# TC Recomended projects: What's next?



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

The Post 1950 project has been finished for a few weeks and I still have withdrawal symptoms..

So what's next? 
What kind of works should we deal with..

Master list to be found here.

What methodology should we use... Personally I much prefer the one we used fx, on TurnabouVox's managed String Quartet project.

What number of works are a perfect amount?

I fx. think a list of Organ works could be interesting?

What do You think, discuss!!

/ptr


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Mirroring the post-1950, I'd be in favour of making a pre-baroque list, i.e. pre-1600 or whatever.

I have a limited knowledge of the early music period, in particular when considering early music produced outside my country, and I believe there is a good number of music experts here in TC that can help broadening my (and others') experience.

And, yes, as ptr I much prefer the methodology we used for the String Quartet Project, and we are using for the new Opera Project.


----------



## Aleksandar (Feb 21, 2015)

Solo string instrumental works maybe?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Solo instrument works in general maybe? 

Or how about something like works by French composers or Russian composers or something like that?

Or maybe a top 100 works of JS Bach?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The thread where we considered ideas about the next TC list had a few lists that were never started.

Concerti Grossi and Concerti for Multiple Instruments
Ballet
Solo works of instruments beside keyboards

The non-keyboard Solo works was mentioned above.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I personally like the system used to compile the string quartet list; I didn't particularly like the system used to compile the post 1950s list. But I can work with both. 

The length of the list depends on the list being compiled. 

Here are some of my thoughts, copied from others and my own ideas. And I'd try to do my bit to help compile them. 

Ballet
Pieces for guitar, both solo or with an ensemble.
Solo pieces for an instrument other than piano.
Pre Baroque
Concerti for more than one instrument
American music
Film music


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Ballet might overlap a lot with the orchestral music list, but I suppose that would be okay. I would LOVE to participate in a film music list -- maybe American music (though that's a little limited) and maybe pre-Baroque. The latter would be like the post 1950 list for me. I would quickly run out of knowledge but enjoy it anyway.

Addendum: after re-reading the other thread about this topic, I see I was concerned with having more than one list going at a time too. Not that that happens, but if it does I would be hard pressed to resist trying both, and they are very time consuming to do properly.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2015)

Organ works would be a stretch for this forum, I'm finding. I think half the voters would post very nice and thoughtful lists, and the other half would post a list of their top 10 yet-to-be-enshrined organ works by J.S. Bach. Of course the guy deserves a lot of credit in the "genre", but it would be a bit overblown, like how Romantic Era Italian operas are given disproportionate attention in their own respective list. I would like a list of organ works, but I fear it would be a pain to try to force something interesting to happen.

I like the idea of a non-keyboard solo instrumental list too.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Another vote for pre-Baroque. 

While I grew to loathe the post-1950 method, I do think that it's head was in the right place given that it's an era without the "usual suspects." Pre-Baroque would likely be the same.

In other words, the method used for string quartets and opera might not be best for pre-Baroque. Voting would likely be more diffuse, with the top works getting in with fewer votes. In post-1950, I think a lot of us ending up voting for works we hadn't known when they were first nominated. For all its faults, the post-1950 method gave us a lot of time to listen and even discuss works as they worked their way up the list. 

So maybe there's another method. Or maybe we just do something to bring forth a big list of noms before enshrining anything.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think the normal method for the TC lists is better, but it's true that listening time is important. One way to deal with that is to spend some time making a list of potential works and give people awhile (a month or so?) to listen before any voting.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I think the normal method for the TC lists is better, but it's true that listening time is important. One way to deal with that is to spend some time making a list of potential works and give people awhile (a month or so?) to listen before any voting.


Even slight tweaks might work. For opera, the top 10 nominations all make the list, and the second round is just for ordering. I'd rather the initial noms produced more works (20-25), but they weren't guaranteed to advance. Maybe they need a certain % of points. Maybe the first round only produces a few enshrinements, with the rest of the noms hanging around for further listening.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

A while ago, there was somebody who was planning to start a top 100 American compositions list. Don't know what happened with that, but I would definitely be interested in that.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

For chamber music, there is still mixed ensembles. It would have to be more than two instruments, exclude keyboard, and include something other than strings.

I think we could also easily extend piano chamber past 50 too. Still lots of great piano trios/quartets/quintets/etc out there.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Organ works would be a stretch for this forum, I'm finding. I think half the voters would post very nice and thoughtful lists, and the other half would post a list of their top 10 yet-to-be-enshrined organ works by J.S. Bach. Of course the guy deserves a lot of credit in the "genre", but it would be a bit overblown, like how Romantic Era Italian operas are given disproportionate attention in their own respective list.


I have the feeling that what you consider overblown I would find quite reasonable. Why not just let the chips fall where they may?


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Regarding the voting method, I vote for the SQ style as-is, with the assumption that a reliable member becomes the administrator. I think the SQ style allows more time for listening to new works.

I am interested in pre-baroque, non-piano solo pieces, film music. (Since there are already (personal) American 10 & 100 threads, I am sort of satisfied regarding American list, but it's fine.)



Bulldog said:


> Why not just let the chips fall where they may?


I agree. Let's make rules as simple as possible, stick with them, then accpet the outcome.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I think the normal method for the TC lists is better, but it's true that listening time is important. One way to deal with that is to spend some time making a list of potential works and give people awhile (a month or so?) to listen before any voting.


I agree _with all my heart!_

A pre-Baroque or pre-1700 list would be great, but I don't think there's enough shared knowledge to produce a sensible list. There would have to be a proper discussion of which composers and works need to be included, and I think a long-list is essential. Working from such a long-list would suit the "normal" method (or some version of it; I've always felt the problem with the "nomination" round is you're simultaneously supporting "obvious" choices while also pushing "non-obvious" ones _and_ thinking about points totals - too much in one go).

The "post-1950" method would be absolutely fncking horrendous for a pre-1700 list. It's too reliant on the whims of individual voters; for instance, the first (probably only) Josquin mass to be enshrined would inevitably be the first one nominated.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

*bump*

Any further possibility of a new project being started?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I'd say yes on the pre-1700, although I'm not volunteering to be the project mother. 

I do think we need to allow prep time to listen so we're not voting cold. So maybe we need to start on a loose pre-nominations period.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I would vote for pre 1700 also, but this means around 500 years of Renaissance music would be on the table.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Pre-1700 would also be of interest to me. Perhaps someone who knows their way around this period would be willing to take up hosting duties?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> I'd say yes on the pre-1700, although I'm not volunteering to be the project mother.
> 
> I do think we need to allow prep time to listen so we're not voting cold. So maybe we need to start on a loose pre-nominations period.


I'd like to go ahead with a pre-1700 too. And my views on preparation are up above.

If absolutely nobody else wants to host it, I can probably do so.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Pre-1700s favorites from another site. These all include YouTube links.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-by-decade


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

musicrom said:


> A while ago, there was somebody who was planning to start a top 100 American compositions list. Don't know what happened with that, but I would definitely be interested in that.


I will place a vote for the American project.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'd be very happy to participate in the pre-1700 project.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I'd like to go ahead with a pre-1700 too. And my views on preparation are up above.
> 
> If absolutely nobody else wants to host it, I can probably do so.


:: seconding the nomination of Nereffid ::


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I'd be very happy to participate in the pre-1700 project.


Me too, pre-1700 music discussion is something that TC should do more off.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Yes, I'd like to second Nereffid's nomination as well.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> If absolutely nobody else wants to host it, I can probably do so.


But would you have time to continue your day job polling the TC membership on its views of the top 10,000 classical works?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm game for the pre-1700s project. Sounds like a great idea.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Looks like I get to be Frodo, then.

Unless there are any objections, or last-minute grabs of the leadership reins, I'll start a discussion thread in a couple of days where we can discuss how best to do a pre-1700 list.



Antiquarian said:


> I would vote for pre 1700 also, but this means around 500 years of Renaissance music would be on the table.


The first thing we need to be clear on is that the Renaissance did not last 500 years.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Looks like I get to be Frodo, then.


Well said, Nereffid. I think a suitable character to represent my likely contribution to a pre-1700 project would be Fredegar Bolger.

Mahlerian is obviously Gandalf (he drops in to project threads to make some important recommendations, drops out for a while and then drops back in to help when you least expect it).

But, who's going to be Gollum?

Seriously, though, I am keen to participate because it's going to be largely new to me and I'll learn a lot.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> But, who's going to be Gollum?


He showed up in the post-1950s project, didn't he? :devil:


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

A pre 1700s list seems like a good idea. Though I can't help much as I'm not at all familiar with this era, and not really too interested in vocal music. I'll look in and participate when I can, but it'll be quite a small contribution from me. 

I've been wondering and asking about a music for guitar list, and there is little interest. I wonder instead if we could just come up with a list of about 50 works for guitar, solo or with ensemble, but not ranked. Listed alphabetically or chronologically.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> A pre 1700s list seems like a good idea. Though I can't help much as I'm not at all familiar with this era, and not really too interested in vocal music. I'll look in and participate when I can, but it'll be quite a small contribution from me.
> 
> I've been wondering and asking about a music for guitar list, and there is little interest. I wonder instead if we could just come up with a list of about 50 works for guitar, solo or with ensemble, but not ranked. Listed alphabetically or chronologically.


I'm in the same position re guitar music as you seem to be with early music. My feeling with the pre-1700 list is that an unranked (and long) list of ideas will need to be the first step so that those unfamiliar with the music can broaden their knowledge before the actual voting process starts. If that goes OK it could be a template for doing a guitar list or any other obscure-ish genre.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> I'm in the same position re guitar music as you seem to be with early music. My feeling with the pre-1700 list is that an unranked (and long) list of ideas will need to be the first step so that those unfamiliar with the music can broaden their knowledge before the actual voting process starts. If that goes OK it could be a template for doing a guitar list or any other obscure-ish genre.


This does increase the time to compile a list, but perhaps it would be a really good list as a result. Compile a long list of works first for people to listen to, say 200 + works. Just let us post whatever and whenever. Someone compiles this long list of the most frequently mentioned pieces. From that list a ranked list is compiled. It might add a few weeks to the process, and in that time people can start to listen to those pieces. This gives people like me somewhere to begin in a genre I know nothing about.

But I don't have a problem with an unranked list. We have one already: "Works that ought to be better known"

We've had issues and squabbles with the process of ranking before, especially the contemporary list. Perhaps the way forward might be an unranked list. Just a thought.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2015)

I'm all for a fresh one. But I would like to add that eventually, we could always have another re-vamp of an old list. We can see clearly from the string quartet list (versus the old string ensemble list) that TC's aggregate tastes have evolved, and it might be nice to see these new tastes reflected elsewhere as well.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

nathanb said:


> I'm all for a fresh one. But I would like to add that eventually, we could always have another re-vamp of an old list. We can see clearly from the string quartet list (versus the old string ensemble list) that TC's aggregate tastes have evolved, and it might be nice to see these new tastes reflected elsewhere as well.


I think this is a good, interesting idea for consideration at some point. For example: I was going to suggest a Violin Concerto list, having played a very large number of C20/21 VCs over the past couple of years that are of considerable merit and clearly deserve more attention, many more so than some warhorses. The current String Concerto list doesn't even start to do justice to what's out there waiting to be discovered. And I'm sure that's true of earlier eras also.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> I think this is a good, interesting idea for consideration at some point. For example: I was going to suggest a Violin Concerto list, having played a very large number of C20 VCs over the past couple of years that deserve more attention. The current String Concerto list doesn't even start to do justice to what's out there waiting to be discovered. And I'm sure that's true of earlier eras also.


I thoroughly endorse this post, fantastic idea. Thumbs up.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> I think this is a good, interesting idea for consideration at some point. For example: I was going to suggest a Violin Concerto list, having played a very large number of C20/21 VCs over the past couple of years that are of considerable merit and clearly deserve more attention, many more so than some warhorses. The current String Concerto list doesn't even start to do justice to what's out there waiting to be discovered. And I'm sure that's true of earlier eras also.


Agreed! I also like the idea to, once again, consolidate the topic from Strings to Violin, Ensembles to Quartets, etc. And yeah, the number of amazing violin concerti from the last 100 years alone is pretty staggering. From the masterpieces of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Berg to masterworks by Ligeti, Holliger, Xenakis, Pettersson, Dutilleux, Feldman, Gubaidulina, Chin, Saariaho, Eotvos, Zimmermann, Pintscher, Salonen, and the list just goes on and on!


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> I think this is a good, interesting idea for consideration at some point. For example: I was going to suggest a Violin Concerto list, having played a very large number of C20/21 VCs over the past couple of years that are of considerable merit and clearly deserve more attention, many more so than some warhorses. The current String Concerto list doesn't even start to do justice to what's out there waiting to be discovered. And I'm sure that's true of earlier eras also.





nathanb said:


> Agreed! I also like the idea to, once again, consolidate the topic from Strings to Violin, Ensembles to Quartets, etc. And yeah, the number of amazing violin concerti from the last 100 years alone is pretty staggering. From the masterpieces of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Berg to masterworks by Ligeti, Holliger, Xenakis, Pettersson, Dutilleux, Feldman, Gubaidulina, Chin, Saariaho, Eotvos, Zimmermann, Pintscher, Salonen, and the list just goes on and on!


Yep. I'd be game for a violin concerto gig.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Being the original facilitator of the string concertos project, I certainly wouldn't mind reprising the role if no one else is interested. I am definitely curious in seeing how a new list would compare, and I look forward to actually participating (unlike back then when I was so new to classical music).

Oh, and I'm down with the pre-1700 list as well!


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Just to stake a claim, if we get around at some point to a chamber piano with 2+ other instruments project, I would be very happy to host that. But I think that should come, if at all, after the pre-1700 and Violin Concerto ideas.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

In the meantime...ready when you are, Nereffid.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I'd be willing to try hosting a violin concerto list. It's my thing. I've actually tried playing a couple of the concerti that would be on that list, not that that counts for anything. But we can't start it immediately, I'm not really available in the next couple of months. Perhaps after Christmas I can begin this. Indeed, it would be better if we did a pre 1700s list first. 

I'm with Turnabout Vox, I'd like to see a piano trios list too.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

SimonNZ said:


> I think this is a good, interesting idea for consideration at some point. For example: I was going to suggest a Violin Concerto list, having played a very large number of C20/21 VCs over the past couple of years that are of considerable merit and clearly deserve more attention, many more so than some warhorses. The current String Concerto list doesn't even start to do justice to what's out there waiting to be discovered. And I'm sure that's true of earlier eras also.





nathanb said:


> Agreed! I also like the idea to, once again, consolidate the topic from Strings to Violin, Ensembles to Quartets, etc. And yeah, the number of amazing violin concerti from the last 100 years alone is pretty staggering. From the masterpieces of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Berg to masterworks by Ligeti, Holliger, Xenakis, Pettersson, Dutilleux, Feldman, Gubaidulina, Chin, Saariaho, Eotvos, Zimmermann, Pintscher, Salonen, and the list just goes on and on!


I agree we could easily go beyond 50 string concertos (and 50 piano chamber too). On the other hand I think it would be better to do all string concertos instead of just violin, if only because the other string concertos would be unlikely to get their own list and we might miss out a chance to explore those works. For example, after doing a list for string quartets, I don't think we'll be revisiting string trios/quintets+ given that too little is known about those areas compared to quartets.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Listing of works per year. All known works written in 1843, 1901, 1754, etc. Each year would be a whole project in and of itself, encompassing maybe 100-200 works total. We'll just need to figure out where to start.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

pjang23 said:


> I agree we could easily go beyond 50 string concertos (and 50 piano chamber too). On the other hand I think it would be better to do all string concertos instead of just violin, if only because the other string concertos would be less likely to get their own list. For example, after doing a list for string quartets, I don't think we'll be revisiting string trios/quintets+.


That would be less interesting for me, as I'd rather be examining and comparing how composers wrote for a very specific scenario, and how the history of compositions for that instrumentation shaped their own work.

Also my first post was suggesting that we are overwhelmed with posibilities for just the violin concerto, most of which deserve more attention, and giving away space on the ultimate list, whatever number, wouldn't serve the purpose of the project which is for exposure.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Listing of works per year. All known works written in 1843, 1901, 1754, etc. Each year would be a whole project in and of itself, encompassing maybe 100-200 works total. We'll just need to figure out where to start.


That would also be a fascinating project.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Listing of works per year. All known works written in 1843, 1901, 1754, etc. Each year would be a whole project in and of itself, encompassing maybe 100-200 works total. We'll just need to figure out where to start.


There is a small start to this on Wikipedia. Here is one example, I randomly picked 1868. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1868_in_music
A huge project, and interesting.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Works by year can be tricky. Year begun? Year finished? Published? Performed? Last major revision? The Wiki listings mentioned are wildly inconsistent.

Here's a sample situation: What year was Prokofiev's 2nd Piano Concerto written? Don't answer too quickly...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Listing of works per year. All known works written in 1843, 1901, 1754, etc. Each year would be a whole project in and of itself, encompassing maybe 100-200 works total. We'll just need to figure out where to start.


By-product of my polls project: https://sites.google.com/site/nereffid/home/chronological-highlights


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Good job! Your listing represents a lot of work.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

*bump*

Someone needs to start one.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I would prefer genre rather than by year because the year dictates a certain period to the exclusion of other works in the same genre from all periods. 1868 violin concerto is just that but excludes the same from 1768 for example.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I would prefer genre rather than by year because the year dictates a certain period to the exclusion of other works in the same genre from all periods. 1868 violin concerto is just that but excludes the same from 1768 for example.


But you could also say that 'by genre' excludes other works by the same composer of other genres. 1868 violin concerto is just that but excludes an 1868 symphony, for example.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

There's another thread somewhere in which it was agreed I'd host a pre-1700 project, beginning last November. Various personal commitments and the total absence of howls of despair when nothing happened meant that didn't get started. If we still want to go ahead with that, then let me get to the "end game" in my a la carte polls (a couple more weeks) and I'll kick off.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

^^^ Personally I'd like to go ahead with this, but of course I'd never urge you (or anyone else) to start it. 
As soon as you you can / wish to, it will be great for me


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I had a look through the master lists. I think it needs a single instrument list to include solo works from each section of the orchestra. (For argument sake we can take the Pianoforte out of the Percussion section)
No need for pre/post dates just reccomended works for people who want to see what a particular instrument can really do!


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

I think that a list of operatic overtures/preludes and intermezzos/interludes could be interesting.
What do you guys think?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Stavrogin said:


> I think that a list of operatic overtures/preludes and intermezzos/interludes could be interesting.
> What do you guys think?


In early September I started a thread http://http://www.talkclassical.com/45141-any-interest-new-tc.html This is how we began the current Piano Trios list. I don't want to sound defensive and possessive but usually we start a new list after the conclusion of another, so there is only one list compilation at a time. But there is no hard and fast rule. There is, however, consensus among prospective participants of the list to be compiled.

With the Christmas hiatus the piano trios list should finish by late January.

I have learned that if you want something done, you'll have to do it yourself. I've enjoyed compiling the piano trios list and I've listened to some amazing music in the process.

Personally, I'm not into opera, so I don't know the overture repertoire. I'd have trouble keeping up in the first round, but I'm willing to try.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

senza sordino said:


> In early September I started a thread http://http://www.talkclassical.com/45141-any-interest-new-tc.html This is how we began the current Piano Trios list. I don't want to sound defensive and possessive but usually we start a new list after the conclusion of another, so there is only one list compilation at a time. But there is no hard and fast rule. There is, however, consensus among prospective participants of the list to be compiled.
> 
> I have learned that if you want something done, you'll have to do it yourself. I've enjoyed compiling the piano trios list and I've listened to some amazing music in the process.
> 
> Personally, I'm not into opera, so I don't know the overture repertoire.


Ok, I'll revive my proposal when the current project is finished.
As for doing it myself, I am afraid I'll have to try the "free rider" way instead  because I am quite unaware of both the opera world (that list would indeed be a tool for me to sneak in) and the functioning itself of such projects.


----------

