# TC Top Recommendations of the Year



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Hello!!! It's everyone's favorite host Tchaikov6:devil: here today with another _brilliant_ idea for a list!!

But really, how do we feel about doing a yearly award for the best classical pieces? There's the common talk that "classical music is dying" but just look here for dozens of classical pieces written in 2019 alone!! many of them aren't available to listen to yet but many of them are! i think it would be fun to do a "top 10 of 2019" "top 10 of 2020" and so on.

However, it would be equally fun to go back and do top tens of long past years that are more "popular". I mean, 1887 and 1913 and 1788 and so on. What do we think? Just a top ten? or a top five?

This is all up to _you_, i think it'd be a great database for new classical listeners (especially those new to, well, new music!).


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

For new music, I would welcome a 'composition of the year' award, if only as a personal guideline for listening. For existing music, I would suggest a 'composition of the decade' award, as it probably offers more interesting comparisons (who was ahead of who in say: 1820-1830 or 1900-1910 or 1950-1960?). Nice plan, you might want to link with Bulldog, who is a master in setting up polls!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I think it would be a fun idea if there were plenty of people involved. We have science's "most highly recommended" project, so the nomination process is partly done already.
The way I see it working is if there's say 20 or 30 nominations (it would depend on the year, I suppose), and every participant simply votes once with a ranked top 10. No need to mess about with complicated voting systems or daily rounds - I think a single vote would encourage participation from some people who have no interest in the Games subforum (e.g. me).


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> I think it would be a fun idea if there were plenty of people involved. We have science's "most highly recommended" project, so the nomination process is partly done already.
> The way I see it working is if there's say 20 or 30 nominations (it would depend on the year, I suppose), and every participant simply votes once with a ranked top 10. No need to mess about with complicated voting systems or daily rounds - I think a single vote would encourage participation from some people who have no interest in the Games subforum (e.g. me).


That's a great suggestion and I will keep that in mind. I was also thinking we could make it even easier; no nomination round required. We could allow a month or two for people to listen to new works and send in their 5-10 votes (through PMs).


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

NLAdriaan said:


> For new music, I would welcome a 'composition of the year' award, if only as a personal guideline for listening. For existing music, I would suggest a 'composition of the decade' award, as it probably offers more interesting comparisons (who was ahead of who in say: 1820-1830 or 1900-1910 or 1950-1960?). Nice plan, you might want to link with Bulldog, who is a master in setting up polls!


hmmm a decade could be interesting too!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

If you're going to rank submitted top 10 lists, please do not use 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points, but something like 13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> If you're going to rank submitted top 10 lists, please do not use 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points, but something like 13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4.


not quite sure what you mean?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

If everyone sends in a ranked top 10, you would have to assign points to get to a total score. The standard (and imo wrong) way os to give each #1 10 points, each #2 9 points and so on. This causes issues at the tail-end, because obviously ranking in two lists at #10 should be awarded more points than ranking in one list at #9. Hence my proposal to award 13 points for the #1 positions, 12 for the #2 and so on until 4 points for the #10.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Tchaikov6 said:


> That's a great suggestion and I will keep that in mind. I was also thinking we could make it even easier; no nomination round required. We could allow a month or two for people to listen to new works and send in their 5-10 votes (through PMs).


I think the visibility of the contest adds to the attraction. You will likely loose audience in a silent PM-Voting for months.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> If everyone sends in a ranked top 10, you would have to assign points to get to a total score. The standard (and imo wrong) way os to give each #1 10 points, each #2 9 points and so on. This causes issues at the tail-end, because obviously ranking in two lists at #10 should be awarded more points than ranking in one list at #9. Hence my proposal to award 14 points for the #1 positions, 13 for the #2 and so on until 4 points for the #10.


Ohhh i understand, yes, i will do that.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

NLAdriaan said:


> I think the visibility of the contest adds to the attraction. You will likely loose audience in a silent PM-Voting for months.


there would likely be a lull in the middle, but for those who want to listen to as many works from that year as they can, i think it's necessary.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Top recommendations would just be those which moved up tiers the fastest that year, no? I'd like to see something like that. Give awards to the fastest trending pieces.

If you want to do a one-time survey, that would just produce a list similar to the above link.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Ethereality said:


> Top recommendations would be those which moved up tiers the fastest?
> 
> Or if you want to do a one time survey, that would already produce a list like above.


Yeah it would be a one time vote I think. A top ten of the year, or top five if we don't get enough participants.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> there would likely be a lull in the middle, but for those who want to listen to as many works from that year as they can, i think it's necessary.


The most comprehensive (and, I suppose, "ethical"!) process for any vote would be that everyone listens to every possible work and gives them equal treatment, but is that realistic? For the Most Recommended List, we have about a week to cast our vote, and at the lower tiers there are dozens of works. Obviously none of us are listening to every piece. And at the higher tiers presumably most of us already have an opinion on most of the works and don't need much time at all.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> The most comprehensive (and, I suppose, "ethical"!) process for any vote would be that everyone listens to every possible work and gives them equal treatment, but is that realistic? For the Most Recommended List, we have about a week to cast our vote, and at the lower tiers there are dozens of works. Obviously none of us are listening to every piece. And at the higher tiers presumably most of us already have an opinion on most of the works and don't need much time at all.


It _is_ the most accurate in a larger scale situation; however, in a year people can easily fine prominent works written (or finished), especially if they are given time to do so. And yes, I can affirm I in no way have time to listen to every piece on the Most Recommended List, although I've been trying to explore new works from it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> The way I see it working is if there's say 20 or 30 nominations (it would depend on the year, I suppose), and every participant simply votes once with a ranked top 10. No need to mess about with complicated voting systems or daily rounds - I think a single vote would encourage participation from some people who have no interest in the Games subforum (e.g. me).


Ah, you favor the "one and done" approach - I'm fine with that. Of course, I'm also good with a game format.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Others of you are more expert at setting things up like this, but it would seem to me that a 2 (or 3) stage voting process would be best. Nominations that are seconded to get a general list, then whittling it down to a top 20 (if necessary) then voting to select the top 10 for example. In most years I doubt you would get more than 20 different nominations so it could easily be a two stage process.

I also think ArtRock's idea about weighting selections is smart. You might also consider a simple weighting procedure where each vote counts for 3, 2, or 1 points. For example, let's say that there are 20 pieces to be voted on. Each participant could vote for six pieces with 1 vote counting for 3 points, 2 votes counting for 2 points each, and 3 votes counting for 1 point each. 


I think it's a fun idea Tchaikov6! I'd be interested in doing it and I agree that these things are more valuable if you get more people involved. A larger sample size of course makes for more reliable results.


Would all of this take place in the polling area or in the discussion area?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not certain I understand the procedure being proposed. If you simply give a year or a decode and tell people to submit 10 ordered works for that time period, I would worry that the variation in nominations could result in relatively little overlap unless a large number of people contributed. A nomination process that produced a list of works before people voted would at least ensure that everyone was voting on a fixed set of works. It's true that such a process could result in a slightly biased set of votes, but I think it would make sure people did not overlook works they actually loved and increase the likelihood in greater voting overlap. 

I would be happy to participate either way (or likely using other procedures as well).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The way I'd envisage it is that there'd be a short (2-3 days) nomination process. The Most Recommended list will have plenty of works to start off with, probably 1-2 dozen, and then each participant could suggest a few more (2 to 5 maybe? depends on how many people are involved and how busy a year it was). (Side question: how many people have this information readily to hand?) So you end up with a list of 30-40ish works, _most of them fairly obscure_, no further action needed.

Then the voting, I suppose a week or so. Everyone ranks up to 10 works. Scoring would be per Art Rock's suggestion, although I'm curious about a related method called the Dowdall system, where the #1 gets 1 point, #2 gets 1/2 point, #3 gets 1/3 point...

It would have to be done on the main forum, otherwise it will be ignored/dismissed by most people. And I think a fairly short turnaround is preferable so that over a relatively short period of time you're starting to build up a valuable resource.



Bulldog said:


> Ah, you favor the "one and done" approach - I'm fine with that. Of course, I'm also good with a game format.


I'd characterize my preference as "one man, one vote"!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> I'd characterize my preference as "one man, one vote"!


No room for women?


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I think we should do something to try to limit the number of pieces right out of the gate. Maybe each person can only nominate 3-5 works and can only second 3-5 works. If you get a list of pieces that is too long, then its too much burden to listen to all the pieces that you don't already know. 

So I'd try to limit-- right out of the gate-- to 20 max. 

In general, I'd try to keep it simple. A complex process discourages participation.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> No room for women?


This is political correctness gone mad. :lol:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> This is political correctness gone mad. :lol:


No, it's just you not updating a common phrase.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I do worry slightly that TC has so many of these types of threads. Aside from the many polls in the polling section, there is the Exploring Contemporary Music thread, the Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommend Works, the TC Early Music Listening Group (just starting), and the 1980-2000 Listening Group. I love them all, but find I don't always have enough listening time to devote to them all. I don't know how many people participate in all or most of them, but it can be challenging to listen to a large number of works apart from one's regular listening.

I would just suggest that this project tries to ensure that there's enough time to listen to the works before voting.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> No, it's just you not updating a common phrase.


'mankind' covers all


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> No, it's just you not updating a common phrase.


I'm genuinely not sure if you're being serious or just weirdly petty. So to avoid confusion or mischaracterisation, let me explain that I would normally say "one person, one vote" but for some reason I can't quite define, I felt "one man, one vote" was more appropriate in the context of replying to you. There was some sort of attempt to evoke the somewhat ludicrous notion of an old-fashioned chap who feels he's standing up for democracy - it's an idealistic kind of phrase that doesn't entirely suit the situation of a discussion about picking favourite pieces of music. Anyway, that evocation never stood a chance of coming across properly, and the end result is that I've caused someone to be either offended or smugly self-righteous, both of which I regret deeply. Hopefully no more needs to be said and we won't derail a good thread any further, although if anyone wants to start a thread on the value of pointing out problematic language on TC I'd be happy to contribute.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Okay thank you everyone for your thoughts!! I'm going to be doing a "test" one, or I guess the very first one, what year should we start with? Remember, we have hundreds of years in history, we have time to try out multiple methods!!


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

One other technicality is in determining the year for a piece of music. For example, let’s say a piece was composed from 1896-1901, premiered in 1902, revised in 1913, what’s its designated year?


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

20centrfuge said:


> One other technicality is in determining the year for a piece of music. For example, let's say a piece was composed from 1896-1901, premiered in 1902, revised in 1913, what's its designated year?


year completed would be my go to. i get that certain works have extensive revisions like Brahms's first piano trio but I would stick with the year the piece was completed or else there will be a lot of inconsistencies.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Tchaikov6 said:


> year completed would be my go to. i get that certain works have extensive revisions like Brahms's first piano trio but I would stick with the year the piece was completed or else there will be a lot of inconsistencies.


Based on my own experience, I'd advice you to double check every entry. I've run games based on years of composition, where it became clear mid game that some works were not composed in the year that the nominator said. Sometimes decades off.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay thank you everyone for your thoughts!! I'm going to be doing a "test" one, or I guess the very first one, what year should we start with? Remember, we have hundreds of years in history, we have time to try out multiple methods!!


If you want to start big, I suggest sometime within a couple of decades either side of 1900 - that's the period with probably the greatest number of popular works.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Side note: One thing I'm really hoping for, if this project takes off, is that we'll end up with lists of works that would actually be valuable for people who insist that classical music died with Shostakovich or Rachmaninoff or whoever. Lists where we can point to a work they like and say "well, here's something else written by a younger composer at that time - try it, you might like it..."


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Side note: One thing I'm really hoping for, if this project takes off, is that we'll end up with lists of works that would actually be valuable for people who insist that classical music died with Shostakovich or Rachmaninoff or whoever. Lists where we can point to a work they like and say "well, here's something else written by a younger composer at that time - try it, you might like it..."


Yes, that's my goal too! (I'm assuming you mean late 20th century, early 21st century years in this case). So I'm thinking we can start somewhere in the 1890s just to test.


----------

