

You've explained well much of my lack of interest in polls, either as a participant or as a reader. I tend to respond only to "what are your favorites" inquiries, since that question allows me to give any reason I wish for my preferences, or no reason at all.


----------



## BobBrines (Jun 14, 2018)

And a few threads further down today we are discussing the 110th tier!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

I wonder -- is there a forum where people endlessly rank painters? Titian v. Vermeer; Klee v. Kandinsky; Lichtenstein v. Warhol -- who is the best? Sculptors? Rodin v. Moore? Poets? Rilke v. Eliot? Frost v. Sandburg? Playwrights? Chekhov v. Ibsen; Stoppard v. Gurney; Miller v. O'Neill -- multi-round knockouts, sophisticated statistical models, influence v. popularity? Maybe tag teams -- Bach and Flaubert v. Wagner and Stendhal; Ives and Hemingway v. Copland and Fitzgerald. Or even thematic tag teams -- battle of the head cases -- Schumann and Gogol v. Wolf and Van Gogh. Etc.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> However, I submit that polls are pretty darn arbitrary.


Yes, pretty much by definition.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

BobBrines said:


> And a few threads further down today we are discussing the 110th tier!


I-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

fluteman said:


> I wonder -- is there a forum where people endlessly rank painters? Titian v. Vermeer; Klee v. Kandinsky; Lichtenstein v. Warhol -- who is the best? Sculptors? Rodin v. Moore? Poets? Rilke v. Eliot? Frost v. Sandburg? Playwrights? Chekhov v. Ibsen; Stoppard v. Gurney; Miller v. O'Neill -- multi-round knockouts, sophisticated statistical models, influence v. popularity? Maybe tag teams -- Bach and Flaubert v. Wagner and Stendhal; Ives and Hemingway v. Copland and Fitzgerald. Or even thematic tag teams -- battle of the head cases -- Schumann and Gogol v. Wolf and Van Gogh. Etc.


Enthusiasts don't spend nearly as much time on a single work of painting or sculpture as on a single work of music.

I will give you my normie list:
Titian over Vermeer
Kandinsky (favorite) over Klee
Warhol over Lichtenstein
Rodin over Moore


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I wonder if the participants have ever cared about what rating "newcomers to classical music" would give this "list of most recommended works". I think the participants are all just obsessed to place the works they consider as the greatest to the top. The name is opposite of what the thing really represents or stands for in essence. It's kind of like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2020)

Given the worthlessness of polls, how much time should be wasted discussing them?



RogerWaters said:


> Is it actually true that most people think some relatively minor composer's best symphony is better than beethoven's 4th? I doubt it.


Hang on a minute...tell me what criteria you used to identify 'some minor composer' and insinuate that their 'best' symphony is 'better' than Beethoven's 4th?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> I'm somewhat less pessministic, as I've personally _used_ the polls and lists over the last 5 years to discover a lot of great music. However, when it drops below the top 5 or 10 works in a list, things become rediculous.
> 
> Is it actually true that most people think some relatively minor composer's best symphony is better than beethoven's 4th? I doubt it.


Haydn gets that treatment-- he has less symphonies in the Rec List than he ought to.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I wonder if the participants have ever cared about what rating "newcomers to classical music" would give this "list of most recommended works". I think the participants are all just obsessed to place the works they consider as the greatest to the top. The name is opposite of what the thing really represents or stands for in essence. It's kind of like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".


Surely, works by Wagner, Mahler, and even Bach would be brushed aside by novices. A novice's list would have stuff like Vivaldi's Four Seasons and The Lark Ascending in the top tiers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2020)

ORigel said:


> Vivaldi's Four Seasons and The Lark Ascending in the top tiers.


Something wrong with these...? You've just perfectly illustrated the OP's observation.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ORigel said:


> Surely, works by Wagner, Mahler, and even Bach would be brushed aside by novices. A novice's list would have stuff like Vivaldi's Four Seasons and The Lark Ascending in the top tiers.


I'm not a novice and The Lark Ascending still gets my vote.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

With a couple of exceptions, polls are just for fun and light entertainment, so I don't see why anyone would have a problem with them.

The 2 current exceptions are projects run by Science and Granate. Their goals are to have an up-to-date list that can be used by new classical enthusiasts to navigate the huge array of music available. I'm sure that some members will find them helpful and others will not. 

Concerning why there are a particular number of works on each tier, only Science knows the answer.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> There seems to be some idea on this forum that an objective assessment can be achieved regarding specific classical works. IMO, this is an absurd premise. Absurd, 1) because there is little value in coming up with such a list, even if possible, and 2) there is no criteria available to create such a list beyond individual members's personal preferences.
> 
> Assessing classical works, or any music, is entirely subjective. It would not matter in the least if Bach's _Well-Tempered Clavier _were sitting atop this list, there would still be members who do not agree that it is the "best" work. And they would be 100% entitled to that assessment.
> 
> For me, there is absolutely no value in attempting to create such a list, and the amount of energy spent on that process is also absurd, IMO.


I find it possible to envisage (or imagine?) that art works can be valued objectively. That doesn't mean we can know what the results of this valuing will be. I guess the broad consensus changes with time and is partly about what we as society best relate to at a point in time. Running polls in a small specialised forum like this one might be a fun game to play with this but the results mean nearly nothing. My problem with our polls starts when our results are taken seriously, perhaps being used to demonstrate a point someone wants to make. The results of polls only tell you something about those who participated.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Given the worthlessness of polls, how much time should be wasted discussing them?
> 
> Hang on a minute...tell me what criteria you used to identify 'some minor composer' and insinuate that their 'best' symphony is 'better' than Beethoven's 4th?


Come on! It seems likely that most composers and works will come out as less good than Beethoven. That doesn't stop you or any of us having personal favourites and tastes ... and these may exclude Beethoven completely.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> My problem with our polls starts when our results are taken seriously, perhaps being used to demonstrate a point someone wants to make. The results of polls only tell you something about those who participated.


You make it sound as if a TC member might be damaged by taking a poll seriously. If a member sees that a particular work comes in at number one on a poll, he/she might well check it out. There's no harm being done.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> Come on! It seems likely that most composers and works will come out as less good than Beethoven. That doesn't stop you or any of us having personal favourites and tastes ... and these may exclude Beethoven completely.


I was observing that the OP talks about the arbitrariness of polls and the differing subjective measures used to determine 'best/favourite' - thereby calling the whole business of ranking into question - yet then asserts that one work is superior to another.

Ironic, don't you think?


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> You make it sound as if a TC member might be damaged by taking a poll seriously. * If a member sees that a particular work comes in at number one o.n a poll, he/she might well check it out* There's no harm being done.


Or some may decide to never listen to it again if its _that_ popular.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> I was observing that the OP talks about the arbitrariness of polls and the differing subjective measures used to determine 'best/favourite' - thereby calling the whole business of ranking into question - yet then asserts that one work is superior to another.
> 
> Ironic, don't you think?


Sorry! Got you.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> You make it sound as if a TC member might be damaged by taking a poll seriously. If a member sees that a particular work comes in at number one on a poll, he/she might well check it out. There's no harm being done.


I'm not sure how you read that into it. It is clear that they must have been damaged already if they are taking polls seriously. :lol:


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

Specifically for me, all those rankings have no informative value. It's like the Hurwitz's videos, I watch it and listen to CDs, which he called the best and even to those he called the worst ever. It can also be different. There are always a number of listeners (educated, experts) who see the exact opposite...
I do not perceive music (interpretation) as an ideological direction to which I should join or not accept it. Music isn't elections. I like to read the posts here, to learn about a new interpretations, compositions or authors. If I'm interested in something, I'll listen to it, but is it better than this or that? I prefer some recordings, but I'm not looking for objective reasons.
On one thread, I read (if I remember correctly) more than 150 interpretations of Brahms' violin concerto ranked - sorry, that sounds somewhat ridiculous to me. The author himself would never sort it out the same way. So what's the point? I can't imagine the constant scoring when I listen to music. OK, today I'm listening to Vengerov. Is it better than Menuhin I heard five years ago? Why should I deal with this?
Best, great, top ten... I've joined the pools or rankings a few times, but I'm not doing it anymore because I don't know what to write and finally I always feel like I'm lying...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I don't see how ranking composers is any more arbitrary than saying you like this or that music or performance of same.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wrong thread.....


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

RogerWaters said:


> Polls ranking this or that work, or this or that composer, in a long list abound on TC. I get that, on the one hand, they are just a bit of fun. On the other they are sources of information on the worth of works and composers that people use to shape their understanding of classical music as a whole.
> 
> However, I submit that polls are pretty darn arbitrary. The main problem is different understandings of worth: of 'best' or 'favorite'.
> 
> ...


I agree with all this.

And yet, we all have to start somewhere. I don't suppose any of us have managed to educate ourselves on classical music entirely without recommendations from others.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Malx said:


> Or some may decide to never listen to it again if its _that_ popular.


Fortunately for these contrarians, they can also see what took last place.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> I wonder if the participants have ever cared about what rating "newcomers to classical music" would give this "list of most recommended works". I think the participants are all just obsessed to place the works they consider as the greatest to the top. The name is opposite of what the thing really represents or stands for in essence. It's kind of like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".


The list is obviously not just for newcomers. There are over 5500 works listed. It's a list of _suggestions/recommendations_ for newcomers, those with some experience, and those with much experience. There's no sense that the list is objective. I've been participating and benefiting from the list for many years. I can't really imagine anyone who participates simply wants "their favorite" works placed as high as possible.

The list is called "The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommend Works." Obviously it's a product of a subset of members, but I would say it is _exactly_ the favorite and most recommended works of the participants.

The reason I feel lists such as these are useful _to me_ is that I've found that my taste in music closely resembles the average tastes from those I know. The very best way to find new music I like is to get suggestions from a group of people similar to me. Suggestions from a particular book or from a single person may be good, but if the suggestion comes from many people similar to me, that is golden. I can't think of a better way for me to get suggestions than from lists such as this. Another critical aspect of this list is that it is so large. Lists of 100 or even 1000 works are limited for those who have explored classical music significantly. This list is large enough that I continuously find new works.

Personally, I love finding new music through this list, and I'm very thankful this project was started and continues. Others may value this project less, but for some like me, it is almost perfect.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Enthusiasts don't spend nearly as much time on a single work of painting or sculpture as on a single work of music.
> 
> I will give you my normie list:
> Titian over Vermeer
> ...


I'm not so sure of that, there are many paintings and even some sculptures that are sufficiently iconic that they could be ranked on their own. Literary works, for sure. The Cherry Orchard v. Hedda Gabler; Madame Bovary v. The Red And the Black; Duino Elegies v. Four Quartets; The Thinker v. David; Starry Night v. Nude Descending A Staircase. We'll need a scoring system, knockout rounds, and a statistical sampling method for distinguishing between newbies and experienced connoisseurs.

And I'm not stopping there: tiramisu v. torta caprese; boeuf bourguignon v. coq au vin; Maine lobster roll v. Sand Diego fish taco; North Carolina pulled pork bbq v. New York pastrami; Sancerre v. Riesling; OK, enough, this is making me hungry.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

fluteman said:


> I'm not so sure of that, there are many paintings and even some sculptures that are sufficiently iconic that they could be ranked on their own. Literary works, for sure. The Cherry Orchard v. Hedda Gabler; Madame Bovary v. The Red And the Black; Duino Elegies v. Four Quartets; The Thinker v. David; Starry Night v. Nude Descending A Staircase. We'll need a scoring system, knockout rounds, and a statistical sampling method for distinguishing between newbies and experienced connoisseurs.
> 
> And I'm not stopping there: tiramisu v. torta caprese; boeuf bourguignon v. coq au vin; Maine lobster roll v. Sand Diego fish taco; North Carolina pulled pork bbq v. New York pastrami; Sancerre v. Riesling; OK, enough, this is making me hungry.


Literature masterpieces can be read in so many different ways I don't think a rigorous statistical analysis reveals anything because the population object in that analysis is not clearly-defined or interpretable. But again, I will give you my poor-taste personal list

tiramisu over torta caprese
boeuf bourguignon over coq au vin
Maine lobster roll over Sand Diego fish taco
North Carolina pulled pork bbq over New York pastrami
Riesling over Sancerre


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

If (to pick a work entirely at random) Onslow's 15th string quintet was voted the greatest classical work of all time, or if Wagner's Ring didn't make it into the top 1,000, _then_ we could talk about polls being arbitrary.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Be it polls, games, or the Science project, the folks who participate get much enjoyment out of it. What I don't understand is why some other members can't just live with this fact. All you have to do is not click on these threads.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Be it polls, games, or the Science project, the folks who participate get much enjoyment out of it. What I don't understand is why some other members can't just live with this fact. All you have to do is not click on these threads.


We need good devil's advocates to further promote our faith in Classical music


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> If (to pick a work entirely at random) Onslow's 15th string quintet was voted the greatest classical work of all time, or if Wagner's Ring didn't make it into the top 1,000, _then_ we could talk about polls being arbitrary.


If we're talking about listening to complete, live performances rather than selections or highlights, without an elegant, luxurious venue, generous intermissions and good food and wine, I'd put an Onslow chamber work well ahead of the Ring. Wagner had a vision of how his work should be performed -- not for peasants like me.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I don't believe TC's Recommended Works is the most representative sample of favorites of this forum, and it may be reason why some are adverse to it. It has something to do with where I proved earlier that Wagner is many peoples' favorite composer (let's pretend as an example he is the favorite of like a whopping 15% of people, then he will for sure show up in the top 5 or 6. Except that he won't. Not under the current mechanisms we have.) Certain works are for sure several members' #1, for example not just Das Lied von der Erde or St. Matthew Passion, but others that simply don't show up near the top tier at all.) I do believe I have found the right method of gathering the most agreeable list possible, so get prepared for a new thread soon. If you don't care, then don't feel free to comment. It all has something to do with the votes of the TC Works thread being mixed between strong opinions and _only lukewarm_ opinions that get to vote, so many subgroups of people aren't being fairly represented with their favorites showing up near the top. It is hard for someone to say "I really strongly think X piece should be higher" and have people agree with that who don't really care what you think. Even those who give such weak opinions for the sake of voting, in turn their favorite tiers are suffering by others. This is very fixable, and have found a superior method, and plan to present the current representative list soon, as well as the game/mechanism to build on it. The real way is to gather the data only from the strongest of peoples' opinions. Rare fangroups of certain works and composers for instance, will find themselves near the top for everyone to see and reconsider, even if your tastes are very individualistic you will find yourself closer to the top. This may seem familiar and redundant: the more times a piece is in someone's top 10, and especially top 5, the more it gains significant points. I've proven it produces a vastly different result, and the game will allow you to change your own list anytime.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> This is very fixable, and have found a superior method, and plan to present the current representative list soon, as well as the game/mechanism to build on it.


Is it your intention to compete with the project headed by Science?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Is it your intention to compete with the project headed by Science?


 I plan to prove something by presenting the more accurate list of forum data we currently have. Give that a bit to collect. Then I don't feel I can compete with Science and his brilliant work and dedication, but I don't want to say one way or the other at this point, but I plan to prove something.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> Is it actually true that most people think some relatively minor composer's best symphony is better than beethoven's 4th? I doubt it.


It depends how one would define "better". Anyways, I don't bother with better or best. What I do know is that there are many dozens of symphonies I would rather hear than Beethoven's 4th.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The best example of the above I forgot to mention, was the Shostakovich vs Prokofiev debate. Here we're not talking about who's objectively better, but which one better represents the forum's taste. Two starkly different mechanisms were used to find this out, and we got two different answers.

The first method was similar to what TC's Recommended Works has. Every member was allowed to vote for either Shostakovich or Prokofiev. Simple. Right? The resulting answer by a significant margin was Prokofiev, and we soon noticed it contradicted the_ same people_ when using a different method.

In the second method, users were allowed to weigh just _how much_ they loved every composer. This was Art Rock's survey of forum volunteers. When 56 members submitted their opinions of favorite composers and how much they like them more than others, Shostakovich was then in a significant lead over Prokofiev.

So which answer is correct? In my opinion, one answer is clearly much more agreeable to the forum. The first method polled opinions where a majority of people really did not care as much about the question being asked, because it was just another poll; they weren't their favorite composers or had nearly as much personal experience with them. They just knew their answer was Prokofiev, but it wasn't overly-significant to them if Shostakovich won. The second method shows that Shostakovich is clearly the forum 'Favorite' to more people on this forum, and more people might get insulted if Prokofiev should win than if Shostakovich should win. That's all agreeability comes down to. It's the exact same way that members can feel insulted when they have strong opinions of a work and there's 10 other people who don't have the same care about any in the list and vote differently. The latter simply doesn't have the same _weight_ in this subject.

In the end, everyone is much more happy to let Shostakovich take the lead in the forum average. It settles the great displeasure of those passionate about the subject, thus method B produces a much more _agreeable_ list of things. I look forward to showing our forum's representative Top Works. I don't think it will have the same grandeur and size as Science's brilliant work, but it's possible even Science may expand upon the accurate game concept.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> The first method was similar to what TC's Recommended Works has. Every member was allowed to vote for either Shostakovich or Prokofiev. Simple. Right? The resulting answer by a significant margin was Prokofiev, and we soon noticed it contradicted the_ same people_ when using a different method.
> 
> In the second method, users were allowed to weigh just _how much_ they loved every composer. This was Art Rock's survey of forum volunteers. When 56 members submitted their opinions of favorite composers and how much they like them more than others, Shostakovich was then in a significant lead over Prokofiev.
> 
> ...


It's been a long time since I've looked at Art Rock's project, so I went back in time to give it another reading. In Method I, Shostakovich and Prokofiev are pitted against one another. With Art Rock's method, there is no one-on-one contest; the universe of composers are all in the mix. That makes for a very different foundation.

I also don't think that Prokofiev had a significant lead over Shosty in Art Rock's project. Number 13 is pretty close to no. 7.

Which method is better? Well, I'd say that their foundations and processes are so different that it's best not to reach a conclusion. I do prefer Art Rock's outcomes, because I prefer Shostakovich to Prokofiev.

I do want to give a shout-out to Art Rock for how he paced his project and handled the inevitable naysayers. It was done beautifully, allowing one and all to offer their comments on the ranking system and opinions about the on-going results. I sure don't have his patience.

As for Ethereality's assumptions about human motivation, I'm not buying them. They are opinions that might have merit or not. The problem is that he builds his case based on those opinions.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> As for Ethereality's assumptions about human motivation, I'm not buying them. They are opinions that might have merit or not. *The problem is that he builds his case based on those opinions.*


Not at all. Just see it from the correct, logical perspective. Both my post and your first paragraph were correct:

When you poll 2 composers against each other, or poll 15 works in a Tier, in the first scenario you only have 1 point to award 1 composer where you may want to award him your only +30, and where most people won't care to sacrifice it. In the second example you only have 5 points to give to a work where you might want to give a work 100 points, and where most others definitely don't want to waste their only +100. In both examples the person who wants to emphasize their strongest opinions, will always be outnumbered by a majority with more lukewarm opinions. You're never once able to achieve a true representation of forum opinions, the method can only ever represent a muddy haze of all the weaker unknowing opinions, with the strongest ones _fully_ muted. As when all individuals here with the lukewarm opinions want to demonstrate what they really love most from a different line-up, in return it's the same bad opportunity for them. Without exaggerating what I'm saying: within the 'muted points system' that has been set up, ie. 1 for 1, the method can only ever represent a muddy haze of almost all weaker opinions, every time a poll arrives. There's no gain and it isn't accurate, at most representing a misinformed survey of peoples' real opinions. The only accuracy is that people have 'manually arranged' just the Top tiers to look suitable.

With my method, which is in the works and almost finished with a great lineup of our Top pieces, the problem is solved for good. As you worded in P1: you are pitting all works in history together, so you can give whoever you want the points you think they deserve. Indeed, vastly different mechanisms and results. The Shostakovich vs Prokofiev example is an anecdote to demonstrate this difference between everyone giving the lukewarm "+1" to who they want, and people able to give whoever they want the "+30." The former kind of poll isn't accurate except for returning a weak probability that might sometimes be correct.

However, due to individuals not understanding the importance of the systems we're using, it might deter this project. If most people don't comprehend the difference between a higher and lower quality product, then there's no real reason to go with the service. People won't know the difference.

I again also thank Science and Art Rock for their persistent work and differing perspectives on this. I think I've noted it before. I'm not trying to compete with anything Science has done so well, but just giving some of my own reasoning and efforts. If people would like to see this potentially more accurate method, then please give note. I'm fine going either way.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Good luck to you. Give me a list - I'll vote. Give me points - I'll assign them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> The best example of the above I forgot to mention, was the Shostakovich vs Prokofiev debate. Here we're not talking about who's objectively better, but which one better represents the forum's taste. Two starkly different mechanisms were used to find this out, and we got two different answers.
> 
> The first method was similar to what TC's Recommended Works has. Every member was allowed to vote for either Shostakovich or Prokofiev. Simple. Right? The resulting answer by a significant margin was Prokofiev, and we soon noticed it contradicted the_ same people_ when using a different method.


I don't usually vote in polls (though I do sometimes comment and offer a preference) so I can't claim to follow closely who votes for what. But are you sure exactly the same people voted in each case?

It also seems to me a no-brainer that if you ask two different questions, you might get two different answers.

Why does it matter? All you can ever find out is the 'truth' at the time the question is put, to the people it is put to, in the way the question is framed. What you can't conclude is that you have reached some all-time, wholly accurate, fully representative answer.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> I don't usually vote in polls (though I do sometimes comment and offer a preference) so I can't claim to follow closely who votes for what. But are you sure exactly the same people voted in each case?
> 
> It also seems to me a no-brainer that if you ask two different questions, you might get two different answers.
> 
> Why does it matter? All you can ever find out is the 'truth' at the time the question is put, to the people it is put to, in the way the question is framed. What you can't conclude is that you have reached some all-time, wholly accurate, fully representative answer.


It's not so much about how many 56 frequents voted also in this specific poll, but that we can see the methodological difference between saying 'in 56 lists x number of people had Prokofiev higher' with no indication to how much, and 'in 56 lists everyone weighed Prokofiev actually 20% lower in rank overall.' There's a big difference in the _methodology _used, for all possible thousands of composer comparisons, not the one particular example I gave as an anecdote.

It is very much about getting the most accurate methodology for the forum, if you want to call it the 'all-time, wholly accurate solution,' then it would only be such for this particular type of list. It is logically, indisputably more accurate at obtaining the forum's average opinion, because it has much more personal nuances measured. I'm seeing works now show up in the Top Tiers of the new list that only appeared _rarely_ on member lists, by *Bach, Mahler, Liszt*. It's because those people love the works so much.
So far this is considering some few dozen peoples' lists, not all the new ones people may submit:

- Even though they weren't even mentioned as much, *Beethoven's String Quartet 13 with Große Fuge* as well as *No. 14* are ranking higher than all the Symphonies except no. 9. 
- *Mahler's 9th* is the 4th highest work overall, with *Das Lied von der Erde* close behind, far surpassing the *2nd*. 
- *St. Matthew Passion* is in 2nd place overall, the most beloved Bach work. 
- The *7th Symphony* made the best work by *Dvorak*, because a small portion of Dvorak fans seem to really 'love' it, even though more people have the 9th in their list. 
- Wouldn't you know that* Chopin* is well-liked on this forum? He makes it into the equivalent of Tier 5 with his *Nocturnes*.
- None of these are tweaked by a bunch of lukewarm voters, saying what goes where. *Definitely more representative.*


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> It's not so much about how many 56 frequents voted in the other poll, but that we can see the difference between saying 'in 56 lists x number of people had Prokofiev higher' with no indication to how much, and 'in 56 lists everyone weighed Prokofiev actually 20% lower.' There's a big difference in the _methodology _used, not the particular example. It is very much about getting the most accurate methodology for the forum, if you want to call it the 'all-time, wholly accurate solution,' it's only such to this particular type of list.


I certainly understand that different methodology might lead to different outcomes. Of course. So what? I may be mistaken in my reading of polls claiming to be 'all-time', but I think the posters concerned have a sense of hyperbole. I don't think they are seriously searching for some all-time truth that, for example, SP is, definitively, not only most preferred over DSCH, but given that this is a poll of the real cognoscenti of classical music, also 'the best'.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> I certainly understand that different methodology might lead to different outcomes. Of course. So what?


Well I don't need to say or prove it's the best current methodology at representing the forum's average opinions. People can figure that out for themselves. I just provided the clear reason it is.

People will start liking these lists more, because the methodology is more accurate. It doesn't mean the list itself is some ultimate truth. It's a collection of opinions of a forum. If nobody cares about it, then I don't need to start the survey/game for it. Very simple for me. I'm waiting for people to comprehend the significance of such a methodology and want to go forth with it. If not, Science has clearly done more than anyone would expect, and I hope he will keep on continuing past me.



MacLeod said:


> For example, SP is, definitively, not only most preferred over DSCH, but given that this is a poll of the real cognoscenti of classical music, also 'the best'.


This is going onto a different subject. It's best not to take forum stats and lists overly seriously, but our best _TC's Favorite Composers_ surveys have Shostakovich higher ranked overall. If you personally disagree with it, that is more like stating the obvious than what I'm doing. People disagree, yes. It has nothing to do with the topic.

Talk Classical's Most Recommended Composers
Ranking the composers - a list generated based on personal preference of 56 TC member

Showing a poll where Prokofiev wins, is inaccurate to the case of the forum, as I've proven (not something 'of the obvious'). Because in polls, people can only assign points of +1 to each, it doesn't show _how much_ people like them.

What you're probably not realizing is how much you'd personally like this new list more than the current one. It is simply more representative to everyone, which doesn't mean any 1 person will agree with it (as is the standard case.) So if anyone else is interested in participating, lemme know.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> r 5 with his *Nocturnes*.None of these are tweaked by a bunch of lukewarm voters, saying what goes where. *Definitely more representative.*


You definitely don't like those lukewarm voters. Let's get rid of them.:cheers:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Well I'll happily give it a shot, but I would echo Macleod's comment: "All you can ever find out is the 'truth' at the time the question is put, to the people it is put to, in the way the question is framed."

Any of us who have run polls or games have our own preferred method of getting the answer, and while you may be confident that your method is the best, you're absolutely guaranteed that someone will confidently identify a fatal flaw in it. And of course no matter what the results, you're absolutely guaranteed that someone will point out that they're wrong. Remember my thread "Let's rank the composer rankings"? Let's rank the composer rankings! Although some lists were liked less than others, there was no consensus about which was the best. I think most of us are happy with a list that looks _approximately_ "right".

But I'm being too negative! I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2020)

I'm missing something here. When one speaks of the 'best' methodology for a poll, what are the criteria for 'best'?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> I'm missing something here. When one speaks of the 'best' methodology for a poll, what are the criteria for 'best'?


Maybe we need a poll to decided which methodology is the best for a poll.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> You definitely don't like those lukewarm voters. Let's get rid of them.:cheers:





Nereffid said:


> Well I'll happily give it a shot, but I would echo Macleod's comment: "All you can ever find out is the 'truth' at the time the question is put, to the people it is put to, in the way the question is framed."
> 
> Any of us who have run polls or games have our own preferred method of getting the answer, and while you may be confident that your method is the best, you're absolutely guaranteed that someone will confidently identify a fatal flaw in it. And of course no matter what the results, you're absolutely guaranteed that someone will point out that they're wrong. Remember my thread "Let's rank the composer rankings"? Let's rank the composer rankings! Although some lists were liked less than others, there was no consensus about which was the best. I think most of us are happy with a list that looks _approximately_ "right".
> 
> But I'm being too negative! I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out.


Thank you for your optimism! Let's see where the next couple days gets me. I am hoping to hear from Science.



MacLeod said:


> I'm missing something here. When one speaks of the 'best' methodology for a poll, what are the criteria for 'best'?


Best is a buzzword. What I hinted at was 'best at representing the forum,' and that people may actually start liking these types of lists more because the mechanism works better: What you do is ask everyone which list they agree with more, once we get the data in the second one. My rationale was the mechanism used here is much more sensible than the first list, and will be the more agreeable list in the end. The logic inherently points to this, but people don't see it the way I do, and maybe need to see some end proof. The list you contribute yourself will be constantly changeable by you. My prior explanations above were geared toward getting people on board with understanding why the new idea will work well. But as pointed out, I'm open to better implementations in the future for coming up with a more agreeable list.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> It depends how one would define "better". Anyways, I don't bother with better or best. What I do know is that there are many dozens of symphonies I would rather hear than Beethoven's 4th.


You must be one of those contrarians that Malx's post referred to.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> a more agreeable list.


What you seem to want to do - and you're obviously entitled to run a poll as you wish - is to find the 'best' methodology to get the 'right' outcome, as exemplified by your concern that in some polls, Shostakovich and Prokofiev are ranked in the 'wrong' order. I'm not sure I think it necessary to try to correct these 'mistakes'.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> What you seem to want to do - and you're obviously entitled to run a poll as you wish - is to find the 'best' methodology to get the 'right' outcome, as exemplified by your concern that in some polls, Shostakovich and Prokofiev are ranked in the 'wrong' order. I'm not sure I think it necessary to try to correct these 'mistakes'.


This comment illustrates very well why there can never be an "objectively" or scientifically correct ranking other than of some rough measure of popularity -- number of performances, number of recordings, etc. I made light of my learned colleague Nereffid's comment above regarding ranking an Onslow quintet above Wagner's Ring Cycle (sorry, good man!). And yet, on a hot summer afternoon like today, I'd much rather take a glass of cold lemonade and listen to a performance of the former than the latter. Aside from whether Onslow's talents and capabilities compare unfavorably to Wagner's, Onslow's goals and purposes in writing his chamber music are nothing like Wagner's in writing his Ring Cycle. Similarly, Shostakovich and Prokofiev, though Russian contemporaries who knew each other, and often paired together for discussion purposes, have very different styles, aesthetic sensibilities and artistic goals.

It would make more sense to say Mendelssohn's or Schumann's chamber music "should be" ranked ahead of Onslow's, and certainly would be by most popularity metrics, but even there, the true chamber music mavens here would easily poke holes in any objective or musicological measure, and I do not wish to provoke them.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

fluteman said:


> I made light of my learned colleague Nereffid's comment above regarding ranking an Onslow quintet above Wagner's Ring Cycle (sorry, good man!). And yet, on a hot summer afternoon like today, I'd much rather take a glass of cold lemonade and listen to a performance of the former than the latter. Aside from whether Onslow's talents and capabilities compare unfavorably to Wagner's, Onslow's goals and purposes in writing his chamber music are nothing like Wagner's in writing his Ring Cycle.


I don't disagree with this, and my reference to Onslow v Wagner wasn't intended as a value judgement of any sort, just a reflection of the fact that we know the Wagner is more popular/better known than the Onslow and hence would expect it to rank a lot higher in a poll of recommendations.

But yeah, if there's ever a Talk Classical Community's Favourite and Most Highly Recommended Works For Listening To On A Hot Summer Afternoon While Drinking Lemonade... well, actually the Onslow probably isn't well enough known to do very well there either...!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> I am hoping to hear from Science.


I'm sorry, I didn't know you were waiting on anything from me.

I don't actually understand the methodology you propose, but if you want to do it, you should do it regardless of anything I think about it!

I wouldn't view a different method or a different list as competing but as complementary.

And anyway, who cares what I think? Do your thing, bro!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I don't disagree with this, and my reference to Onslow v Wagner wasn't intended as a value judgement of any sort, just a reflection of the fact that we know the Wagner is more popular/better known than the Onslow and hence would expect it to rank a lot higher in a poll of recommendations.
> 
> But yeah, if there's ever a Talk Classical Community's Favourite and Most Highly Recommended Works For Listening To On A Hot Summer Afternoon While Drinking Lemonade... well, actually the Onslow probably isn't well enough known to do very well there either...!


I'm actually an Onslow fan. My main point was, I'm not sitting through a Ring cycle under circumstances that include any trace of physical discomfort. Heck, even Beethoven wrote some lighter music for when you want to relax with your favorite beverage on a warm summer evening. Onslow's chamber music strikes me as ideal for an elegant yet informal garden party. I'll wear my cotton searsucker blazer. Where's that glass of Sancerre? Mmmm. Go ahead and rank Onslow in the 110th tier. I'm feeling no pain.


----------

