# The allure of the list



## Guest (Feb 5, 2013)

New thread started to avoid hi-jacking the latest list thread. I may be a jerk, but I'm a considerate jerk is my point.:tiphat:

Here's the response I made to that thread. I used a particular poster's post to make the response, but I'm not really responded to him personally, so I've changed his name. I hope he doesn't mind. He can always come onto this thread and bash me, if he wants. [Note to mods: he has my permission so no infractions for him, OK?]



Everyman said:


> We've all done these lists it seems like hundreds of times before.


Yes. This obsession is curious.



Everyman said:


> A few years back I know my list would have had Shostakovich in place of Brahms and several other differences. Our tastes slowly evolve.


When I was first starting out listening to music, I made lists, too. They were short because I was just starting out. Rachmaninoff was number one. But as soon as I'd heard Tchaikovsky, I was torn. The latter was so much better. But Rachmaninoff was still my "favorite."

But indeed, our tastes evolve. And our perceptions as well, I suppose. My favorite composer is whoever I'm listening to at the time, which is another way of saying I have no favorites, really. Which is another way of saying that each composer is different. How does one compare Xenakis and Vivaldi? They bring such different things to the table. How does one rank them if one cannot compare them? Xenakis really sucks at baroque counterpoint, but Vivaldi really sucks at power chord clusters.



Everyman said:


> It was with great reluctance that I marked off my favorite non-household names from the list.


And are those marked off names composers you will never listen to again? Of course not. You have just performed an action that changes nothing! Great job!!



Everyman said:


> Now I am curious what this says about us.


Indeed!! The psychology of list making. I've seen two answers to the question, "Why do you make lists?"

"Because it's fun" and "Because it's important." (The latter is usually associated with ranked, ordered lists.)

Neither really answers anything, though. _Why_ is it fun? _Why_ is it important?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

The list is very helpful in exploring new Composers that you might overlook otherwise. The ladder helps you build up to a certain Composer that might overwhelm you otherwise if you skip right to him.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think lists are personal, so if I see some guy's top 10 composers - for example - it gives an insight into what some guy likes.

And maybe nothing more than this...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If we actually want to understand ourselves better, studying cognitive psychology will reward our time more than endless navel gazing.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> New thread started to avoid hi-jacking the latest list thread. I may be a jerk, but I'm a considerate jerk is my point.:tiphat:
> 
> Here's the response I made to that thread. I used a particular poster's post to make the response, but I'm not really responded to him personally, so I've changed his name. I hope he doesn't mind. He can always come onto this thread and bash me, if he wants. [Note to mods: he has my permission so no infractions for him, OK?]
> 
> ...


You forgot the other favourite with lists: polls (voting).


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Why are they "fun"? Fun probably isn't the right word, but:

1. Your list is an expression of who you are. "Hey, this is me!" So many internet posts really just say this (which is OK, as far as I'm concerned). The fact that it is an actual list is somewhat less important here, but a lot of people cheat and don''t really do lists when asked to.

2. It can cause you to think about your tastes, or maybe just see how much they've changed (and you never did tell us who's your current favorite, Rachmaninoff or Tchaikovsky). 

3. I find it interesting to see other people's lists. Even if I ignore who's making the post, it's always interesting to see variety. As much as lists would seem to attempt to canonize, they usually have the opposite effect, which is good IMO.

4. They're easy posts. There's no wrong answer. Some of the more thoughtful topics are great, but many of us feel we have nothing to add to them. Maybe the topic is beyond our pay grade. You see this all over the internet. I'm not going to comment on a blog post about, say, the Syrian Civil War, not because I don't care, but because I'd just be talking out of my you-know-what. 

5. They're not really fun, just more fun than whatever else we're supposed to be doing now.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Some people are quite disturbed by lists. But there is help!

"He who is distressed by the suffering of animals should avoid the street of the butchers." --Mencius


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Now I'm inspired to make a list!

Perhaps with a poll.. Hmm..


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I've had all of these same questions too. I know next to nothing about psychology, so I am only guessing as a layman. 

I have gut feeling list making is similar to collecting stuff. I once read an article about collectors and their collections. One researcher suggested that to have a "complete" collection of something provides a temporary feeling of being more in control, more orderly in a chaotic world. That feeling soon diminishes, so we start a new collection, and so forth. There is something about list making that feels similar. 

Also we can compare our list to others and see how we fit in. Fitting in was probably once important to survival though it might be a constraint on creativity now. List making may give us an excuse to reflect on the works that have moved us, a form of reminiscing. I think for me it is a way of semi-socializing without getting my hands too dirty. I probably wouldn't want to start a list thread myself though.

Somehow I doubt Everyman would find anything at all offensive or bash worthy about this thread.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> Why are they "fun"? Fun probably isn't the right word, but:
> 
> 1. Your list is an expression of who you are. "Hey, this is me!" So many internet posts really just say this (which is OK, as far as I'm concerned). The fact that it is an actual list is somewhat less important here, but a lot of people cheat and don''t really do lists when asked to.
> 
> ...


Well said. I'm not a big list person myself, but that's a list I can get behind!

I would only add that the fun part is taking five minutes to lean back in your chair and ponder which five Russian composers (or whatever) you love the most and why, perhaps using the occasion to revisit some memorable musical encounters from your past.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

There is one common element with lists and polls, which nobody has explictly mentioned yet (I thought I gave a good hint with my suggestion above, post #5). Lists and poll involving ... drumroll ... RANKING!

Ranking; revealed preference - mine are "more correct" than yours.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2013)

Weston said:


> Somehow I doubt Everyman would find anything at all offensive or bash worthy about this thread.


:lol:Good to hear.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2013)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> RANKING!


That was mentioned explicitly in the OP.

If I were to have guessed about the answer to the second question, I would have guessed that the reason is as you have stated.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> If we actually want to understand ourselves better, studying cognitive psychology will reward our time more than endless navel gazing.


Ah but naval gaving gives me immediate gratification. And so does staring at your shoe. :0)


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Jerome said:


> Ah but *naval gaving* gives me immediate gratification. And so does staring at your shoe. :0)












sorry, couldn't help it :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2013)

Plus, it's nice to look at ships and stuff....

But I digress.



neoshredder said:


> The list is very helpful in exploring new Composers that you might overlook otherwise. The ladder helps you build up to a certain Composer that might overwhelm you otherwise if you skip right to him.


As for the "ladder," you just never know. My oldest son could never tolerate Sibelius at all, under any circumstances. My youngest son took to Merzbow immediately.

As for new composers, well, I actually looked through the recent top ten composers list recently. It has changed since then (I went out to eat with a friend), but what I found was

Vivaldi
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Mendelssohn
Dvorak
Tchaikovsky
Debussy 
Rachmaninoff

A few others, not many.

You know all these composers already, don't you neo?

Shostakovich?
Mahler?
Brahms?
Ravel?
Sibelius?

When does the "helpful for exploring new composers" part start?

There's always this list, of course, made while I was eating my panini and sipping my wine (Sangiovese, yes):

1. Edgard Varese (Quality not Quantity I say)
2. Frank Zappa
3. John Milton Barrett
4. David Hirschfelder
5. Betty Beath
6. Harry Partch
7. Alberto Zelman
8. Larry (Lazarus or Lazar) Sitsky
9. Stockhausen
10. Dudley Moore (just for the humour element and I sure he would have made a good composer...)

I'm willing to wager that this is not the most useful list to you. Yet is has all the qualities you say you admire.

It was actually interesting to me. On the basis of knowing Varese and Stockhausen and Partch and Zappa, I am curious about Sitsky and Zelman and Beath and Barrett (a new Barrett for me). Hirschfelder, ummm, maybe not so much. We'll see.

Anyway, in the process of devaluing your position, I seem to be confirming your position. Ah, arguing. 'Tis a source of endless fascination, eh?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

some guy said:


> Plus, it's nice to look at ships and stuff....
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> ...


Glad that you noticed my list... I always like to give an Australian gum tree antipodean flavour.....

3. John Milton Barrett - Australian composer born 1956 refer to 
The one tenor [music] : tenor saxophone & piano for example.
4. David Hirschfelder- refer http://www.davidhirschfelder.com/
5. Betty Beath - is an Australian composer, pianist refer http://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/artist/beath-betty
7. Alberto Zelman - Australian composer(1832-1907), studying composition with Luigi Ricci (1805-1859), musical director of Trieste Cathedral and conductor of the opera. In 1852 he collaborated with Albert Randegger (1832-1911) in composing the opera Il Lazzarone.







8. Larry (Lazarus or Lazar) Sitsky - born 10 September 1934, is an Australian composer, pianist
Refer below:
[video]http://article.wn.com/view/2010/11/25/Piano_lessons_mixed_with_philosophy/[/video]


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Plus, it's nice to look at ships and stuff....
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> ...


I'm just not too fond of heavy dissonance. I prefer great melodies. Thus, I tend to fit in with the norm of what people like rather than venturing out. Though I know Baroque and Early Classical pretty well unlike many.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Though I know Baroque and Early Classical pretty well unlike many.


Hang on. "Unlike many", you probably meant "unlike many here at TalkClassical". Reality is Baroque and Classical are a healthy repertoire with increasing concert performances and recordings today than ever before since their eras eclipsed. Only need to go back to say thirty years ago, they were just begining to record complete Mozart symphonies for example. Now we have quite several cycles to choose from. I'm nt even talking about obscure composers. Works by CPE Bach, Joseph Haydn, Michael Haydn etc. etc.

The more modern we get, the more we find old music has beauty.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2013)

People make lists, give rankings, ask others for their opinions, pre-judge composers/works/etc, rely on stereotypes, etc, all for one reason - conservation of cognitive resources.

We do not have the time or energy to thoroughly analyze everything. This is not because we are lazy - this is a fundamental constraint on human existence. We take cognitive shortcuts when we can, and if we are wise, we focus our attention on important issues.

Choose your battles carefully. And don't pretend for a second that it's really possible to keep an open mind for all things at all times.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> I'm just not too fond of heavy dissonance. I prefer great melodies. Thus, I tend to fit in with the norm of what people like rather than venturing out.


I love arctic exploration, too. But not north of the Columbia river is all.

If you actually did some of that venturing out, I think you'd find that there's a lot less "heavy dissonance" out there than you seem to be afraid there is.

Even better, BPS's 'advice masquerading as common sense' notwithstanding, try to remain open to everything. You might find that what strikes you as unpleasant dissonance today strikes you as pleasant tight harmonies tomorrow. It's happened before.

In any case, "explore" implies "the unknown" rather, does it not? Unless it's unknown to you, you can hardly be said to be doing any exploring. Examining, maybe. Exploring? Naw.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> I love arctic exploration, too. But not north of the Columbia river is all.
> 
> If you actually did some of that venturing out, I think you'd find that there's a lot less "heavy dissonance" out there than you seem to be afraid there is.
> 
> ...


Too much of the unknown sounds the same to me. Like random notes to shock people in saying hey we are different. We're not like the Romantics. But I'm doing plenty of exploring in the Baroque-Romantic Era. Biber was a nice find. Along with Carl Stamitz and Dittersdorf.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> New thread started to avoid hi-jacking the latest list thread. I may be a jerk, but I'm a considerate jerk is my point.:tiphat:
> 
> Here's the response I made to that thread. I used a particular poster's post to make the response, but I'm not really responded to him personally, so I've changed his name. I hope he doesn't mind. He can always come onto this thread and bash me, if he wants. [Note to mods: he has my permission so no infractions for him, OK?]
> 
> ...


Psychologists and shrinks tend to call a lot of the sort of list-making as seen on TC "Neurotic Obsessive." 'Fun' very much depends on what is any individual's idea of 'fun.'

[The only time I made a list of composer names was after having 'yet another' (Lalo, Erik of Satie) name show up as answer in a crossword puzzle. I sat down, rattled off a number in about fifteen minutes, was up to about two hundred names, and stopped -- spot quiz in mid-life -- haven't done much like since.]

Add to that the internet as a format and outlet which appeals to everyone, but has a strong appeal and 'built in comfort zone' for those who are anti-social, and obsessives ~ _et voilà!_ ~ a site which if looked at from one perspective is 'list happy.'


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Too much of the unknown sounds the same to me. Like random notes to shock people in saying hey we are different. We're not like the Romantics.


You are wrong about this is all.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> You are wrong about this is all.


and of course.... All _race / color_ people look the same. Yeah. Right.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

some guy said:


> I love arctic exploration, too. But not north of the Columbia river is all.
> 
> If you actually did some of that venturing out, I think you'd find that there's a lot less "heavy dissonance" out there than you seem to be afraid there is.
> 
> ...


How about some antarctic exploration .....


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

Wait just a minute there, Eddie Varese. We have to have some laughter--even if it's only courtesy laughter--for my "not north of the Columbia" joke first before we go on to a new joke.

Rules are rules, you know. And we are a society of rules.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

some guy said:


> Wait just a minute there, Eddie Varese. We have to have some laughter--even if it's only courtesy laughter--for my "not north of the Columbia" joke first before we go on to a new joke.
> 
> Rules are rules, you know. And we are a society of rules.


Ah the rules -mmmm mine are upside (antiup) down, from where I am sitting, maybe if I stand on my head that will help...


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

:lol::tiphat:

Anyway. I made a joke. Then Varese made a joke. Good ones, I think.

And how about that local sports team?

But what I really want to know is the allure of ranking. Especially since, it seems to me, it is logically impossible.

Rank the following: Bach, Cage, Berlioz, Perotin.

Not chronologically or by which you prefer (though that should also be impossible) but musically. They all four bring completely different things to the table. Where are the bases of comparison?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Yes some good jokes..... 

tricky question you pose ....
quick way would be to do number of web pages for each- maybe not the most musical or accurate but interesting - lets see
Bach About 145,000,000 results
Cage About 182,000,000
Berlioz About 7,680,000 results
Perotin About 549,000 results

Possibly Cage had some sort of unfair advantage here....

local sports team? Do you mean my beloved Jung Cricket club or the Bullamakanka Hawks


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Probably most of the "Cage" results were about cage matches in wrestling...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> But what I really want to know is the allure of ranking. Especially since, it seems to me, it is logically impossible.
> 
> Rank the following: Bach, Cage, Berlioz, Perotin.
> 
> Not chronologically or by which you prefer (though that should also be impossible) but musically. They all four bring completely different things to the table. Where are the bases of comparison?


Ranking is not logically impossible. The problem is that as a group we don't have a consistent set of metrics we use to rank. An individual can consider what she values in music and give weights to those criteria. That individual can then assess the composers' works using those metrics and evaluate each composer yielding a ranking. Of course, there are problems - the metrics or weights will likely change with time and an individual's assessment of each composer (or work) may be flawed and also will likely change with time. Still an individual _can_ create their criteria and evaluate composers leading to rankings. Obviously you can still ask if there is a value to rankings and what the allure is.

I looked at your list and ranked my preference within one second - Bach, Berlioz, Perotin, Cage. I thought about my ranking afterward and determined that my one second ranking was indeed correct. I really do prefer Bach the most and Cage the least. You say that should be impossible, yet I consider it trivial so somehow we're talking about different things. I have not heard every work of each composer, but I assume that is not why you believe it should be impossible.

I enjoy ranking as a way of clarifying _some_ of my own thoughts about composers or works. Mostly I like to see other people's rankings. If my views differ with others (especially if I undervalue a composer or work), I try to understand why that is so. Explicitly, I listen to more of that composer or more to that work in an effort to see what I "missed". My tastes are not identical to other groups' tastes, but I have found that, in general, my tastes are really quite similar to most other groups' tastes. If a group values a composer or work, it appears to be in my best interest to focus on the composer or work. There are exceptions, but looking at such ranked lists has _*for me*_ been exceptionally valuable. That is the allure for me. I understand that others do not receive these benefits from lists so they should presumably ignore them.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I want to know about hostility toward lists. Is it just that we want to make it harder for newbies to explore music, or is it something deeper, more intriguing, even perhaps - more sinister?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Rank the following: Bach, Cage, Berlioz, Perotin.


Not logically impossible at all. Bach, Berlioz, Perotin. I stop there out of respect to the masters.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> I want to know about hostility toward lists. Is it just that we want to make it harder for newbies to explore music, or is it something deeper, more intriguing, even perhaps - more sinister?


If almost everyone one the planet hated music by Handel, considering it as noise and would likely rank Handel's music last out of all types of music, then who could blame me for having an aversion to lists etc. (given that I enjoy Handel's music)?


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Ranking is not logically impossible.... An individual can consider what she values in music and give weights to those criteria. That individual can then assess the composers' works using those metrics and evaluate each composer yielding a ranking.


I didn't say it was practically impossible. It's childishly easy, as you have just found.

Logically impossible.

Personal preferences are not logical, they are inconsistent and changeable and capricious. And a ranking in which one is not equally familiar* with each composer being ranked is hardly logical. So you know Bach very well, Berlioz next well, Perotin not as much, and Cage least of all. So what's really being ranked there? Right. Your familiarity. But I'm sure you would be the first to acknowledge that your levels of familiarity are nothing to do with the music itself.

My point about ranking these four is that they each bring something different to the table. You** may rank your preferences, naturally. You may even insist that you're ranking the composers even when you're not. We are of course free to do all sorts of things, whether they make any sense or not.

I'm trying, first, regardless of how science has decided to spin things, to find out what kind of sense people think they're making when they rank incomparable things. It's curiousity, you know? Trying to understand. I'm trying, second, to propose that there are other things to do with music that are more useful, more valuable, more rewarding. And yes, I do "still ask if there is a value to rankings and what the allure is."



mmsbls said:


> I enjoy ranking as a way of clarifying some of my own thoughts about composers or works.


This I find intriguing. How does this work? What are the thoughts? Why are they foggy? How does putting Beethoven's ninth at the number three slot, for instance, and Brahm's fourth at the number seventeen slot have any connection with your experience of each piece for itself, while it is playing? How does it help you understand anything about how each piece works, how each piece is constructed, what each piece expresses?

Bewilderment is not hostility, science. Neither is a simple negative assessment. The hostility card is what one plays when one has nothing substantial to say about either the bewilderment or the assessment. "Well, I'm sure he's wrong, but I can't explain why: 'Hostility card'!! Done."

Naw.

................................................................

*Besides that, what is "equally" familiar?

**This and the following "yous" are not directed at mmsbls directly. They are equivalent to "one."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Bewilderment is not hostility, science.


Come on. It's not like this thread is the first time we've gone over this.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There's a huge amount of fascinating issues involved in ranking. Too many to really discuss here, but I'll try to make a few points.



some guy said:


> I'm trying, second, to propose that there are other things to do with music that are more useful, more valuable, more rewarding.


I think you will get no argument from anyone here. I doubt anyone spends more than a small fraction of time ranking or looking at ranks.



some guy said:


> Logically impossible. Personal preferences are not logical, they are inconsistent and changeable and capricious. And a ranking in which one is not equally familiar* with each composer being ranked is hardly logical. So you know Bach very well, Berlioz next well, Perotin not as much, and Cage least of all. So what's really being ranked there? Right. Your familiarity.


Actually I'm much more familiar with Cage than Perotin and I've heard more Cage's works than Berlioz's works so familiarity was not a major input to my ranking. Humans may not rank in a perfectly logical manner (we don't do anything in a perfectly logical manner), but the results may still be roughly consistent and useful.

All animals (and all of us) rank potential actions continuously. Without the ability and the necessity to constantly order actions we'd die very quickly. We would either not act, or we'd act randomly. We need to determine what action to perform next. That requires a ranking of potential actions. And those actions could be much more varied than the works of Bach, Berlioz, Cage, and Perotin. Should I 1) go to the bathroom, 2) search for food, 3) consider free will, or 4) plan revenge on my enemies? We make decisions like that all the time (often subconsciously). That ability/necessity to rank probably spills over into things that are less important - who is better Bach or Beethoven?

Maybe some people rank as a way to distinguish themselves from others and to elevate their own beliefs above others. That's not why I participate in rankings. As I mentioned, it's a valuable source of information. It's also fun. Why? I'm not sure, but perhaps it's like a puzzle that has to be solved. It's also very practical. I listen to much more music than I could ever purchase. To determine which CDs I buy I must order what I hear so I can select that subset from the enormously larger set of known works.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

At least part of it is simply that we like to chat. We've all been in conversations beginning with some crazy hypothetical like, "You're on a deserted tropical island and you can only have three books...."

I can imagine some one saying something like, "What difference does it make? There is no deserted tropical island where you can only have three books. And why _three_ books? Why not two, four, or eight books? Is there something magical about three? And isn't 'book' a rather artificial category? What counts as a 'book?'" And so on.

And I would say, "Dude, we're just chatting. There's nothing metaphysical at stake. We don't have to define our terms precisely and make sure that each sentence follows logically from its predecessors. We're having fun, not editing the Logical Positivist's Journal of Very Important Questions."

But maybe someone would say, "No, that is absolutely unacceptable. Your little diversion is absolutely illegitimate until you justify it to me in terms that accord with my dogmatic approach to literature. Until you do so I will hound you incessantly every time you try to pursue said little diversion."

But let me list a few of the things I would do before I would actually try to legitimize anything with my critical interlocutor:

1. Listen to lots of music.
2. Read lots of books.
3. Have conversations with interesting people.
4. Keep up with current events relatively well. 
5. Learn about many cultures. 
6. Eat delicious foods. 
7. Write clever posts on the internet.
8. Take my wife out for romantic dates.
9. Try hundreds of different cocktails.
10. Cheer for my favorite football team.
11. Stalk the good looking girls from my high school on Facebook.
12. Find out where genuine absinthe and travel there for research/recreational purposes. 
13. Nonviolently resist the threat of tyranny by the global oligarchy. 
14. Take a pilgrimage to Mt. Athos to practice Hesychasm. 
15. Crash Marc Leder's parties. 
16. Clean my house.
17. Daydream about what if that cute waitress really was flirting with me. 
18. Smell the roses.
19. Develop a clean, cheap source of renewable energy and become a trillionaire.
20. Steal famous paintings from museums and sell forgeries of them on the black market. 
21. Rescue kittens caught in trees.
22. Carve ice sculptures with extra large chainsaws. 
23. Backpack all over the world. 
24. Put the G in the GOP.
25. Memorize pi to a thousand decimal places.
26. Go back to college. 
27. Make a youtube video of me rapping about how to memorize the POTUS ("G-Dub, G-Dub, Mad Adams, and T-Jeff, T-Jeff...").
28. Re-watch _The Big Lebowski_. 
29. Form a Beastie Boys tribute band. 
30. Get slapped by a Zen monk while meditating on a koan.
31. Wait a long time in line to buy a new I-phone.
32. Attend a lecture by an up-and-coming motivational speaker not already bought out by Amway. 
33. Infiltrate the Church of Scientology and write magic realist allegories about it in Romanian. 
34. Become an expert in headphones. 
35. Call in sick and enjoy a few extra hours of sleep. 
36. Try out for _Jeopardy!_
37. Reform the tax code of the USA. 
38. Join the men's movement and participate in a drum circle. 
39. Reify my neologistical metagrammaticalisticism with/in (?) abstruse post-"modern" quasi/subversive text-spaces.
40. Turn on. Tune in. Drop out. 
41. Just do it.
42. Reach out and touch someone. 
43. Dunk grilled cheese sandwiches in tomato soup. 
44. Smuggle DVDs of South Korean television into North Korea.
45. Publish a new translation of Kafka's _The Metamorphosis_. 
46. Model underwear for Calvin Klein.

Well, that's 46 things. Formally legitimizing my casual banter would be 47th. It beats out sitting in a bar underground muttering long monologues about how I'm not going to see a doctor about my liver out of spite, but only just, and it handily beats out composing original music for _A Elbereth Gilthoniel_.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Humans may not rank in a perfectly logical manner (we don't do anything in a perfectly logical manner)....


Careful. Last time I made this point, I got an infraction from the mods. Oh, wait. You _are_ a mod. Hmmm. Now what?

Anyway, dear everyone else (but especially science).

I noticed a disconnect between experiencing a piece of music and making a ranked list.

I asked about that.

I'm sorry I did so.

I'm a horrible person. No one should ever talk to me again.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

I view classical music in the same way I see canonical literature: if there is something that I don't like, then by default I assume that there's something I didn't "get," so I wait several years to see if my views change. Usually, I am proven wrong.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I love lists, but I could never make one myself. I love seeing how people rank, rate and reorganise things, my mind just doesn't work that way. Perhaps I am a list parasite, enjoying the information I get from other people's lists but not contributing one myself, that is probably how listeria started out.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think that two things most people enjoy are putting things in order and putting things in boxes. Examples of the latter are our endless wranglings over what pieces are in what "genres," what pieces are "classical music," and in fact what pieces are "music" at all.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Careful. Last time I made this point, I got an infraction from the mods. Oh, wait. You _are_ a mod. Hmmm. Now what?
> 
> Anyway, dear everyone else (but especially science).
> 
> ...


It's ok. For penance, listen to the Boskovsky box of Strauss family waltzes, polkas, and marches.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> It's ok. For penance, listen to the Boskovsky box of Strauss family waltzes, polkas, and marches.


That's easy. Try taking this thing:
http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Strauss-II-Complete-Orchestral/dp/B004MGMIA8

I don't think I could bear it for very long...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> That's easy. Try taking this thing:
> http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Strauss-II-Complete-Orchestral/dp/B004MGMIA8
> 
> I don't think I could bear it for very long...


I don't know about all 52 disks in a row, but I could take it 6 at a time. It's not bad music!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> I don't know about all 52 disks in a row, but I could take it 6 at a time. It's not bad music!


20 minutes for me, then I'm out. It's well-done for what it is, certainly, but it would all start to run together in my mind before long.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

science said:


> I don't know about all 52 disks in a row, but I could take it 6 at a time. It's not bad music!


I wonder if any of the reviewers actually listened to all 52 discs at least twice


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ralfy said:


> I view classical music in the same way I see canonical literature: if there is something that I don't like, then by default I assume that there's something I didn't "get," so I wait several years to see if my views change. Usually, I am proven wrong.


Well, obviously my neither my tastes nor discernment are subject to change. But I am often surprised, on newly hearing piece of music that rankled years ago, how much better it has gotten over time!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Get rid of the explicit public lists and implicit public lists will circulate. Suppress that too and stamp out private explicit lists will only beget private implicit lists. Time is finite, people have other things to do, people die. Destroy lists and people will spend less, not more time, on the subject. They'll flock to Pitchfork where there are lists for everything, which I judge to be fairly accurate, to guide you to an optimal expenditure of your time. More lists means more exposure, not less. 
*
People "do well" in areas where they feel they have control, otherwise they tune out and lose interest altogether. *Wagner is less popular than Verdi (in part) because the easy aria is more difficult to find. Confusion breeds apathy. Lists make people feel that they're in control, because lists do give you more control.

Classical music needs more lists, not less. Lists get people interested. Lists will bring more fans to (relatively) obscure composers and works. Pitchfork brings more attention to the artists reviewed on its site because it makes good lists. Websites that are more "informative" on a comprehensive level don't do as well because they didn't have universal lists.

http://nplusonemag.com/54#fn20837802175115e18f78344

Pitchfork was not the only music archive emerging on the internet at this time. In 1992, an ex-folk musician named Michael Erlewine began publishing a print volume called the All Music Guide, and in 1995 he took the Guide online. Where Pitchfork's coverage was limited by the relatively narrow tastes of its tiny staff, Allmusic.com aspired to true comprehensiveness, with separate sections dedicated to Pop/Rock, Country, Latin, Reggae, Classical, R&B, Jazz, and other genres. The site rated albums on a five-star scale, and accompanied reviews with bulleted lists identifying a record's "Moods" ("Austere," "Suffocating," "Intense," "Nocturnal") and "Themes" ("Feeling Blue," "Late Night," "The Creative Side"). With a three-year head start and funding that Schreiber could only dream about, Allmusic initially seemed on its way to internet dominance, but the site's rather bland comprehensiveness would turn out, somewhat counterintuitively, to be limiting. Erlewine's error can be found in the assumption that what people wanted was an encyclopedic survey of music itself. Pitchfork knew that what people actually wanted was an encyclopedia of musical taste.

Do read the whole thing.

In a world where lists for classical music in all four mediums (public, private, explicit, implicit) are quashed by some omnipotent guy a newbie will have to start on a random symphony if he wants to listen to a symphony; he'll probably get dejected because that symphony isn't very good and will listen to Death Cab or Kanye West instead.

Lists are awesome. Lists are cool. Lists make the world go round. Mad props to Science for helping to organize the making of so many lists on this site. It's a noble, thankless task.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Lists promote a lock-step conformity of opinion. Reduce the variety and elegance of taste to a sports score card. Condemns art to a competition. A battle that sets ideas, ill-equipped and ill-served by such brutal treatment, against one another simply to entertain the Neros of fashion and their baying mobs hungry for results. Art attempts to enoble the human spirit, rescue it from the struggle of existence; lists twist and pervert beauty itself, make it a tool in the survival of the fittest. I hate lists, tell me what you know.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> Lists promote a lock-step conformity of opinion. Reduce the variety and elegance of taste to a sports score card. Condemns art to a competition. A battle that sets ideas, ill-equipped and ill-served by such brutal treatment, against one another simply to entertain the Neros of fashion and their baying mobs hungry for results. Art attempts to enoble the human spirit, rescue it from the struggle of existence; lists twist and pervert beauty itself, make it a tool in the survival of the fittest. I hate lists, tell me what you know.


You've misunderstood, friend. A list understood properly is its own work of art, and its true intent is to befuddle the masses, to make it harder for them to rise to our level of cultural superiority while seeming to make it easier - a great feat, for it locates their failure more directly on themselves and less on external factors.

There are several important characteristics of a really good list.

First, it has some really famous stuff right at the top to establish its bona fides. You've got some Beethoven, some Bach, some Mozart. So far so good.

Second, it has to exclude anything genuinely popular. No Carmina Burana, no Radetzky March, no Blue Danube Waltz, no 1812 Overture, no Für Elise, no Mouret's Rondeau or "Pachelbel"'s Canon, no Bolero. (Always use scare-quotes, to make sure they know that there's some kind of joke, and that they're not getting it.) The point of this is, if someone needs recommendations like that, they're not good enough for our list. They have to go find some other list, because ours won't help them. Bwahahaha! Back to the gutters, ye beggars!

Third, in place of such popular works, it has to have some really difficult things near the front, as a sort of "weed out" course. Wagner's Ring is perfect. Ideally that would be about fourth on the list, and be described in such a way as to give the newbie the idea that if she can't enjoy that, she's just not cut out to join the cultural elite.

Edit: Fourth, oh my gosh I left out fourth and it's really important! Fourth, a truly artistic list has stuff in places that we know it doesn't belong. Perhaps, for example, Bolcom's Piano Concerto could be the fifth one on our list. Remember that we need a Mozart, maybe a Beethoven, maybe even a Brahms concerto up there to establish our bona fides. But after that we can entertain ourselves like this. Then we can show our lists to each other and say artsy things like, "Oh, Bolcom! What an interesting choice! Delightfully naughty! He's neglected, you know." We can nod wisely, and look for the next surprise. It's a bit like a lot of Haydn symphonies. First you have to know what to expect. Then, you can appreciate it because it isn't exactly what you expect. But of course the people who don't know what to expect, well, who cares about them? That's the whole point!

The problem is the internet is ruining everything, because you can't keep the do-gooders off of it, and they're determined to make resources like wikipedia that help the "folk" out. And even back in the days before the internet dumbed us all down there was the commercialism of the industry, always trying to make a buck giving "the people" what they "want." Greatest Hits of Mozart, Classical Music for Relaxation, Bach for Baby.

There really hasn't been any true art since the nineteenth century, before the bourgeois started climbing into the aristocratic seats. But in the scraps of art-space we've managed to preserve from popularity, the list deserves a place.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Apropos to Science's wise remarks, perhaps we need two lists: One a list of reasons we should make lists, the other reasons why we shouldn't. Both should be rank-ordered of course!

As an active librarian of CM lists*, I commit to memorializing both.

* https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama which is a work in progress. Two new lists to be added soon!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

No way, the reasons why you shouldn't make lists should be in the form of a fuzzy cloud that orbit around at least three discrete centres of gravity. And the elements in this nebulous entity should fade out shyly if directly looked upon.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> No way, the reasons why you shouldn't make lists should be in the form of a fuzzy cloud that orbit around at least three discrete centres of gravity. And the elements in this nebulous entity should fade out shyly if directly looked upon.


That is very good. The pro-list reasons should be done up like Soviet propaganda. Red and black block letters chanted by confident, muscular men with grim faces over large jaws and large jackboots and long bayonets.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> The pro-list reasons should be done up like Soviet propaganda. Red and black block letters chanted by confident, muscular men with grim faces over large jaws and large jackboots and long bayonets.


Here's a possible style model:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

brianwalker said:


> They'll flock to Pitchfork where there are lists for everything,


Pitchfork always struck me as annoying. It's true that I'm more familiar with their "reviews" (cca 2005-2006) than with anything else. Never connected with the stuff that used to top their lists back then (unsurprisingly, I haven't visited since then).

--back to lists--


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

quack said:


> No way, the reasons why you shouldn't make lists should be in the form of a fuzzy cloud that orbit around at least three discrete centres of gravity. And the elements in this nebulous entity should fade out shyly if directly looked upon.


Talk some more about "twist and pervert beauty", I was starting to get into that ....


----------

