# music you should hear - a proposal



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd like to propose a project similar to the symphonies/operas projects that have wrapped up. The goal would be to make a prioritized list of recommended works of classical music. 

Unlike those games, all works would be eligible: not only symphonies and operas, but chamber music, solo piano music, choral works, and so on. 

I don't entirely understand the way those projects worked, so I'd like some guidance. I don't mind duplicating their method, but of course there are other ways, and I wonder what your thoughts are.

One way that sort-of appeals to me is to create a system so that people can vote about once a day, and when a work gets enough votes it joins the list of recommended works. For instance, each vote, each participant can add (say) 2 points to one work, 1 point to another work, and subtract a point from another work; when a works gets (say) a 7 point lead, it is "recommended." 

I don't know whether that appeals to people or not; I'm not married to that system and I don't mind using another one! It's just one that I understand, so I'm mentioning it. There would have to be some more specific rules, and we can get into them if people like this system. 

Please let me know if you have questions, concerns, reservations, hopes, etc....


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2011)

science said:


> I'd like ...to make a prioritized list of recommended works of classical music.


My question would be "Why?"


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I'd be interested to advocate 'key works' that I (in my infinite wisdom!) consider should be 'must hears' for all serious classical music lovers - across all genres and periods.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

some guy said:


> My question would be "Why?"


"Why" is because it is obvious that there are some inexperienced listeners who come here looking for help and recommendations in what can be a very daunting field of music. I say we (more experienced listeners/professionals) encourage these people (goodness knows classical music needs new listeners!) and give them all the guidance we can give.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I consider myself something like "an advanced beginner." I don't figure we'd be too far into this project before I started learning a lot myself.

I wouldn't be thinking the list is anything like an authoritative ranking of the great works of classical music (or anything pretentious like that), just a list of recommendations - but prioritization is key, because there is so much music out there, and people recommend all of it, so it's helpful to force us to prioritize our recommendations.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Would your system produce a ranked list? 
If youre looking for a ranked list it would be better to do the other system.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It would be ranked - whatever we vote up first is #1, and whatever we vote up second is #2, and so on. (We talked about it in a PM a few weeks ago.)

Can someone explain how the other system worked? I just saw lots of posts with lists of works.....


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Ah yes the idea from the other board! I remember.

The other system was basically you would nominate your works for 1-10 and then all these nominayions would be counted and a definitive top 10 worked out based on the nominations. And so on.. (to simplify)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think that might amount to a super-fast-forward version of the system I propose. 

As I think this over, I see merits to both systems. Ultimately, I think it might not matter.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Let me propose this: we start with the system I proposed (come to think of it, I am a little attached to it - I enjoy the process), and when we finish our top 20 recommendations, we pause to discuss whether we want to switch methods.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ah, I figured out that system. It seems like it took a lot of work for emiellucifuge. I don't mind him doing that much work - but I don't want to!

BTW - offtopic, but Almaviva is putting in some hard hours in the opera DVD thread!


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

As I see it, there are already several decent lists of recommended classical works that beginners can be referred to. These lists have been trotted out in various previous threads on T-C in the past, and could easily be pulled together and put in a "sticky", but this never happens. 

One such set of lists is that produced by DDD. I accept that possibly one or two of those lists are possibly a bit wonky in terms of definitions (eg tone poems covers not only that category but several suites as well), but on the whole they're perfectly fine lists, and more than adequate to provide a good introduction to classical music. What's more, they're permanently on display on the DDD form, which is not the case with the odd few lists lists produced here. 

Another problem is that the lists produced here tend to include contributions from people with widely differing experience levels. Anyone can vote, and for all we know there could be all manner of dubious and ill-thought out contributions being put forward. There is no editing whatsoever, and the only guard against a pile nonsense being perpretrated is the hope that voting by others will be large enough to suppress minority or rubbish viewpoints. To be frank, I think the job of producing sensible lists of classical music is best left to people with experience and knowledge, rather than by people with unknown credentials such as we have seen in some of the polling on other recent threads.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

DDD didnt include any of Mendelssohn's quartets in the chamber list


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Just go buy a book about "The 1000 classical pieces you should hear before you die." That should be suitable, I have one. Not working on it though haha


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I'd take part in such a project just for the fun of it. Besides it would be impossible not to learn a thing or two in the process anyway and have some discussion etc.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ok, here are the rules I propose in detail. I will really appreciate anyone who takes the time to read them and make comments! 

Simple version of the rules: 

1. In this project, we are creating a prioritized list of recommended works of classical music by voting. 

2. At least sixteen hours must pass between your votes. 

3. There will be a list of works we’ve recommended. Once a work is recommended, its spot in our local little pantheon of recommendations is permanent. 

4. There will be another list, which we’ll call “the board,” of works that are candidates for recommendations. We’ll be voting for and against works on the board. 

5. Each time you vote, you must add 2 points to one work, add 1 point to another work, and subtract 1 point from another work. You must indicate how you’re voting by typing something like, "Beethoven 5 / Rite of Spring / Brahms Piano Trio": the first work is getting two points added, the second is getting one point added, and the third work is losing a point.

6. If possible, when you vote, please copy the board from the previous voter, paste it into the "reply" box, and change the points according to your vote. But if you can’t do this (like if you're voting from a cell phone, or you're new to the project and uncertain how to do it), just indicate how you'd like to vote and another participant will take care of it for you.

7. When a work on the board achieves a 7 point lead over all the other works on the board, it is "recommended." For instance, the first work to get a 7 point lead will be the #1 recommendation, and so on.

8. The board cannot have more than 25 candidate works on it at a time. If there are fewer works than that on the board, you can add a work to the board simply by voting for it, giving it 1 or 2 points. (Remember that each time you vote you have to add a point to one work and two points to another work.) 

9. Works can be removed from the board by being voted back down to zero points. If that happens, the work can be added to the board again at any time, as long as there aren’t ever more than 25 works on the board. 

10. If there is some error in your vote so that it is not a legal vote, we will just skip it. If you find out you've been skipped for this reason, you can vote again without waiting for 16 hours. 

11. Please remain polite even when you’re frustrated, and cooperate with each other, remembering that it’s a project and not a contest. If you passionately advocate a work, it will eventually be recommended. 

12. Above all, please participate actively! Each person brings a unique perspective, so no matter who you are, your participation will help us create a more interesting list of recommendations. Please don’t worry about whether you know enough to participate: just vote for the works you love and want to recommend to others. Most of us have more to learn than to teach, and one of our goals here is to learn from each other. 

I feel that last point is so important that I want to say it twice: please vote for the works you love and wish to recommend to others, even if you haven’t heard other works on the list. None of us will have heard everything, we’re all here to learn, and the fact that you love a work means that others probably will too, so it should be recommended! On the other hand, since we’re all here to learn, the real opportunity is for us to learn from each other, to find out works of music that are new to us and to expand our world a bit!




Details and explanations: 

2. The point of this is to enable people to vote once a day comfortably. However, if someone is so dedicated to the project that they vote 3 times in 2 days, more power to them! If someone votes too soon and gets caught, we’ll just skip that vote. The participant will be eligible to vote as soon as the original 16 hours are actually up. Accidents will happen, and we should police ourselves, but if someone repeatedly violates “the 16 hour rule” we can vote to punish that participant by not letting them vote for some period of time. 

3. It appears we’ll have to enlist a moderator to keep a “sticky” thread with the record of our recommendations. Also, if a thread about the works we recommend doesn't already exist, we will create one so that we can discuss that work and recordings of it. I wouldn’t mind a project recommending recordings of these works, following the model of the very effective project going on in the opera on DVD forum. But I’m not sure that I personally have the time to commit to that. 

5 & 6. A good idea is to make sure that someone didn’t vote at virtually the same time you did, which can lead to votes being skipped. If you notice that happened, please try to fix it. If you’re not sure how to fix it, just point it out and someone will be able to fix it.

(The first vote will technically be illegal because there will be no work on the board to vote against. That's inelegant, but once we're beyond that vote everything will work fine.)

7. The +2 and +1 and -1 votes are considered to happen simultaneously: a work is “recommended” when it has a 7 point lead at the end of the participant’s vote. 

Works are removed from the board when they achieve “recommendation.” 

8. In principle, every work that has not been recommended and is not on the board has zero points. If a work has been recommended, it can't be added to the list again. Of course, there would be no point in recommending it twice!

There could be a problem with whether works such as Chopin’s Nocturnes really count as a single work. I would propose treating them as single works if they are almost always recorded as a group, if they are not collectively too large - not more than 2 or 3 hours - and if the individual components wouldn't merit much consideration alone. These are vague guidelines because I’m not sure a really firm principle can be discovered. so the community of participants can discuss any particular ambiguous choices.

If someone removes works from the list (either by casting the vote that gives a work a 7 point lead and recommends it, or by voting it back down to zero) and simultaneously adds a work to this list, that is fine – as long as there are no more than 25 works on the list when the vote is finished. 

10. If someone appears to have made a minor error in their vote, we can fix it just by posting the correct list. We should consider the indication of how the participant intended to vote (that is, the thing like “Beethoven 5 / Rite of Spring / Brahms Piano Trio”) as authoritative, and if the board they post disagrees with that, then we should fix the board. Skipping a vote should only be done if 

11. In order for a work to reach the 7 point lead needed for recommendation, frequently we will need to cooperate and negotiate about our votes; for instance, "I’ll vote for the Goldberg Variations now if you’ll vote for the Diabellis next.” A third participant might offer her support if you switched the order. And so on. 

This discussion is an important part of the process. The nature of collaboration like this is that none of us will agree with all of the group's choices. Please remember that it's a project, not a competition. Please be willing to compromise and negotiate, and please remain polite to each other! 

A particularly vexing point is likely to be the negative votes. I’ve included them because I believe the negative vote communicates important information, and I’ve required them because I don’t want their use to seem vicious. When a work you love is being voted against, feel free to lament and beg and threaten (always in civil terms), but do not despair: a work that is voted against as our #3 recommendation may well receive a lot of support as our #13. 

Another important thing is that it invites each of us to re-encounter music that we might not have heard in a long time, music that we might have neglected or failed to appreciate when we heard it in the past. So advocate the works you love in order to give the rest of us this opportunity! And none of us should hesitate to change our mind mid-stream, to say something like, “Wow, I hadn’t realized how good Szymanowski’s Stabat Mater is, and now I’m going to support it.” 

12. A different group of people would create a different list – even the same group of people at a different time would create a different list – but this is our list for now, at this point in our lives, and we value everyone’s participation. 

Once again, the nature of things is that we sometimes disagree. But please be polite and respectful of people’s right to have a different opinion than yours! The moderators here don’t tolerate rudeness or insults.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'll wait a day or two in case anyone has suggestions or comments, and if it's all good, then I'll start the project in another thread!


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

These might help:

Ted Libbey has an NPR guide for collecting classical music mentioned here:

http://www.classicalcdguide.com/main/books.htm

together with other works. There's also a website connected to the radio show here:

http://www.npr.org/series/99866406/the-npr-classical-50

Classical Net has a basic repertoire list:

http://www.classical.net/music/rep/

I remember RCA and DG offering basic lists, too, and I think Naxos has something in its "Education" section, as well as various awards and ratings for several works in its catalog (which can be downloaded in PDF).

What I did was to follow Libbey's selections and cross-check with Peguin Guide, then indicate the composer's name, title of work, recording company, and any rating ("3" stars or a rosette, "SEV" if it received one or more awards) in an Excel spreadsheet, then check for ratings of the same title in budget lines like DG Originals, Philips Duo, Naxos, etc. From there, I add one final column with a priority rank (from 1 to 10) given financial constraints: the ones from budget lines with the highest ratings and/or various awards is given high priority.

Finally, I look at works recommended by others but not mentioned by Libbey and give them ave. priority.

From there, I can sort the spreadsheet by priority and look for the highest ones first, or use the search feature to look for a particular title. I can also sort by composer, title, and publisher, esp. if particular stores shelve works by recording company for particular sales (e.g., 50 pct off for several box sets from one publisher). I can also put the spreadsheet in a cell phone or handheld when I visit a store. Of course, if I have more free time, I can ask to listen to a particular disk or borrow a Penguin Guide and other references that are usually available.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

One of the good things about making our own list is that we can go past 20 or 30 or whatever. For people who are just beginning, the top of the list is the most interesting, and there are lots of resources out there. 

But once you've got the 150 or so most famous works - then what? Norgard's 3rd symphony or Schnittke's piano quintet or Bruch's 3rd violin concerto or Bach's coffee cantata or Gluck's Les Chinoises or Bartok's Microcosmos or Sciarrino's Sui poeme concentrici or Britten's Canticles or Lully's Psyche or Telemann's Tafelmusik or Haydn's op. 33 quartets or Xenakis' quartets or Martinu's 4th symphony or Granados' piano quintet or Glass's Aguas de Amazonia or Weiss's lute sonatas or Glazunov's violin concerto... etc etc etc


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

As Toccata was hinting at, the problem with these lists is that they come from a small group of people widely varying in their listening experience. For example, I am very knowledgeable about classical period repertoire and keyboard repertoire, but I have comparatively little listening experience when it comes to chamber music, opera, or modern/postmodern music. Others may be very knowledgeable about 20th century repertoire but less appreciative of earlier works.

To have a list that has even a suggestion of objectivity, the sample needs to be much larger and consist solely of music experts. For example, AFI's list of the top 100 movies of all time used a sample of about 1,500 people, all of whom were _experts_ in the field.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that classical music is too vast to have one single list of the top 100 - even 1,000 - recommended works because it wouldn't have any meaning. You really can't mix time periods and genres together - they've got to have their own separate lists. That's why I think even the DDD lists are a bit too broad... they've got lists like:
Top 100 symphonies
Top 100 operas
Top 100 tone poems
etc.

But in my opinion, these really need to be broken down even further into period and genre, wherever such distinctions would be meaningful, such as:
Top 100 romantic period keyboard works
Top 100 20th century chamber works
Top 100 Italian madrigals

and so on. Otherwise, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach will top every list.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I find the unbroken lists more helpful than the broken ones. 

I agree that the more participants, the better.

This would be OUR list, not THE OFFICIAL list. Not even the greatest collection of the greatest experts using the greatest methods (if any of these things could be agreed upon) could compile a list or set of lists that would be really authoritative. 

It's good to say "recommended" rather than "top" or "greatest" or anything like that, so that we feel free to vote our preferences and experiences.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Alright, well at least you appear to be going about this in a systematic and organized fashion. How do we put together the initial recommended works list? Do we just list our top 10 recommended works?


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

I share all of Ravellian's concerns. 

It's not clear where the voting material comes from initially. I especially think that it's far too ambitious to attempt to produce a list of the best/top/greatest classical works from a cold start without laying down in advance any bedrock material.

I referred previously to the DDD lists. The way DDD achieved their list of 200 "Greatest Classical Works" was by a two-stage procedure. They first produced a list of the greatest composers. Then they produced a series of lists for the greatest works of (many of) these composers. After that they spliced the two together, so as to achieve a degree of consistency, and added a few one-offs for good measure. 

In each case, I far prefer the methodology was used by DDD to the simple voting procedures adopted here. There was at laest an attempt to base decisions on perceived greatness, rather than merely favourites. This tended to keep out all the daft and idiosyncratic contributions, especially from people whose knowledge of classical music was quite weak. Plus, all the exercises were managed by a moderator whose knowledge of classical music is apparently very good across most genres, and who was aided by a bunch of members who seemed to complement his knowledge quite well. 

I also feel that the voting procedure as proposed here (involving all the pluses and minuses etc) could get quickly bogged down in confusion, error, and boredom as well. Excercises using that kind of voting system were used here last year and before, and became quite tedious mechanical exercises, with very little useful discussion. Furthermore, as new members attempted to join in, they often mis-read the rules, or voted again for something that's already been dealt with, etc.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Toccata, thanks for your posts. 

I'll try to clarify point #8, where I tried to explain where the "voting material" comes from initially. Ravellian seems to have missed that too, so I'm sure my explanation needs clarification. (It's as simple as I can make it: the participants just put stuff on the board, and they vote for or against it.) 

I don't think I can answer the points in your second and third paragraphs. I'm intentionally avoiding "greatest" language, but otherwise our list will surely have the weaknesses you anticipate. The best thing I can say is that I hope no one takes our list too seriously: it's supposed to be helpful, informative, perhaps fun, but it won't be scripture. But I hope you'll participate if I go forward with the project, because it sounds like you would bring some worthwhile knowledge to it!

If the predictions in your fourth paragraph come too true, then we'll just have to change methods or abandon the project. I can't be sure that won't happen, but I'd try it and and see, because I have managed a project with a methodology similar to this (though I've made some adjustments) before, and it seems to work well enough. The worst problem we have (by far) is keeping our tempers: it might be better for us if it were a little more mechanical or tedious!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ravellian, I want to thank you for expressing your concerns as well. I'm sorry that I don't have a better answer for them, other than that this is a project I want to do for the fun of it, and I hope you'll participate because it sounds like I could learn a lot from you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

So as it looks now, I'm probably a day away from starting it up. 

Perhaps the best way to do it is just to get it started and we'll see how it works (it sounds more complicated than it is), but I want to try to clarify points #4 and #8 first.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Actually, I'm not allowed to edit that post anymore, so let me just work on them in this post.

4. There will be a list, which we’ll call "the board," of works that are candidates for recommendations. We’ll be voting for and against works on the board. (Point #8 addresses how works get on the board.)

8. The board cannot have more than 25 candidate works on it at a time. If there are fewer than 25 works on it, then you can add a work to the board simply by voting for it, using either your +2 or your +1 to do so - so that it starts with either 2 points or 1 point, depending on which you use. You can even also add two works, if there is room, giving one work 2 points and the other 1 point. (Remember that each time you vote you have to add a point to one work and two points to another work. )

Is that better?


----------

