# Ranking



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

I have some questions for rankers:

What does it do for you?

Does it help you appreciate what you're listening to?

Do you enjoy Mahler's ninth more, for instance, if you have ranked it above Beethoven's ninth? Do you enjoy it more if other people agree with your ranking? Less if they don't?

There must be some utility to it; so many people do it. It certainly seems to be important to many people.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

some guy said:


> I have some questions for rankers:
> 
> What does it do for you?
> 
> ...


I'm not a ranker so I'm afraid I can't answer it. There are plenty who may be able to oblige so I'll just stand back and watch the fun.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

It satisfies my OCD. 

My rankings are for fun and shouldn't be taken seriously. We all do it because we have favorites. Whenever I see a piece "ranked" high in a lot of other people's lists that I don't know, however, it does encourage me to investigate the piece and to see what I'm missing. I have discovered some great works this way. My opinion though is as long as we use the term "favorite" as opposed to "greatest" then I'm okay with it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I just want recommendations and I want them prioritized. 

Do you have any idea how many recordings there are out there? 

Even a much smaller number, like how many are recommended on a site like this every day, is far too much to keep up with. 

So what am I supposed to hear? Everything? 

So yeah, I need rankings. Maybe you're so knowledgeable that you don't. Fine with me. But at least allow those people who are willing to help me, to do so in peace.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

i agree with science and olias. It's just a useful method to discover music


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> I have some questions for rankers:
> 
> What does it do for you?
> 
> ...


Ranking is fun. I don't take the discussion so seriously like you probably do. Does it matter to me if the whole world thought Handel's operas were the greatest pile of elephant excretum since _Almira_? Will it change my listening preference? No, it will not. But does it matter to you if I thought Xenakis was a crap composer? I leave that up to you. Because it is fun around an internet dicussion forum and at dinner tables to praise and to "diss" composers we love and don't love. It's no different to what many listeners did in Baroque opera houses during your favourite Baroque composer's (Telemann) time, to crappy weird electronic concert halls today in 2011. Many rank and many will continue to rank.

But I do confess a lot of rankings are plain stupid. Is Beethoven's symphony #9 greater than Pachelbel's popular canon? My rankings are far more meaningful, which you might agree with one day when I invite you over to have dinner. 

So, who do you think is / was the greatest electronic composer since Stockhausen? Give us your top five.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I agree with sience. It is a way of organazing. As long as you are aware of all the different styles, all the personal tastes, all nuances, ranking is good. 

And it is very informative and interresting for newcomers, I think. When I was new (and I still is) I looked for reccomandations. But people have different taste, and so on. I like to use the word RECCOMANDATIONS more than ranking. Not all classical lovers have set their taste in concrete. And that is good.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

+1 for science's comments also. For me, it's not a goal of listening, but a means. A way of adding structure to what I choose to listen to with my limited time.

Unless I'm just trying to annoy someone by saying that Brahms is better than whoever they like.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

science said:


> I just want recommendations and I want them prioritized.
> 
> Do you have any idea how many recordings there are out there?
> 
> ...


I inderstand what you are saying and have a lot of sympathy with that view. Some people want to get acquainted as quickly as possible with works which are generally considered to be the best available, and they find that by looking at existing rankings or by stimulating a fresh discussion about rankings in an ordered manner that they can keep tabs on just as you have very ably done, is the best way to acquire that knowledge. Some people may feel completely intimated by the enormous variety of material available, and unless they personally have been instrumental in creating an "objective" list of "best works" they couldn't cope with the stresses of learning the game by any other means.

I must admit that in the past I have relied on "rankings" to a large extent in building up my own collection. But I never did treat them as the "gospel" any more than I guess you do, but more as indicating roughly what's worth trying out first in some kind of sensible priority order.

But once you have acquired the "knowledge", or generally feel confident that you know what's what in classical music, it's easy to become more cynical about the ranking process carried out by others. This is because you soon discover after maybe a couple of years or so that your matured tastes diverge quite a bit from those embodied in the various ranked lists of so-called top works that abound.

For example, I like J S Bach but do not much care for his Mass in B Minor. I like Beethoven but do not place his Choral Symphony in the No 1 spot, the reason being that I'm bored stiff with it. The same story repeats all the way down the chain of so-called top rated works. I prefer works which are often off the "radar" of ranked lists. For example, I prefer Schubert's much less well-known paino sonatas to the last three. I like Schumann's symphonies more than any of Brahms or Bruckner or Mahler, because I like their shorter more "gutsy" feel that Schumann's works possess in my estimation, rather than the more overblown and long-winded or over-refined efforts by others.

But as a learning device, I don't have any objections to ranked lists, and good luck to all who sail in them. I'm pretty sure, though, that one day present-day devotees of these lists willl begin to appreciate more the opinions of those who rather sneer at them, as they too come to appreciate the highly indicative nature of these things and how much their own matured tastes diverge from these so-called "greatest" lists.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Ranking is fun.


I know that. I was trying to see if people could explain why it's fun.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I don't take the discussion so seriously like you probably do.


Yes, we know you don't take discussions seriously at all, any of them. That's why discussing things with you, whether we take the things themselves seriously or not, is impossible.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> So, who do you think is / was the greatest electronic composer since Stockhausen? Give us your top five.


I don't do ranking. That's why I started this thread. I'm curious about the thinking of those who do. So you're asking me to rank? Hahahaha.

Stockhausen has never been a composer who has interested me much. Certain individual pieces, sure. Some of those are "great" favorites of mine. As for other electroacoustic composers, I know and enjoy too many of them to have only five favorites. As for "great," well, this is how I listen: the piece I'm listening to at the time is the piece I'm listening to.

Of course, I know when it was written, how it fits in with other pieces written at the same time, or earlier, or later, but that's not what I'm concentrating on at the moment of listening or even what fuels my enjoyment of it (or my distaste for it). I could tell you who I return to again and again, but that would be a much longer list than five.

And besides, since you only ask for names in order to make fart jokes and not to find out anything about music you don't know, there's very little incentive to give you any names. I'm sure you'll understand. Indeed, I'm not sure why I even wrote this post!!*

*Oh, right. It was to rephrase part of the query of the OP: why do those who take rankings seriously take them seriously?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...
> 
> Do you enjoy Mahler's ninth more, for instance, if you have ranked it above Beethoven's ninth? Do you enjoy it more if other people agree with your ranking? Less if they don't?
> 
> ...


I think you actually wrote that you like what you are listening to at the moment the most. It changes every time you listen to something different. That's how I am. I go through phases with classical music. I had about a 10 year hiatus with J.S. Bach for example, now I'm getting back to his music, esp. his solo instrumental & chamber music. It was triggered off unexpectedly at a concert here earlier in the year which included the concerto for two violins, which bought me to tears (the middle movement).

So basically, I too am not interested in rankings, for various reasons, but I am not very consistent and I'm quite emotional. If I tried to go through and listen to say Bach's "top 10" works, based on whoever's opinion (& I have several books with such lists, and of course there's a lot of them online like here on TC), I would basically get bored very quickly. I just go by instinct, I go into a shop and buy whatever catches my eye. A few weeks back it was _The Musical Offering_ on special, I got it and I quite like it. Similarly a new recording just came out with one of the finest chamber musicians in this country, Michael Goldschlager, doing Bach's cello suites, and I got that on special & I'm going through that at the moment as well.

That's how I operate, with instinct, commonsense and a good amount of background knowledge, on basic-intermediate level. I don't like lists because they kind of bore me and not my way of getting into music, I see them as straightjackets almost...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Wow. I hadn't realized how fortunate I am to already have the complete scoop on classical music. This may explain why polls here disgust me.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Ranking doesn't mean anything, even when coming from professionals. Its just an opinion. People just do it because they feel like ranking things.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

What you call ranking is in fact reccomandation! I like to give, and I like to recieve. Some people like to share their favourites. Some people want to recieve the advices from others. It is as simple as that. Then it has different forms in different threads, but that is the essense.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

> But as a learning device, I don't have any objections to ranked lists, and good luck to all who sail in them. I'm pretty sure, though, that one day present-day devotees of these lists willl begin to appreciate more the opinions of those who rather sneer at them, as they too come to appreciate the highly indicative nature of these things and how much their own matured tastes diverge from these so-called "greatest" lists.


I am sorry, Artemis... I dont often get angry in here, but I am quite right now. You have the knowledge, and I hope you are comfortable with it. Some other people dont have the same knowledge (or "truth") and they want to discover. A very good way to discover is to see other peoples reccomandations. In list form, in "currently listening" form, in games, and so on. It is not like "some people tell me to like.." Personal taste is filtering all advices. We have talked about how we find good advices, inspiration, knowledge and new favourites. You talk and discuss further as if you have not read a word.

Your "mature" talking is nothing but snobbery


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm pretty skeptical about the traditional music lists we've been doing. We're working with such a vast timeframe here that it's hard to make meaningful comparisons, especially when the lists are simply divided into genres like symphony, concerto, etc. I think they might have more meaning, however, if we try to separate music by _goal_ instead of "overall quality."

- Some music tries to be dramatic (Beethoven symphonies)
- Some music tries to be tragic (Wagner operas)
- Some music tries to be comedic (Pergolesi operas, Haydn sonatas)
- Some music tries to be beautiful (Tchaikovsky symphonies)
- Some music tries to be descriptive (Albeniz's Iberia)
- Some music tries to be exotic (Bartok's Music for blahblahblah)
- Some music tries to be frightening (Reich's Different Trains)
- Some music tries to be playful (Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker)
- Some music tries to be intimate (Brahms's Intermezzi)
- Some music has the working out of a compositional process as the primary goal (Bach's fugues)
- Some music has experimentation as the primary goal (Cowell's The Banshee)

Certainly some compositions are more effective based on how they accomplish their goals. If we clearly understand what the goal of a composer is, then we can "rate" a composer on how well we feel he accomplished his goals and then create a list based on that.

Again, however, it doesn't make sense to compare a piece that has the working out of a compositional process as their primary goal, with a piece that is trying to primarily be frightening, for instance. It's like comparing a Comedy film to a Horror film. And of course compositions can have multiple goals, so we should allow for that too.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Yes, we know you don't take discussions seriously at all, any of them. That's why discussing things with you, whether we take the things themselves seriously or not, is impossible.


One reason for that is because I resolutely know what I like and I know what I am open to, which is nearly everything, and I know what crap I don't like for now. The latter is one reason why I am here at TC, that maybe one day, industrial chainsaw noise might sound as sweet as how you and a minority enjoy it (or at least perceive to enjoy it). So, I have a bit of homework to do with industrial chainsaw noise but I also enjoy a bit of fun along the way.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

Artemis said:


> Some people want to get acquainted as quickly as possible with works which are generally considered to be the best available, and they find that by looking at existing rankings or by stimulating a fresh discussion about rankings in an ordered manner that they can keep tabs on just as you have very ably done, is the best way to acquire that knowledge.


Yes. This makes sense. That is, I understand that this could be how some people approach the matter.



Artemis said:


> Some people may feel completely intim[id]ated by the enormous variety of material available, and unless they personally have been instrumental in creating an "objective" list of "best works" they couldn't cope with the stresses of learning the game by any other means.


I've noticed this. I never felt this myself, not with classical, anyway. I did feel this way with jazz (and so never explored it to nearly the same extent). What I felt with classical was that most of what I listened to was really cool, and I just wanted more and more and more. Intimidating? Not at all. Exhilarating more like. I welcomed the enormous variety. Still do.

I never saw a ranked list that I agreed with, even when I was just starting out and knew practically nothing. I did some ranking myself from time to time when I was little. But I could never get too excited about it. I was always thinking, even for my own rankings, "but what about...?"

Anyway, a list of recommendations seems very different from a ranking. That is, saying "Beethoven's ninth is my favorite symphony" seems very different from saying "Beethoven's ninth is the greatest symphony" or "Mahler's ninth is great but Beethoven's ninth is greater."


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Lists, rankings, polls can be fun, but like anything else they can be driven into the ground with frequency.

I think it makes more sense, and can be more useful, to rate interpretations and performances of a single work, rather than simply pitting two works against each other.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

A couple things. This tone...



Artemis said:


> But *once you have acquired* the "knowledge"





Artemis said:


> *matured* tastes diverge quite a bit from those embodied in the various ranked lists of *so-called* top works





Artemis said:


> But as a *learning device*





Artemis said:


> *one day* present-day devotees of these lists willl begin to appreciate more the opinions of those who rather sneer at them





Artemis said:


> *come to appreciate* the highly indicative nature of these things and how much their own matured tastes diverge from* these*





some guy said:


> I never saw a ranked list that I agreed with, *even when I was just starting out and knew practically nothing*.





some guy said:


> I did some ranking myself from time to time *when I was little*.


... is the only thing I find disconcerting about this thread. So, we're immature for ranking things? Because, obviously, when we are older we'll be beyond that, won't we? I don't think so. The people who list works must have a good deal of knowledge to list more than 200 piano works they know and love. I don't appreciate the condescending attitude towards those that do make lists and have fun at it.

I also wanted to address this...



Artemis said:


> *so-called* "greatest" lists.





some guy said:


> That is, saying "Beethoven's ninth is my favorite symphony" seems very different from saying "Beethoven's ninth is the greatest symphony" or "Mahler's ninth is great but Beethoven's ninth is greater."


The TC Recommended Lists explicitly use the word "recommended" not "greatest". This is no coincidence, I should point out. There is a good reason for this. We have never claimed "greatest" anything, just works that we, collectively, _most_ recommend. So there you have it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

Air said:


> So, we're immature for ranking things? Because, obviously, when we are older we'll be beyond that, won't we?


Not at all. For me, anyway. I was just pointing out that ranking was never a very important part of my experience, even when I was little, even when I didn't know very much.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

oskaar said:


> ...Some other people dont have the same knowledge (or "truth") and they want to discover. A very good way to discover is to see other peoples reccomandations. In list form, in "currently listening" form, in games, and so on. It is not like "some people tell me to like.." Personal taste is filtering all advices. We have talked about how we find good advices, inspiration, knowledge and new favourites. You talk and discuss further as if you have not read a word.
> ...


I agree it's sometimes easy for those of us who have listened to classical music for decades to forget how some lists can serve as guides for newbies or even those who know classical but want to explore genres/composers/etc. new to them.

As far as that goes, that's fine.

However, what I really dislike, is putting composers into categories and "tiers," eg. so-called first-rate, second-rate, third-rate, etc. Same with an individual composers' output. Like I like Weber's symphonies, piano concertos and the bassoon concerto more than the other things I've heard by him. They may be "second tier" works of his compared to his operas, but I don't like opera that much, it's my least favoured genre, so where does that leave me? If I'd followed these people's recommendations/opinions about what to listen to of Weber, which would inevitably put his operas and clarinet works first (which I don't like as much at the abovementioned works), then I would end up thinking his music is not really my cut of tea, but as I know, quite a lot of it actually is. So can these lists be deceptive? Dunno.

So there's limits to these things, and basically it involves commonsense (& yes, a process of filtering/sifting, as you say)...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And people who harp on the rankers might just be trying to assert their superiority over those less experience than them when they would do better to help them. Come on now.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Not at all.


You probably shouldn't have said so about 8 times then.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

_*i've never seen such unabashed arrogance

we're just trying to educate ourselves

we have acknowledged your superiority

if you're even above helping us then at least leave us alone
*_


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I don't try to keep any sort of objective "rankings" because that's too clinical a view of something as human as art, but if you do, all the more power to you.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that some guy may well be reacting not necessarily to the rankings on this forum, but _another_ forum which I used to frequent and is frankly cactus.

As far as the rankings go on TC, I'm not bothered about it that much, as it is confined to certain threads which I or anybody else has the freedom to opt out of if they wish...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bitching about ranking is anywhere from 10-15X more annoying and useless than ranking could ever hope to be.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^If ranking goes along with some kind of analysis or debate or informed discussion, then I'm fine with it. If it is of some benefit to someone that's fine. But I kind of find it a bit boring, but as I said, disinterested people like myself have the freedom to simply opt out...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think when it comes to ranking the type of music member some guy enjoys listening to, almost everyone on the planet would rank it poorly. I wonder if that bothers him, hence this thread. No offence, just a thought.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I enjoy making rankings (subjective preferences - by definition) probably because of some OCD indeed. I enjoy other people's rankings because, even with 25 years of experience listening to classical music and thousands of CD's on our shelves, they allow me to discover new masterpieces like Myaskovsky's sixth symphony.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't do ranking.

Oh don't pull that holier than thou crap. It wasn't all that long ago that Almaviva started a thread in which he suggested that Gerschwin's Porgy and Bess just might have been the best American opera to which you harrumphed and threw out a list of the usual electronic noise boyz who you insisted were all more worthy of the title. How many minutes ago did you write this: "I told my colleague that the 9th was my least favorite Dvorak symphony."? If that's not "ranking, what is it?

The notion that you just some musical Zen guru who lets music wash over you without the least tinge of preconceived notions about music or the least idea of expectations is just pure bunk and the usual lame attempt (rather like this thread as a whole) at promoting your superior approach to music over the rest of the musical dwarfs on this site.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

Tell us how you _really_ feel, St!

Anyway, if it's possible to wrench this away from the ad homs, I'd like to try to get across the idea that lists and ranking are two different things. It's possible to make a ranked list, of course, but not all lists are ranked.

It's also possible to learn something from a ranked list. Of course one can pull something good from those things. That's not what I was curious about.

I wanted to know what the activity of ranking does for the rankers. I haven't really heard from those folks, yet.

That the people who use lists, ranked or otherwise, to discover new things should have ever gotten the idea that I'm somehow contemptuous of them and their uses of lists is troubling. Any means by which one discovers things new to them is a good thing in my book.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Ranking can be fun. We're not miserable enough to take things so seriously either.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I must say that I have a degree of respect & admiration for those here on TC who take part on these lists/top recommendations threads for various reasons. Esp. that they can be so systematic, which I am not and can't, basically. There is dedication there and great passion, as well as curiosity and natural enquiry. The fruits of this is what you said here -



> ...Any means by which one discovers things new to them is a good thing in my book.


I said these lists seemed restrictive to me, but maybe I was pushing it too far. I do like to read these lists in books. But I have a number of books on composers, and none of them say that some of my favourite works by certain composers are among their "top 10" or so works.

Eg. Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto,_ which I really like, comes to mind. Often, his_ Piano Concerto_ is on the list, the one for violin is absent. Same with Weber as I recalled above, nobody would say his symphonies are in the top ten of his output. But they are probably my favourite works by him regardless.

I don't know what this means to me, probably nothing. Lists ultimately reflect the list maker much more than the things what the list is about or ranking. So you have to take them with a grain of salt perhaps. But that is commonsense, do we take anything someone says, even for example an expert, at face value? We have a right to challenge and think about what they are saying, we don't have to be like a flock of sheep being led anywhere where the shepherd wants them to go...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> I wanted to know what the activity of ranking does for the rankers. I haven't really heard from those folks, yet.


You've heard from about a dozen of us.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

some guy said:


> Tell us how you _really_ feel, St!
> 
> Anyway, if it's possible to wrench this away from the ad homs, I'd like to try to get across the idea that lists and ranking are two different things. It's possible to make a ranked list, of course, but not all lists are ranked.
> 
> ...


Part of it is promoting the music we like and hopefully tempt other people to have a listen as well. For example - Almaviva was overjoyed that Berlioz' "Les Troyens" made the top five in the most recommended operas poll because it meant that more people might check it out, and several have done so. He could (and has done so) just write a review where he sums up why he thinks "Les Troyens" is so awesome, but after a few days that review ends up on page 12 and nobody will be aware of it anymore. But the top five ranking on that list is a constant reminder of the greatness of that opera - at least in the opinion of those that cared enough to participate in the poll.

Personally I fail to see why people on classical music forums object to lists and polls whereas nobody has a problem with them anywhere else. Go to a rock forum and ask for everyone's favorite albums, on a movie forum for their favorite movies, on a sports forum for their lists of greatest tennis players or boxers and you're much less likely to have people object - although everyone might have a go at everyone else's lists of course. But be that as it may - do something similar on a classical music forum and you'll spend half your time defending yourself and explaining why you've got it in your head to do such a thing to begin with.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Artemis said:


> But once you have acquired the "knowledge", or generally feel confident that you know what's what in classical music, it's easy to become more cynical about the ranking process carried out by others. This is because you soon discover after maybe a couple of years or so that your matured tastes diverge quite a bit from those embodied in the various ranked lists of so-called top works that abound.





some guy said:


> I never saw a ranked list that I agreed with, even when I was just starting out and knew practically nothing.





Sid James said:


> But I have a number of books on composers, and none of them say that some of my favourite works by certain composers are among their "top 10" or so works.


These quotes can be taken in two ways. One view is that there are lists which differ slightly with each poster's personal preferences. All of us would agree that people are at least somewhat different in their choices for music. Presumably, the posters meant that the lists they have seen differ markedly from their preferences.

I have the opposite belief. What has surprised me as I've become more and more familiar with a wider variety of music is that I actually agree rather well with "expert" lists. My favorite works are very often those listed as the composers "greatest" works. Similarly, I agree very closely with the lists of "greatest" composers. People I know personally have the same belief.

Since I don't have any significant musical training and don't analyze music in any way, I am surprised that my preferences would agree well with those who do have such training and do analyze music (i.e. the "experts'). I think this general agreement of a wide group of people both expert and not indicates something significant about how the brain responds to music.

Since I tend to agree well with others, lists have been especially helpful to me in trying out new music. As I mentioned in another thread, without an "expert" list to consult I think my early exploration into classical music would have been much less positive and I may not have grown to love it as much as I do.

@someguy: In the same thread you said you'd probably not love classical music if you _had_ consulted such expert lists. Given how you tastes differ markedly with the "experts", I can understand your feeling toward such lists.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Personally I fail to see why people on classical music forums object to lists and polls whereas nobody has a problem with them anywhere else...


There is a strong correlation between those who resent lists/rankings the most and them knowing their own favourites don't often rank very well. I'm almost sure if they happen to find their music rank well anyway by broad consensus, this would be a none issue. "I like fart music, but deep down it bothers me that many don't rank these fart pieces terribly well".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> @someguy: In the same thread you said you'd probably not love classical music if you _had_ consulted such expert lists. Given how you tastes differ markedly with the "experts", I can understand your feeling toward such lists.


Agree. My point directly above.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> There must be some utility to it; so many people do it. It certainly seems to be important to many people.


There is enormous utility in ranking things. Animals could not exist without constantly ranking behavioral choices. Without ranking behaviors, for example, you'd never eat, and you'd quickly be dead. Obviously the vast majority of our ranking is subconscious, be we constantly do it.

Given the need to rank behaviors, I don't think it's surprising that some (many?) people would elevate this basic survival instinct to a conscious activity related to non-critical behaviors. I can't say I understand exactly why that might be so.

Interestingly, when I discussed lists on TC with my wife, she asked what percentage of TC members were men. She felt that the "need" to rank things would be much more common among men than among women. To my knowledge the number of women participating in the Top TC lists and the music project is smaller then what would be expected from their representation in TC. I'm not sure any woman contributed for a significant length of time in any list, but I may have forgotten (or not know the sex of some people).


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There is a strong correlation between those who resent lists/rankings the most and them knowing their own favourites don't often rank very well. I'm almost sure if they happen to find their music rank well anyway by broad consensus, this would be a none issue. "I like fart music, but deep down it bothers me that many don't rank these fart pieces terribly well".


I think a poll on living and/or 21st century composers and/or their works could be very interesting actually. Let's face it - most of us already know that Le Nozze di Figaro and the Brandenburg Concertos are great. It would be interesting to see if those who are into contemporary music in a big way could reach a similar sort of consensus about what's great today. It could be effective in promoting the stuff they like. Even those who think modern classical music is not for them would be likely to go (maybe much to their surprise), "hmm, I like this piece" a few times during the course of the process.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I kind of like reading peoples rankings sometimes but I hate ranking things myself, mostly because I can't do it haha. I can't even pick a top ten composers because pretty much every composer I listen to I feel is equal in quality in their own unique way to any other composer I listen to...thats how it is in my mind anyway. So this set of 10 composers is just as good as this set of 10 so how can I choose?? Let alone pick a lonely #1!

Edit: Dear me, I am so sorry for the terribly incoherent sentence structures. It is 4 in the morning here >.<


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Like a few have said...it gives you another perspective which may lead you to discover something great you may not have otherwise run across...same goes for the lists...tambien, it's fun.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

There are lists, and then there are lists. Same goes for polls. Both thingies either serve a useful purpose, have some detectable value, _or they don't_. For instance, a poll asking ['which of these three composers is the *greatest*? Josquin -- Brahms -- Finnessey] has no value that I can detect. TC has a plethora of similar polls on file. TC also has several 'sticky' Top 100 -type ranking lists. I can see a value in them, even though they don't much interest me.

Maybe the next moderator to be signed up could be given the title of Poll Czar. [I am not volunteering]


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think that the idea that as one matures or becomes more experienced and knowledgeable of an art form one becomes less likely to employ such lists is pure bunk. For all someguy's purported background in literature, I suspect that critics such as Harold Bloom and Clifton Fadiman and T.S. Eliot and Samuel Coleridge and Ezra Pound, and Samuel Johnson and many others knew/know literature far more intimately and in far greater depth... and yet this did not prevent them from making such lists of the authors they felt represented the "best" of literature. In T.S. Eliot's classic essay, _Tradition and the Individual Talent_, the poet/critic spoke of the ideal "canon" that we all hold onto... however loosely... and how each truly great new work of art forces us to adjust this canon... however slightly. Does this mean as we are listening to a given composer we are always rating him or her? Of course not. While listening to Mozart's Requiem I'm not running a comparison in my mind to Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis_, Haydn's _Mass in the Time of War_, and Bach's _Mass in B-minor_... although I might do so after the fact. Of course there are moments that will inspire comparison. Just recently I was listening to Mozart's final piano concertos and I could not help but recognize just how suggestive of Beethoven their muscularity and use of percussion and other instrumentation was.

As an artist I have spent endless hours looking at the paintings, prints, drawings, sculpture, architecture etc... from across the ages and across cultural divides. While standing before one of Bonnard's exquisite sensual paintings I never find myself thinking, "Yeah... it's nice... but not as good as Picasso." But then again I will not deny that I hold some loose idea as to who are the greatest artists, the greatest painters, the greatest of a given nationality or period... however loose these ideas may be. There have been days after which the group of us who share the studio space have grown tired of a day's painting, and we gather around on the big couch in my space and break open a few beers... and then one of our group queries, "OK... if you could own any 10 paintings in the world, but you had to live with them... and couldn't sell them... what would they be?" Each of us thinks for a while and throws out ideas: Botticelli's _Primavera_, Ingres' _Portrait of the Princesse Albert de Broglie nee Josephine-Eleonore Marie Pauline_, Rubens' _Family Portrait_ c. 1630, Rembrandt's _Self Portrait_ 1669. No... I'm not consciously thinking of art within this "canon" from the number 1 spot on down the line... but I do have an idea of that which has clearly had the greatest impact upon the narrative of art... and that which has clearly had the most profound impact upon me personally. I also recognize that both of these are fluid and ever-changing... but still of value in clarifying my own thinking and sharing what I value with others.

I must agree with HC that there is something of sour grapes involved in the continued complaints about lists and rankings. Rather like the student pulling less than stellar grades in school who declares that he doesn't believe grades measure anything, it would indeed seem that some of those who complain most about rankings and lists do so simply because these lists fail to reinforce their own preferences.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

a poll asking ['which of these three composers is the greatest? Josquin -- Brahms -- Finnessey] has no value that I can detect.

Unless it is to draw attention to composers (such as Josquin and Finnessey) that many Brahms fans may have never even heard of, let alone contemplated.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

Well, I have not found out anything about what I started this thread to find out. But I have found out some pretty interesting things.

One is the almost immediate perception, subsequently reinforced over and over again, that the purpose of this thread was to criticize ranks and ranking. It was not. I could indeed make such a thread, but this was not it. But once that conclusion was reached, there was a steady stream of rank defending. And of thread bashing. (The best defense is a good offense.) And a fairly constant iteration of "it's fun."

Yes. I know it's fun. I was curious about why. Was.

Another is the hypersensitivity of the people who feel they are being attacked for doing ranks and for using lists. (Actually, the first another should be that no supporter of ranking has yet to acknowledge the distinction between listing and ranking. And the second should be that no one yet has claimed that lists cannot serve useful purposes.) Back to hypersensitivity. You'll recall that I remarked that I didn't do ranking myself, and was unsatisfied with it even when I did do it as a small child. This plain statement of biographical fact was taken, over and over again, as an attack of ranks and rankers everywhere. No, it's just how I was. If, as St has done, you've demonized me, then of course, hey presto!, everything I say will be demonic. Self-fulfilling prophecies don't have quite the heft of other kinds, howsumever. Just sayin'.

Anyway, here's a question for y'all: even if I had explicitly attacked ranking, even if I had said it was stupid and useless and counterproductive, even if I had claimed that the people who did it were doing classical music a disservice, even then, so what? If we all advanced only those opinions that everyone else shares, we would have no discussions at all.

Here's what I would like to see, no lashing out unless you've really been attacked. 

NO: "Why do you make rankings?"
"How dare you attack me? Stop attacking me!!"

YES: "You're a stupid idiot for making ranked lists."
"How dare you attack me? Stop attacking me!!"

And even then. I mean, be fair, what if I did what HC keeps claiming I do and took everything he and St say about me seriously? Why, I'd spend every minute of every day defending myself! Nope. Too busy. And if it amuses them....


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I think people read beetween lines, and by doing that felt, not only an attack, but also a kind of "bether knowing" and arroganse. Not only by you, but also from some others. If I remember right, a lot of us started to explain things about structuring, reccomendations, and so on. Then answers came from you and others like nothing of this was read and taken in.

You still say that you have got no answer. Well, go back an see. We started by giving answers. We argued for why we find lists and recommendations usefull. 

Then we had in return that we did not give you and others answers. And some wery arrogant posts came up, not by you maybe, but by others, where talking about mature taste and so on was stated.

When I talk about "reading beetween lines" it is kind of intuision. I smell negativity against a lot of threads that people love, and me myself look for to help me discover classical music. The fact that the first answers and arguments have dissapaired in the air, and you repeat that you have no answers, that is provocing, and that is when the adrenalin rise by me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2011)

oskaar said:


> I think people read beetween lines.... I smell negativity....


Yes. It would be preferable if people could more adeptly read the lines themselves. Better to stick with what is said rather than what is intuited about the hidden motives of the sayer.



oskaar said:


> You still say that you have got no answer. Well, go back an see. We started by giving answers. We argued for why we find lists and recommendations usefull.


Well, if I ask "What time is it?" and you answer "I love clocks" then you have not answered my question. You've maybe answered _a_ question, but not the one I asked.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

some guy said:


> I have some questions for rankers:
> 
> What does it do for you?
> 
> ...


We have answered all those questions.

About reading between lines. I did not do that until mine and others answers where totally ignored. Then you ask yourself: What does this guy really mean! Then you read between lines.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

What does it do for you?



Olias said:


> My rankings are for fun





Olias said:


> I have discovered some great works this way.





science said:


> I just want recommendations and I want them prioritized.





norman bates said:


> It's just a useful method to discover music





HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Ranking is fun.





oskaar said:


> It is a way of organazing. As long as you are aware of all the different styles, all the personal tastes, all nuances, ranking is good.





oskaar said:


> And it is very informative and interresting for newcomers, I think.





Polednice said:


> For me, it's not a goal of listening, but a means. A way of adding structure to what I choose to listen to with my limited time.





Artemis said:


> Some people want to get acquainted as quickly as possible with works which are generally considered to be the best available, and they find that by looking at existing rankings or by stimulating a fresh discussion about rankings in an ordered manner that they can keep tabs on just as you have very ably done, is the best way to acquire that knowledge.





Artemis said:


> I have relied on "rankings" to a large extent in building up my own collection.





TrazomGangflow said:


> People just do it because they feel like ranking things.





oskaar said:


> What you call ranking is in fact reccomandation! I like to give, and I like to recieve. Some people like to share their favourites. Some people want to recieve the advices from others. It is as simple as that.





Art Rock said:


> I enjoy making rankings (subjective preferences - by definition) probably because of some OCD indeed.





Art Rock said:


> I enjoy other people's rankings because, even with 25 years of experience listening to classical music and thousands of CD's on our shelves, they allow me to discover new masterpieces like Myaskovsky's sixth symphony.





jhar26 said:


> But the top five ranking on that list is a constant reminder of the greatness of that opera - at least in the opinion of those that cared enough to participate in the poll.





mmsbls said:


> What has surprised me as I've become more and more familiar with a wider variety of music is that I actually agree rather well with "expert" lists.





mmsbls said:


> I think this general agreement of a wide group of people both expert and not indicates something significant about how the brain responds to music.





mmsbls said:


> Since I tend to agree well with others, lists have been especially helpful to me in trying out new music





mmsbls said:


> There is enormous utility in ranking things. Animals could not exist without constantly ranking behavioral choices. Without ranking behaviors, for example, you'd never eat, and you'd quickly be dead. Obviously the vast majority of our ranking is subconscious, be we constantly do it.





jhar26 said:


> It could be effective in promoting the stuff they like.


Does it help you appreciate what you're listening to?



Olias said:


> Whenever I see a piece "ranked" high in a lot of other people's lists that I don't know, however, it does encourage me to investigate the piece and to see what I'm missing.





jhar26 said:


> Part of it is promoting the music we like and hopefully tempt other people to have a listen as well. For example - Almaviva was overjoyed that Berlioz' "Les Troyens" made the top five in the most recommended operas poll because it meant that more people might check it out, and several have done so.





mmsbls said:


> without an "expert" list to consult I think my early exploration into classical music would have been much less positive and I may not have grown to love it as much as I do.





jhar26 said:


> Even those who think modern classical music is not for them would be likely to go (maybe much to their surprise), "hmm, I like this piece" a few times during the course of the process.





kv466 said:


> Like a few have said...it gives you another perspective which may lead you to discover something great you may not have otherwise run across...same goes for the lists.


Do you enjoy Mahler's ninth more, for instance, if you have ranked it above Beethoven's ninth? Do you enjoy it more if other people agree with your ranking? Less if they don't?

I believe this is a rephrase of the above question.

You owe me five minutes of your time, some guy.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think people read beetween lines, and by doing that felt, not only an attack, but also a kind of "bether knowing" and arroganse. 

Oskaar... I quite respect your willingness to give someone the benefit of the doubt... obviously I'm not quite as forgiving. However SG has been quite good at repeatedly making these sort of comments suggesting his own musical superiority and the incompetence of everyone else for longer than I can count. For someone who purportedly has a higher-degree in English and long-term experience working as an editor, I find it hard to buy into the idea that this is simply a case of his incompetence in the use of the English language. Considering that I am not the only one (far from it) who has interpreted his comments here (or on any number of other threads) in such a manner, it would seem it is not simply a misunderstanding or a failure in reading comprehension on my part.

Reading between the lines? Perhaps... but I doubt that what was discovered there was not exactly what SG intended.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

What Air is posting should show something. I normally dont get angry, but when people ask a tendensious question, and ignore all comments an answers, I feel the andrenaline. 

I would like to ask you a stright question, some guy. What do YOU think about ranking?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> I think a poll on living and/or 21st century composers and/or their works could be very interesting actually. ...


Interesting maybe but only for entertainment value (eg. the fart jokes, which are now stale). I'm not an expert in post-1945 or the latest music, but I do got to concerts that feature them, or consist entirely of them, on a semi-regular basis. I get off my backside in other words to engage with this music. I don't only build canons based on the music of the wigs (whose music I like a lot, these days I'm listening to them more and more), but I actually know the canon of post-1945 music. Names like John Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, Lutoslawski, Reich, etc. are all part of that canon. One can either embrace it or be negative and silly, comparing their music to the music of before (the Beethoven vs. Black Sabbath thing when Argus was around, it was constantly thrown in his face).

Anyway, I digress. Yes contemporary music or post 1900 or post 1945 music could have a "recommended" list here on TC, but in some cases it's just as respectable as asking me about say music for viols by Marais or whoever, which I know not much about. If the lists or opinions etc. come from some fair degree of experience, then sure, it's a good idea. But if they are just a haven for "jokes" & negativity, etc., then forget it, I have limited time on this planet, I have better things to do with it...


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Of corse there is polls that I just ignore. But lists and reccomodations is for me a way to discover. I am repeating myself, I know, but not everyone knows as much as you do, *Sid*, and they want to explore. I would be very glad if the people that have knowledge could share that with people without that knowledge. In list or reccomendation forums. Because I think there is where the newcomers first go! They want recommodations! If we want a vibrant forum, we have to take in every aspect of it, and recognice the tendences. NOT sit back and say things like "I have a mature taste". "You people will probably get the truth some day"


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

oskaar said:


> ...I am repeating myself, I know, but not everyone knows as much as you do, *Sid*, and they want to explore...


Well, I don't know that much compared to some people, but it's all relative in a way. I'm not that concerned with hard knowledge or the number of discs you own, it's more about the passion for me. & yes it is about discovery and enjoying things new to oneself as you say.



> ...I would be very glad if the people that have knowledge could share that with people without that knowledge. In list or reccomendation forums. Because I think there is where the newcomers first go! They want recommodations!...


I think the current listening thread, in which we both participate actively, is one such thread outside the lists threads that one can do that as well. In that thread, I have been interested in some things, and putting them on the backburner, listened to some youtube clips, etc. Eg. clavichorder's discussion of Medtner and W. Schuman have piqued my interest, I aim to buy some things on disc of theirs at some stage. You can promote things outside of the lists, that's what I'm saying.

But as you say here -



> ...If we want a vibrant forum, we have to take in every aspect of it, and recognice the tendences. NOT sit back and say things like "I have a mature taste". "You people will probably get the truth some day"


These lists are the mainstay and a central part of this forum, no doubt about it, they're always on my unread posts lists when I check in here.

But the reason I don't take part is more due to limited time, me not being systematic with what I listen to, and me being more of a generalist than into any specific area - which kind of rules me out of the piano and opera ones, although I do like solo piano. My headspace is also quite crammed and limited now, I aim to take a hiatus from listening to music new to me for a year or so, apart from live in concert.

So it's more to do with me than you or anyone else here who likes or benefits from the lists/recommendations...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Oskaar- I think a poll on living and/or 21st century composers and/or their works could be very interesting actually. ...

Sid James- Interesting maybe but only for entertainment value (eg. the fart jokes, which are now stale). I'm not an expert in post-1945 or the latest music, but I do got to concerts that feature them, or consist entirely of them, on a semi-regular basis.

But are you assuming that no one here will know of a contemporary composer unknown to you who might be of interest? The long-running thread on Modern/Contemporary composers has admittedly introduced me to any number of composers I hadn't come upon before.

I get off my backside in other words to engage with this music. I don't only build canons based on the music of the wigs... 

We all have our limitations and our preferences. Some of us specialize in a given period (the Baroque). Some of us specialize in specific genre (opera, choral, chamber music). My favorite composer has long been J.S. Bach, and I have long held Vivaldi and Handel, and Domenico Scarlatti in great esteem as well... and yet it wasn't until I really set about delving deep into the Baroque over the past 2 years or so that I discovered just how much great music there was to the Baroque era (as much as the Romantic era, certainly) that I didn't know. I am admittedly quite ignorant of the Classical period outside of Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, early Beethoven and a few others. I was thrilled with HC's recommendation of Franz Anton Hoffmeister, whose clarinet works proved to be a sheer pleasure. I am only now digging further into the 19th century French composers. Almaviva pushed me into listening to Berlioz again; while Mayaskovsky and any number of others prodded me into rethinking my opinion on the Russians.

I actually know the canon of post-1945 music. Names like John Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, Lutoslawski, Reich, etc. are all part of that canon. 

And I suspect that even many of those not fond of post-war music have heard of these names... but do they really constitute a "canon"? A "canon" or a list of "classics" presumes a body of work that has survived for a period of time and continued to maintain an influence, relevance, and even a degree of popularity. Within my own discipline, I have long thought that the term "Contemporary Art History" was a bit comic. Who decides which works are "contemporary classics"? A few academics? A handful or critics? I won't deny that Boulez and Stockhausen and Xenakis and Philip Glass may just be the "classics" of our time... but I suspect it may be just as likely that Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk, Osvaldo Golijov and any number of composers unknown to me may fare better. The question of what art of the present is the "best" or the most likely to survive and be recognized as a "classic" is always open to debate. Hearing other's opinions is often useful and thought-provoking... when it doesn't devolve into dogma or presumption that this or that individual holds the key to the "truth"... except to his or her own opinions.

One can either embrace it or be negative and silly, comparing their music to the music of before (the Beethoven vs. Black Sabbath thing when Argus was around, it was constantly thrown in his face).

OK, Andre... let's not misrepresent what went on with Argus. Yes, his ignorant comments concerning the aesthetic "genius" of Black Sabbath got thrown back in his face... but deservedly so. You will recall that he made endless comments insulting the whole of music before the rock era, and repeatedly insinuated that anyone who proclaimed an admiration for Mozart or Beethoven or Bach or Shakespeare or Dante or Michelangelo was either gay or a pretentious snob. He carried a huge chip on his shoulder concerning class and dealt with this by taking a position of reverse snobbishness.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A general comment, not related to what anyone in particular said. Just a thought. Over 20 years ago when I got really interested in classical music, there was no internet. The books published then about composers usually didn't have lists of "top 10" works etc., they just gave description of their lives, works, inspiration, etc. Today, the books I buy about classical, mainly include lists of "top 10" works, or recordings, included in an article or chapter on a composer.

I think this "listomania" has been spurred on by the internet, esp. by buying/selling sites like amazon. They can be useful in terms of generating discussion here on TC, but in a wider sense, I have little interest in them. But maybe it's because I'm from the generation that had their formative years just before the internet came in? If I want info on a composer or piece, the internet can be very good, esp. things like Wikipedia and Grove Music Online. But hard-copy books I have, or can access through the city library here, can also be excellent. I think the wider you go on your search for *quality* information, you will get further. For me, TC is a source of current news & gossip of what's going on in the classical music world, and more importantly to just chat about music. It's like a natural conversation, that is more important to me than any list...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> But are you assuming that no one here will know of a contemporary composer unknown to you who might be of interest? The long-running thread on Modern/Contemporary composers has admittedly introduced me to any number of composers I hadn't come upon before.


Yeah, but that thread, which was a good idea of yours to set up, is not list-based. It's not a list. I don't always go there but yes it is quite interesting when I do.



> ... I was thrilled with HC's recommendation of Franz Anton Hoffmeister, whose clarinet works proved to be a sheer pleasure. I am only now digging further into the 19th century French composers. Almaviva pushed me into listening to Berlioz again; while Mayaskovsky and any number of others prodded me into rethinking my opinion on the Russians...


Yes, to learn from others is one of the bonuses of this forum for me as well. But I don't think some guy's questioning of "listomania" negates what you're saying. Nor is what I've said until now, I think, negating what you're saying there.



> I actually know the canon of post-1945 music. Names like John Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, Lutoslawski, Reich, etc. are all part of that canon.
> 
> And I suspect that even many of those not fond of post-war music have heard of these names... but do they really constitute a "canon"?..


Yes they are in the pedagogical (teaching) canon, ask any music student in conservatoriums across the world studying classical music, whether it be performance or composition. A string player worth their salt can play both the wigs and Schoenberg and contemporary composers. Look at Hilary Hahn for example, but there are many other examples. Conversely, some do specialise in certain niches, but even they have a broad range within that niche, if you know what I mean (& they have all studied a wide range of music, from ancient to modern/today's).

Apart from the pedagogical canon, there's the scholarly/musicological canon, in terms of studying music and it's history, etc. & then there's another canon which we usually refer to as the repertoire, and this does involve consensus opinion from the experts but also what is popular with audiences, etc. There are many canons within the repertoire, eg. Hilary Hahn, to continue with that example, has recorded & performs a wide part of her violin canon. I've only got her Schoenberg and Sibelius album, regardless of what else she's recorded, I don't need any list to tell me what to buy first of her recordings or whatever, I'll just go by what my needs are, etc.

There is no only one canon, there are many, and it can be said that they're all linked but seperate at the same time. It's a combined result of scholarly opinion, or market forces, or popularity, or historical importance, development of genre/style, etc.



> OK, Andre... let's not misrepresent what went on with Argus. Yes, his ignorant comments concerning the aesthetic "genius" of Black Sabbath got thrown back in his face... but deservedly so. You will recall that he made endless comments insulting the whole of music before the rock era, and repeatedly insinuated that anyone who proclaimed an admiration for Mozart or Beethoven or Bach or Shakespeare or Dante or Michelangelo was either gay or a pretentious snob. He carried a huge chip on his shoulder concerning class and dealt with this by taking a position of reverse snobbishness.


Well, I had no problem with Argus, because I communicated with him in a way that was neutral and not judgemental. Even if I disagreed, I did it in an above board manner. Same cannot be said for other members here in the past, one recently who I've blocked, who very rudely threw in my face the fact that I dislike certain pieces that they like. Implying also that I - or we, referring to those here who for example enjoy experimental & electronic music, among other things - are not normal.


----------



## skalpel (Nov 20, 2011)

Ranking is just fun for me, I don't even expect anybody to pay attention to my listing if I do it; it just gives me an excuse to think over certain pieces of music or literature or whatever I'm ranking and remember my favourite things about them. Usually I'll revisit them briefly while making a list too.
Somebody here said it satisfies their obsessive tendencies which I think is true for me too, listing things can be ridiculously obsessive and I could sit for hours organising a top 500 albums list or something without realising what the hell I was doing.

In the past I've also found really good recommendations from other people's lists simply by noticing something I've not heard of sandwiched between two things I really love.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

A general comment, not related to what anyone in particular said. Just a thought. Over 20 years ago when I got really interested in classical music, there was no internet. The books published then about composers usually didn't have lists of "top 10" works etc., they just gave description of their lives, works, inspiration, etc. Today, the books I buy about classical, mainly include lists of "top 10" works, or recordings, included in an article or chapter on a composer.

I think this "listomania" has been spurred on by the internet, esp. by buying/selling sites like amazon. 

Lisztmania? Wasn't that actually a rather crappy film? I can't say whether lists have proliferated as a result of Amazon and the internet. When I first started to collect classical music I did a great deal of reading and compiled my own lists based upon how well a writer sold me upon a given composer or work. When I began to seriously purchase classical music I employed any number of sources which included lists of "Favorite Works", "Core Repertoire", "Greatest Works", "Essentials", etc... Obviously I never took these as the ultimate gospel. I would delve deeper into the work of those composers who really resonated with me... and less so with the others. Considering the vast wealth of music out there I really don't see any other logical way to explore music other than to consider the advice of those with more experience... explore a few recommended works... and build from there, developing some notion of which composers, which genre, and which critical voices speak most to your own tastes.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well, I had no problem with Argus, because I communicated with him in a way that was neutral and not judgemental. Even if I disagreed, I did it in an above board manner. Same cannot be said for other members here in the past, one recently who I've blocked, who very rudely threw in my face the fact that I dislike certain pieces that they like. Implying also that I - or we, referring to those here who for example enjoy experimental & electronic music, among other things - are not normal.

I think you missed out on a few of Argus more notorious threads. He had one thread dismissing Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc... in the most scatological of manner... far beyond any of HC's "electronic fart music" jokes. He started another thread querying the members as to what class they considered themselves to be and then suggested that this was the reason for their snobbish musical tastes. The whole question struck me as odd... but then this class thing is not quite the same in the US as it is in Britain, is it? The one that ended up getting him banned involved myself and a thread Almaviva had begun concerning favorite writers and artists. I had mentioned a number of South-American writers that I quite admired and Alma, who had a Brazilian and I began to discuss a number or writers. Argus joined in the conversation accusing myself of either being gay or a snob... as no one would seriously read the stuff I was reading unless they were one or the other. Alma attempted to diffuse the situation, even sending me PMs asking me not to retaliate... but Argus continued with his attacks to the point it was clear he was intentionally seeking to get himself banned. Only a college educated homo or pretentious snob, he continued, could possibly claim to like Mozart or Shakespeare or old paintings by dead artists. I have friends who are PhDs and doctors and others who work in construction. I have learned well enough that you can't measure an individual by his or formal education, career, or how much money they make. If we share a passion for art or music or whatever the rest is irrelevant. It wasn't anyone else but Argus who had an issue with his class... it was his reverse snobbism that expected everyone else to apologize for their education and admit to only pretending to like Mozart or Beethoven or whatever they liked in an effort to lend themselves a phony air of superiority. I can't honestly say I miss him.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Organizing ones preferences in anything they enjoy, even if only reflective of that day or season can be very telling. When a group of people collectively rank, it can also express a little bit about trends. 

I am convinced that those who rank Beethovens 9th as the greatest work ever composed, have little imagination in their rankings . If this was the greatest piece of music ever composed, I'd give up the profession.

Also, those who say Szymanowski is their favorite composer of all time are Polish  ..... and way too cool to say Chopin


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

DavidMahler said:


> I am convinced that those who rank Beethovens 9th as the greatest work ever composed, have little imagination in their rankings .


On the other hand - we can be reasonably sure that a person who ranks Beethoven's 9th at No.1 honestly believes it's 'the best' whereas when someone ranks, say, Atterberg's 5th at No.1 we can ask ourselves if he really believes that or if he's just trying to be original.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> On the other hand - we can be reasonably sure that a person who ranks Beethoven's 9th at No.1 honestly believes it's 'the best' whereas when someone ranks, say, Atterberg's 5th at No.1 we can ask ourselves if he really believes that or if he's just trying to be original.


Wow! Atterberg's 5th is a symphony that I don't hear pop up too often...It's pretty good, I don't know who would rate it as the best ever symphony though...everyone is different!


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

violadude said:


> Wow! Atterberg's 5th is a symphony that I don't hear pop up too often...It's pretty good, *I don't know who would rate it as the best ever symphony though*...everyone is different!


Nobody as far as I know. I only mentionned it as an example of what could be considered 'imaginative ranking.'


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> Nobody as far as I know. I only mentionned it as an example of what could be considered 'imaginative ranking.'


It's funny you mentioned that too. On the thread "your favorite debut symphony" from a few days back, I put down Honegger's 1st for the exact purpose of being original haha not because I actually thought it was the best. I do like that piece quite a bit though.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> I am convinced that those who rank Beethovens 9th as the greatest work ever composed, have little imagination in their rankings. If this was the greatest piece of music ever composed, I'd give up the profession.


I'm not sure exactly how you are using the word, _imagination_, in this statement. I have always assumed, and hoped, that people use _no_ imagination to develop their rankings. They listen to many works, weigh their response to these works, consult other people's views, perhaps study scores, maybe attempt to determine a work's impact, tally the number of recordings, look at the volume of "expert" criticism, and include other factors, but imagination seems poorly suited to rankings of music or other areas.

I can imagine that a piano composition I wrote several years ago is the greatest piece of music ever composed, but that process would result in a ludicrous ranking and one that no one would value.

It would be very difficult to argue that we actually know the greatest work ever composed or that there is such a work; however, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the consensus view of a wide range of classical music listeners (both expert and not) is that Beethoven's 9th symphony is _one_ of the greatest works ever composed. Given that assessment, I'm not sure what your latter sentence actually means.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...When I began to seriously purchase classical music I employed any number of sources which included lists of "Favorite Works", "Core Repertoire", "Greatest Works", "Essentials", etc... Obviously I never took these as the ultimate gospel. I would delve deeper into the work of those composers who really resonated with me... and less so with the others. Considering the vast wealth of music out there I really don't see any other logical way to explore music other than to consider the advice of those with more experience... explore a few recommended works... and build from there, developing some notion of which composers, which genre, and which critical voices speak most to your own tastes.


Well this makes sense. I can agree with this to a high degree.

But my memory is jogged, I was wrong a bit. I remember having some ancient books, just short ones, on the lives of Bizet, Gounod, Mendelssohn & Saint-Saens. Published sometime around about 1950's. I think I got rid of them a while back, a bit of a shame. But I do remember at the back of them, there were lists of key works and recommended recordings for each composer. & you know what's ironic? Some of these recordings have withstood the test of time. Eg. some done by Maestro Ansermet, have now been reissued on CD on our own Australian Eloquence reissue label. I have a number of these recordings myself. But I suppose that back then, he was amongst the first to record these things on stereo, so his recordings were widely available.

Anyway, what this means that lists do give us something to hang onto. & they can be of value in many ways, if they hold some weight in terms of consensus opinion, expert or otherwise, or commonsense, etc.

I think that it's okay to question these things though, even though it is kind of human nature to rank things and build lists, etc. I do hold fast though that the importance, percieved or otherwise, of lists has become more marked with the rise of the internet & also online purchasing sites like amazon. There are lists on there made by buyers, plenty of them. It's a web of lists linked to reviews, etc.

But I don't need these lists, I have always taken the approach of reading about a composer's life and works, historical context, etc. and then get the recordings of works that I'm interested in. Those books from the 1950's are the only ones I remember as having lists, until about the 1990's, the books I have published before then don't have lists.

The gist of what you say agrees with my opinion, is that lists are just part of the equation, I think a small part, actually. It's many of the other things about music and it's context, development, etc. that is far more interesting to me. Hence me and some others not taking part in these lists here on TC. But of course there are other reasons, eg. I'm not systematic and quite impulsive, I go through phases, etc...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Speaking of lists and "top 100's" - of which we've had a fair few here - there's this one coming up from our classical radio station -

ABC Classic FM - Classic 100 20th Century

There have been others in the past, the last one I think was the top 100 symphonies. Australians send in their votes and they are counted and a "top 100" list is deduced from them.

Not a bad idea, I was listening to some of the broadcasts last time, and I heard Mendelssohn's 2nd symphony for the first time, for example, as well as some unknown recordings (to me) of the warhorses that I knew.

The result of these is usually a multiple CD pack, a collection of highlights from the various works in the top 100. A good way to introduce people to repertoire new to them, imo. & a good basis for further explorations. Of course, there is a commercial interest involved for our national broadcaster, but I do not begrudge them making a few bucks, a little profit can go a long way with funding some of their efforts which are generally very good.

But the best thing about these broadcasts is that the announcers know their stuff, they are musicians or with background in the industry, and they often interview some of our own musicians, conductors, composers, etc. about their favourite pieces being played. The commentary is more interesting to me than the lists, but to a newbie I must admit the resulting lists can be of higher value...


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> On the other hand - we can be reasonably sure that a person who ranks Beethoven's 9th at No.1 honestly believes it's 'the best' whereas when someone ranks, say, Atterberg's 5th at No.1 we can ask ourselves if he really believes that or if he's just trying to be original.


What I mean is:

Anyone who picks Beethoven's 9th as their favorite piece of music may as well join other sites and proclaim

Don Quixote as their favorite book

Citizen Kane as their favorite movie

Mona Lisa as their favorite painting


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2011)

Dear Air,

Sorry for all the effort you put into making your list of "answers" to my questions. (Which were all along the lines I'd already mapped out: "What time is it?" "Afternoon." "I like clocks." "Why do people attack clocks so much?" "Sometime." "People who ask what time it is are just jealous of people who have watches.")

Look at DavidMahler's responses. Those are answers to my questions.

Not that every other post was worthless. By no means. Sid James, for instance, has taken this thread as an opportunity to elaborate many useful ideas about music and listening. mmsbls and Artemis likewise, the latter of whom immediately fell prey to the first round of ad hominems* that have so bedeviled this particular thread.

Hoping this gets me out of debt to you,

some guy

----------------

*Dear perpetrators of ad hominems, 

The problem with them (and the reason they are classified as fallacies) is that they do not address the ideas raised in a discussion, substituting instead idle speculation about the people raising the ideas. So instead of looking at what Artemis, for instance, actually said, and dealing with that--rebutting it, agreeing with it, looking at alternatives--you simply slapped on the "arrogant" label and went your merry way. Nice way to evade having to deal with the issues, eh?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> What I mean is:
> 
> Anyone who picks Beethoven's 9th as their favorite piece of music may as well join other sites and proclaim
> 
> ...


I see. So you think rather than answer truthfully when asked what we think the greatest symphony or whatever is if we happen to share the view of many prominent critics and musicians through history, we should try to be interesting? If you want that, why not just ask 'What are some lesser known symphonies you love?' or something?

You're blaming people for actually answering the question you ask instead of the question you mean. We aren't psychic!


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

some guy said:


> Dear Air,
> 
> Hoping this gets me out of debt to you,


I asked you a question, some guy! What do you think about rankings? You did not answer that one.

I also like Sid James`s reflections.

And you say: *Those are answers to my questions*. It sounds for me then, that you had your own prefix of what an answer that suites you. The list from air shows perfectly well that you had good and honist answers from the start. But if they did not suit you, well that understate my "smell" of your intention with the thread.

But if you answer my question honistly; What do you think about ranking, then I can either confirm my suspicions, or throw them away as wrong.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

some guy said:


> Dear Air,
> 
> Sorry for all the effort you put into making your list of "answers" to my questions. (Which were all along the lines I'd already mapped out: "What time is it?" "Afternoon." "I like clocks." "Why do people attack clocks so much?" "Sometime." "People who ask what time it is are just jealous of people who have watches.")


Hi some guy,

No, I was trying to make a point with my list. I think you received good answers. They may not be academia, or scholarly essays, but that's not the point. Contrary to what you say, I think our list folks pretty well explained themselves. What exactly are you looking for?

mmsbls's response was particularly interesting for me too. From the perspective of a scientist, list-making is not only practical, but necessary for survival. It's interesting how this is in direct opposition to the claim made by many that lists are "useless".

I do want to see at least a recommended list of your favorite post-Stockhausen electronic music! It'll help me out a lot, that's for sure. You got to show me one day. Maybe today? 

Regards,
Air


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What I mean is:

Anyone who picks Beethoven's 9th as their favorite piece of music may as well join other sites and proclaim

Don Quixote as their favorite book

Citizen Kane as their favorite movie

Mona Lisa as their favorite painting

So in other words... if someone were to select Beethoven's 9th as their favorite piece of music they are in agreement with a great majority of the critical opinions (rather like selecting _Don Quixote_ as their favorite book)... which must mean they haven't listened to and considered enough other music? Personally I would select Dante's Comedia as the greatest book (and probably more critics would agree with this than with Don Quixote (great as it is). The Mona Lisa is perhaps the most recognizable painting in the world, but far from being recognized as the "greatest". The Kiss by Gustav Klimt, considering the numbers of posters, postcards, and other reproductions, may just be the most popular painting, but the Sistine Ceiling would quite likely be acknowledged as the "greatest" by more critics/historians/artists than any other painting. I guess I'm not all that original here, either, as I would surely include it among my top 5 greatest paintings list. Indeed, while I don't know if I'd give Beethoven's 9th the top spot among all music, it would surely rank somewhere in the top 5... along with Tristan und Isolde, the Well Tempered Clavier, Le Nozze di Figaro, Schubert's Wintereisse, and Strauss' Four Last Songs.

Personally, I agree with jhar: "On the other hand - we can be reasonably sure that a person who ranks Beethoven's 9th at No.1 honestly believes it's 'the best' whereas when someone ranks, say, Atterberg's 5th at No.1 we can ask ourselves if he really believes that or if he's just trying to be original." I always suspect the individual siting this or that obscure work or artist as the "greatest" has either just discovered this artist/work and is wrapped up in this new discovery... or is out to impress everyone with his or her esoteric taste: "You're still listening to Beethoven's 9th!? How outdated! My favorite composer is Veljo Tormis... (smugly Have you ever heard of him?"


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

I just don't think beethoven's 9th is good enough to be Anyones favorite unless from the critical perspective. It's not personal. It's a very public work. For this reason, I refuse to believe it's Any classical music fan's favorite piece of music. There's not much to get from it beyond the exterior. It's like Frasier Crane's favorite music, but not once you hear far more compelling works.

I'm being intentionally argumentative for the sake of a discussion, but I wouldn't put any Beethoven symphony in my top 200 favorite works. His string quarterts on the other hand....that's some music!


jalex said:


> I see. So you think rather than answer truthfully when asked what we think the greatest symphony or whatever is if we happen to share the view of many prominent critics and musicians through history, we should try to be interesting? If you want that, why not just ask 'What are some lesser known symphonies you love?' or something?
> 
> You're blaming people for actually answering the question you ask instead of the question you mean. We aren't psychic!


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

A small thing, like putting *answers* in quote, when you refers to Airs list. That is stating for me that you will not hear. The answers was honist and throughout wery well spelled. The frustration came up when these answers was not adopted at all.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I just don't think beethoven's 9th is good enough to be Anyones favorite unless from the critical perspective.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that someone who selects Beethoven's 9th as their favorite (or one of their favorite works) is simply going along with the pack and then turn around and state that you cannot see how any classical music fan could select the 9th as one of their favorites as it (according to you) is simply not that good... in spite of the critical opinion of all these others who do feel it is one of the greatest symphonies or works of music.

The reality is that for whatever reason, the 9th doesn't resonate with you, and as a result you seem to need to argue that the reason it doesn't resonate with you is because its not that good and everyone else is just going along with the pack and not actually listening to the work.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

some guy said:


> Dear Air,
> 
> Sorry for all the effort you put into making your list of "answers" to my questions. (Which were all along the lines I'd already mapped out: "What time is it?" "Afternoon." "I like clocks." "Why do people attack clocks so much?" "Sometime." "People who ask what time it is are just jealous of people who have watches.")
> 
> ...


Believe me, I spotted these adverse comments almost immediately but didn't respond because I didn't want to inflame the situation. Since you have raised it, I may as well say it now that I'm staggered at the misunderstanding arising over what I wrote. But the ludicrous comments made about what I said pale into insigificance compared with other things I've spotted in this thread, like the duplicity of some people who have stated in this thread that they find lists useful but in others have rubbished them quite openly; others who say they like ranked lists but have never participated in constructing any; or the bod who says he hasn't got the time to participate in an active way but still writes reams of other material; and the most astonishing thing of all which is the very obvious defamatory material posted about a once active member who is still a member as far as I can see.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Dear artemis. I got angry! I guess your referance to the ludicrous comments I s refered to my answer to you. My reaction was because answers and thing said seem to be *not heard!* Not read! That still upset me in discussion with some guy.

And when you dont get responce on your stright forward answered, wich was asked for, you start looking for the motives. Arrogance and "Better knowing" came up in my mind. If you invite a discussion, you must responce in tact withe the answers.

And otherwise my responding to you was based on what you actually said! Ludicrous comments, ok, but my sincerar reaction to what was actually written! And when we discuss something, with low or high temperature, we have to relate to what is actually written. I want to be read for what I actually write, and I response to what is actually written. In this case, you and one guy dont read what is written, and responde with a mystical, and I must say arrogant approuch. That is not good if you want a fresh open discussion about something.

If you go back to my reacton on your post, you will see that my main frustration was that you spoke like nothing was adapted of what I and others answered. How can we debate if we do not communicate?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> I just don't think beethoven's 9th is good enough to be Anyones favorite unless from the critical perspective. It's not personal. It's a very public work. For this reason, I refuse to believe it's Any classical music fan's favorite piece of music. There's not much to get from it beyond the exterior. It's like Frasier Crane's favorite music, but not once you hear far more compelling works.


What on earth makes it a public piece of music? It's hardly the 1812 Overture.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

jalex said:


> What on earth makes it a public piece of music? It's hardly the 1812 Overture.


Beethoven's 9th sounds like it was written to thrill the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> I wouldn't put any Beethoven symphony in my top 200 favorite works.


 This is also you being argumentative, right??


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Trout said:


> This is also you being argumentative, right??


No, this is true. If I were to really sit back and compile a list of my favorite works, I would be surprised to see ay Beethoven symphony in the top 200. Maybe the 8th. I love many parts of the 5th, but the last mvmt has put me to sleep too many times.

I would probably be able to manage my top 100 without a single work of Beethoven, except his 15th String Quartet is one I could not live without. In my opinion, it's his finest work, with the C-sharp Quartet very close behind and a few of the later sonatas. I love the 4th piano concerto too


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

> mmsbls's response was particularly interesting for me too. From the perspective of a scientist, list-making is not only practical, but necessary for survival. It's interesting how this is in direct opposition to the claim made by many that lists are "useless".





> There is a strong correlation between those who resent lists/rankings the most and them knowing their own favourites don't often rank very well. I'm almost sure if they happen to find their music rank well anyway by broad consensus, this would be a none issue. "I like fart music, but deep down it bothers me that many don't rank these fart pieces terribly well".





> I must agree with HC that there is something of sour grapes involved in the continued complaints about lists and rankings. Rather like the student pulling less than stellar grades in school who declares that he doesn't believe grades measure anything, it would indeed seem that some of those who complain most about rankings and lists do so simply because these lists fail to reinforce their own preferences.





> On the other hand - we can be reasonably sure that a person who ranks Beethoven's 9th at No.1 honestly believes it's 'the best' whereas when someone ranks, say, Atterberg's 5th at No.1 we can ask ourselves if he really believes that or if he's just trying to be original." I always suspect the individual siting this or that obscure work or artist as the "greatest" has either just discovered this artist/work and is wrapped up in this new discovery... or is out to impress everyone with his or her esoteric taste


Okay, so let me get this straight.

1. People who don't take part in listmaking and ranking composers are actually holding back the entire species (!).
2. Knocking listmaking and ranking is all part of some underhand plot, merely the latest strategy in the ongoing war between people into old music and people into new music.
3. If you do take part in listmaking and don't give the right answers then you are:
a)wrong.
b)cheating.
c)probably part of that danged underhand plot.

Come on! There's been so much of this stuff over the last few weeks I can't believe anyone's actually supporting it. Last week I poked my head in here and several times found that I actually had to go to the second page of threads to find one that wasn't one of these (or one satirizing them):

Top 5 Composers
Top 25 Composers
Top 200 composers
Top 100 composers
TC Top Classical Works
Your 25 favorite pieces of classical music
Top 200 recommended solo keyboard works
The classical music project
The alternative classical music project
Mozart vs Beethoven
Schubert vs Haydn
Wagner vs Haydn
Haydn vs Mozart...has time changed popular opinion?
The thin line between avant garde and complete noise? (yeah there's always one of these completely non-provocative ones, or the opposite version basically saying ''all you people into 18th C music must be narrow minded fuddy-duddies'').

Anyway, FWIW, I think that making value judgements is useful and I think the canon is useful too (but the attitude that someone is 'wrong' if they disagree with it is spectacularly unhealthy)...but enough's enough!


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

List your favorite lists of lists
1. List of Top keyboard work lists
2. List of Top symphonies lists
3. List of favorite Opera lists


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

oskaar said:


> What Air is posting should show something. I normally dont get angry, but when people ask a tendensious question, and ignore all comments an answers, I feel the andrenaline.
> 
> I would like to ask you a stright question, some guy. What do YOU think about ranking?


At this point I think it's more than fair to start ignoring him.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> No, this is true. If I were to really sit back and compile a list of my favorite works, I would be surprised to see ay Beethoven symphony in the top 200. Maybe the 8th. I love many parts of the 5th, but the last mvmt has put me to sleep too many times.
> 
> I would probably be able to manage my top 100 without a single work of Beethoven, except his 15th String Quartet is one I could not live without. In my opinion, it's his finest work, with the C-sharp Quartet very close behind and a few of the later sonatas. I love the 4th piano concerto too


Didn't you vote for Beethoven on the greatest symphonist poll, though?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> List your favorite lists of lists
> 1. List of Top keyboard work lists
> 2. List of Top symphonies lists
> 3. List of favorite Opera lists


List of existing Stradivari violins, and the merits of each.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Trout said:


> Didn't you vote for Beethoven on the greatest symphonist poll, though?


Yea bEcAuse apart from my own personal enjoyment, I do feel Beethoven's contribution to the symphony far eXceeds any other composer. I think the reason why the symphony is largely the most esteemed genre in music is because of Beethoven.

But I would take all of Brahms, all of Mahler minus 1 & 8; 2, 5 & 7 of Sibelius, 7, 8, 9 of Bruckner...4&6 of Tchaikovsky, 8&9 of Schubert, 2 of Schumann, 7 8 9 of Dvorak, 5&10 of Shostakovich, 5 of prokofiev, 4 of Alfven, the Franck, Harold of Berlioz .... Before i would typically listen to a Beethoven symphony. I honestly find them less interesting. But I do think the 8th is amazing thru and thru. The 5th and 3rd are amazing works which impress me but don't move me. The 7th is very overrated I think but I still like it - that beloved second mvmt is a lot people's definition for most moving classical movements. I feel like that mvmt could literally be the calm unemotional movement of a Mahler symphony. The Pastoral never grabbed me. And the 9th finishes with of most boring repetitious passages in all of music. I literally think of itas Ringaround the Rosie for adults. The 4th is exceptional. The first two are eh.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

DavidMahler said:


> Yea bEcAuse apart from my own personal enjoyment, I do feel Beethoven's contribution to the symphony far eXceeds any other composer. I think the reason why the symphony is largely the most esteemed genre in music is because of Beethoven.
> 
> But I would take all of Brahms, all of Mahler minus 1 & 8; 2, 5 & 7 of Sibelius, 7, 8, 9 of Bruckner...4&6 of Tchaikovsky, 8&9 of Schubert, 2 of Schumann, 7 8 9 of Dvorak, 5&10 of Shostakovich, 5 of prokofiev, 4 of Alfven, the Franck, Harold of Berlioz .... Before i would typically listen to a Beethoven symphony. I honestly find them less interesting. But I do think the 8th is amazing thru and thru. The 5th and 3rd are amazing works which impress me but don't move me. The 7th is very overrated I think but I still like it - that beloved second mvmt is a lot people's definition for most moving classical movements. I feel like that mvmt could literally be the calm unemotional movement of a Mahler symphony. The Pastoral never grabbed me. And the 9th finishes with of most boring repetitious passages in all of music. I literally think of itas Ringaround the Rosie for adults. The 4th is exceptional. The first two are eh.


Interesting but doesn't the fact that your preference order for various notable symphonies seems to be distinctly out of line with the preferences of what you accept as the majority opinion on this subject imply that you really ought to keep quiet about it rather than persist in flogging a dead horse in trying to persuade others of their folly, since by definition the opinions of the majority are pre-determined?


----------

