# The TC Top 100 (or so) Pieces by Certain Compsers; Discussion Thread



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Since not many people will go on the Bach Poll because they already know what will be on it and probably won't vote, I decided to start a thread about my idea. I don't know if this has been proposed before and rejected, but I thought it would be interesting to create lists of TC's most Recommended pieces by composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, etc. 

It would work just like the other lists, except it would be a specific composer's works. Is there an interest for this, and what composer do you propose we should begin with if you are in favor of it?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I think it's a good idea, though surely 50 works should be enough for any composer. For someone like Beethoven if you're talking "top 100" you're not leaving a huge amount out, which reduces the selective value of having a list. And also if you want to get through a decent number of composers, 10 rounds of nominations and votes would be a slow process.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> I think it's a good idea,* though surely 50 works should be enough for any composer. For someone like Beethoven if you're talking "top 100" you're not leaving a huge amount out, which reduces the selective value of having a list. *And also if you want to get through a decent number of composers, 10 rounds of nominations and votes would be a slow process.


Totally agree. 100 is too much for most composers (though for Telemann and Vivaldi it's hardly a drop in the bucket.:lol


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> I think it's a good idea, though surely 50 works should be enough for any composer. For someone like Beethoven if you're talking "top 100" you're not leaving a huge amount out, which reduces the selective value of having a list. And also if you want to get through a decent number of composers, 10 rounds of nominations and votes would be a slow process.


Yes, this is a good point... 50 would be better. That's why I put 100 (or so) in the title.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

25 is probably just fine, even for the 'best' composers. For more obscure ones 10 would suffice.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> it would be interesting to create lists of TC's most Recommended pieces by composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, etc.


Isn't that what the top of every TC list is already for?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Let's start with 25 as Portamento suggesting.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

nathanb said:


> Isn't that what the top of every TC list is already for?


Yeah, but I would like to narrow it down to a specific composer so everyone can focus on the specific pieces that they love by that composer, rather than perhaps forgetting their favorites and remembering to vote later. Do you get what I mean?


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> 25 is probably just fine, even for the 'best' composers. For more obscure ones 10 would suffice.


Would 30 work? I want to have 3 clean rounds of 10-15 nominations each...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why stop at 100?

I was thinking, favorite works with opus numbers 1-666, instead.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

FWIW, here is my own list of greatest works:

1.	Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 ("Choral")
2.	Bach, St. Matthew Passion
3.	Mozart, Don Giovanni
4.	Beethoven, Piano Sonatas Nos. 8 ("Pathetique"), 14 ("Moonlight") and 23 ("Appassionata")
5.	Handel, Messiah
6.	Beethoven, Symphony No. 5
7.	Mozart, Requiem
8.	Bach, Brandenburg Concertos
9.	Wagner, Tristan und Isolde
10.	Verdi, Requiem
11.	Chopin, Nocturnes
12.	Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6 ("Pathetique")
13.	Puccini, Tosca
14.	Beethoven, Piano Concerto No. 5 ("Emperor")
15.	Mozart, Die Zauberflöte ("The Magic Flute")
16.	Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto No. 1
17.	Mozart, Symphonies Nos. 40 & 41 ("Jupiter")
18.	Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen
19.	Monteverdi, Vespers of 1610
20.	Beethoven, Late String Quartets
21.	Brahms, Ein Deutsches Requiem
22.	Stravinsky, Rite of Spring
23.	Bach, Goldberg Variations
24.	Mahler, Das Lied von der Erde
25.	Beethoven, Symphony No. 3
26.	Rachmaninoff, Piano Concertos Nos. 2 & 3
27.	Bach, Mass in B Minor
28.	Schubert, Piano Sonata No. 21
29.	Puccini, La bohème
30.	Brahms, Symphony No. 4
31.	Mozart, Piano Concertos No. 20, 21, 23, 24 & 27
32.	Beethoven, Violin Concerto
33.	Bach Well-tempered Clavier
34.	Vivaldi, The Four Seasons
35.	Dvorak, Symphony No. 9 ("New World")
36.	Mozart, Le Nozze di Figaro ("The Marriage of Figaro")
37.	Chopin, Waltzes
38.	Mahler, Symphony No. 9
39.	Brahms, Violin Concerto
40.	Tchaikovsky, The Nutcracker
41.	Haydn, Symphonies Nos. 93-104 ("London")
42.	Schubert, String Quartet No. 14 ("Death and the Maiden")
43.	Brahms, Piano Concertos Nos. 1 & 2
44.	Schumann, Dichterliebe
45.	Shostakovich, Symphony No. 5
46.	Verdi, La Traviata
47.	Debussy, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, La Mer
48.	Bach, Organ Works
49.	Beethoven, Symphony No. 7
50.	Schubert, Winterreise
51.	Debussy/Ravel, String quartets
52.	Gershwin, Rhapsody in Blue
53.	Mozart, Eine kleine Nachtmusik
54.	Richard Strauss, Four Last Songs
55.	Schubert, Symphony No. 8 ("Unfinished")
56.	Bizet, Carmen
57.	Sibelius, Violin Concerto
58.	Bach, Violin Sonatas & Partitas
59.	Verdi, Otello
60.	Beethoven, Symphony No. 6 ("Pastoral")
61.	Rossini, Il Barbiere di Siviglia ("The Barber of Seville")
62.	Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique
63.	Bartok, Concerto for Orchestra
64.	Schubert, Trout Quintet
65.	Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition
66.	Schumann, Kreisleriana
67.	Beethoven, Violin Sonata No. 9 ("Kreutzer")
68.	Handel, Water Music/Music for Royal Fireworks
69.	Brahms, Symphony No. 1
70.	J. Strauss, Waltzes
71.	Barber, Adagio for strings
72.	Haydn, String Quartets, Op. 76
73.	Verdi, Aida 
74.	Bruckner, Symphony No. 8
75.	Schumann, Piano Concerto
76.	Bach, Violin Concertos
77.	Liszt, Piano Sonata in B Minor
78.	Mendelssohn, Violin Concerto
79.	Dvorak, Cello Concerto
80.	Chopin, Impromptus
81.	Mahler, Symphony No. 5
82.	Verdi, Rigoletto
83.	Shostakovich, String Quartet No. 8
84.	Beethoven, Missa Solemnis
85.	Debussy, Piano Works
86.	Tchaikovsky, Violin Concerto
87.	Mozart, String Quartets Nos. 17 ("Hunt") and 19 ("Dissonance")
88.	Rimsky-Korsakov, Scheherazade
89.	Grieg, Piano Concerto
90.	Prokofiev, Romeo and Juliet
91.	Ravel, Bolero
92.	Tchaikovsky, 1812 Overture
93.	Mozart, Clarinet Concerto
94.	Orff, Carmina Burana
95.	Franck, Violin Sonata
96.	Holst, The Planets
97.	Smetana, Die Moldau
98.	Liszt, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2
99.	Bruch, Violin Concerto
100.	Grieg, Peer Gynt Suites


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> FWIW, here is my own list of greatest works:
> 
> 1.	Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 ("Choral")
> 2.	Bach, St. Matthew Passion
> ...


Wow! Quite the list! Is there a reason you're posting it though? Once the actual voting round begins you can vote for 10-15 pieces for each individual composer(I'm thinking of beginning with Mozart). Good list anyways though. :lol:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Any objections or comments before I begin the Mozart list? I'd like to begin it sometime around Friday or Saturday of this week. How many pieces should we have in the list, How should we nominate, How should we vote, etc.?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The problem with such a list is the diminishing statistical significance, the further down you get from choice "1".

I mean really, what makes a piece a "65" and not a "59" or "73"? It gets kind of meaningless.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

This is a great idea, but I agree with the above statement somewhat. I think 50 would be enough, to be honest. Maybe 100 for Bach


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

hpowders said:


> The problem with such a list is the diminishing statistical significance, the further down you get from choice "1".
> 
> I mean really, what makes a piece a "65" and not a "59" or "73"? It gets kind of meaningless.


Yes, we are only doing 30 or so per composer, so need to worry about 65, 59, or 73...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Are you planning on using the usual nominations/voting process for these?

I wonder would it make sense, with only 3 rounds, to combine the 3 rounds together - have everyone name a favourite 15 or 20 or 30, you add up all the scores, pick the top 30 from those, and then everyone votes just on those 30 pieces (or maybe produce a longer list of 40 or 50 that gets whittled down to 30 by the voting). It might encourage a bit more participation because it would be a more straightforward, less formal way of doing things.

Just a thought.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Are you planning on using the usual nominations/voting process for these?
> 
> I wonder would it make sense, with only 3 rounds, to combine the 3 rounds together - have everyone name a favourite 15 or 20 or 30, you add up all the scores, pick the top 30 from those, and then everyone votes just on those 30 pieces (or maybe produce a longer list of 40 or 50 that gets whittled down to 30 by the voting). It might encourage a bit more participation because it would be a more straightforward, less formal way of doing things.
> 
> Just a thought.


This seems like a good idea. Any thoughts from anyone else on this idea? (or others)


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Are you planning on using the usual nominations/voting process for these?
> 
> I wonder would it make sense, with only 3 rounds, to combine the 3 rounds together - have everyone name a favourite 15 or 20 or 30, you add up all the scores, pick the top 30 from those, and then everyone votes just on those 30 pieces (or maybe produce a longer list of 40 or 50 that gets whittled down to 30 by the voting). It might encourage a bit more participation because it would be a more straightforward, less formal way of doing things.
> 
> Just a thought.


Great idea. And yes, Tchaikov, 30 would work also. I base this off of Gramophone's various Top [X] Bethoven (Bach, Mozart, etc.) Recordings lists. For most famous composers they list 50 recordings (others only get 10). So if 50 _recordings_ are being enshrined, I assume only about 10-15 works are present. Still, 30 is a good number for this forum as it's generous to those fanatic about a certain composer.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I have one request though: Could we wait to start these projects until after the solo repertoire list is over? I think that one at a time is already enough for TC, and, seeing as though the participation on the aforementioned list is not so high, I don't want it to get even lower because of another onging project.

Here is a link: 
http://www.talkclassical.com/47841-tc-top-recommended-solo-10.html


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> I have one request though: Could we wait to start these projects until after the solo repertoire list is over? I think that one at a time is already enough for TC, and, seeing as though the participation on the aforementioned list is not so high, I don't want it to get even lower because of another onging project.
> 
> Here is a link:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/47841-tc-top-recommended-solo-10.html


Yes, I would be completely okay with waiting.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Since the Solo works thread will be coming to a close (I presume, as Round 5 is in process). So I will pose some questions about our Most Recommended Mozart pieces list.

*How many rounds? One big round where everybody can nominate 20, and then the top 30 are chosen? Then another big voting round, where everybody ranks the top 30 pieces? *

*Points? For nominations, should we have the top piece get 20 "points" and the lowest 1? Should we even have rankings for the nominations?*

*Tie-breakers? How should tie-breakers be decided in both nominations and voting?*

*How long should each nominating and voting round be? Or if there is only one big round, how long should that be? *

I may be forgetting some other questions I have as well; feel free to offer additional suggestions for the list.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

*Please please please don't have ranking in the nomination process.* The way I see it, nomination is simply that: nominating. "I think these 20 (or whatever) works should be included in the final list", not "I think this 1 work should definitely be included in the final list, and this 2nd work should definitely but ever so slightly less definitely be included, and this 3rd work should definitely but just a little bit less definitely be included...".

As for tiebreakers in the nominations round, I'd say don't bother. If we end up voting on, say, a top 34 rather than a top 30, that's no big deal. In fact if there are more works being voted on than will make the final official list, that makes the tiebreaker situation a little easier, because not all works will get the same number of votes, and a tiebreak can be won by the work that gets a higher number of people voting for it (consensus beats individual enthusiasm).

If there's one big nomination round and one big voting round (I've indicated that's my preference), probably a week each should be enough. Maybe have a look at past "what are your favourite works by...?" threads and see how long they last. Maybe the deadline doesn't have to be too strict - give people a week (say) and then bump the thread a few times to catch stragglers?
If there's multiple rounds, I think they should move pretty quickly - 5 days each.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Thank you for your advice, Nereffid. You've convinced me that we don't need votes for nominations, and that we won't need tiebreakers in the nomination round. As for the big nomination round and big voting round- I'm okay with that, but maybe we should have the deadline be two weeks instead of one week. But as you said, it doesn't have to be too strict, so a little less than or more than two weeks would work as well. 

Thank you, again!


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Although we are two weeks out from the voting round beginning, I'm wondering how voting should work? A bit of a vague question, but I'm just wondering if someone has some ideas outlined for how the voting should work. Thanks!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Traditionally, TC votes have used the Borda count: if you vote for a top 10, your 1st place gets 10 points, 2nd place gets 9, and so on. Or a modified version which reduces the impact of people who don't provide a full 10: your bottom vote gets 1 point, 2nd from bottom gets 2, and so on - if you only provide a top 9, then your top vote gets 9 points.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Traditionally, TC votes have used the Borda count: if you vote for a top 10, your 1st place gets 10 points, 2nd place gets 9, and so on. Or a modified version which reduces the impact of people who don't provide a full 10: your bottom vote gets 1 point, 2nd from bottom gets 2, and so on - if you only provide a top 9, then your top vote gets 9 points.


I've always disliked that system, since the top favourite is almost never ten times as worthy as the #10. I think 20-11 points instead of 10-1 would be much more fair.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I've always disliked that system, since the top favourite is almost never ten times as worthy as the #10. I think 20-11 points instead of 10-1 would be much more fair.


Have to think about that. Would it make any difference?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> I've always disliked that system, since the top favourite is almost never ten times as worthy as the #10. I think 20-11 points instead of 10-1 would be much more fair.


I hadn't though of that. Your system gives a greater advantage to works that have more voters, which is a good thing.

My system:
One work gets a single vote of 8, another work gets a 3 and a 5.

Your system:
First work scores 18, second work scores 13 + 15 = 28.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Back when I facilitated the orchestral list (which was by no means a paragon of list-making), I used a 15-6 point system for ranking 10 works and 7-3 for ranking 5 works, both of which worked pretty well. The only real rationale was my thinking that about 3 10th place votes should be enough to slightly outweigh 1 1st place vote. 20-11 could work as well, which is basically saying 2 10th place votes > 1 1st place vote.

I do agree that a 10-1 system, while convenient, is not the best model for this sort of project.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Okay, all of these ideas sound great... how many votes are we really ranking though? If the list is up to 50, should we still rank our top 10, because it's one big round? How many votes should we cast? 20? 30? 35?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I used the 10-1 system for the voting rounds in the pre-1700 list, and have compared it with 15-6 and 20-11 systems. As expected, the higher the scoring system the bigger the difference in the outcome. But it didn't make a huge difference, presumably because people were picking their top 10 out of 15 works. If we're picking 10 out of 50 then the difference between being picked 10th and not being picked at all should be relatively large. Arguably it could be a 50-41 scoring system?


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Trout said:


> Back when I facilitated the orchestral list (which was by no means a paragon of list-making), I used a 15-6 point system for ranking 10 works and 7-3 for ranking 5 works, both of which worked pretty well. The only real rationale was my thinking that about 3 10th place votes should be enough to slightly outweigh 1 1st place vote. 20-11 could work as well, which is basically saying 2 10th place votes > 1 1st place vote.
> 
> I do agree that a 10-1 system, while convenient, is not the best model for this sort of project.


In my opinion, this system had the best balance in weighting of works and keeping the bottom vote at least relevant, and I've always suggested and used it since. The ranked nominations also aid in discovery of works by prioritizing listening suggestions explicitly (not as important for a Mozart project), prevent works from being indefinitely vetoed by missing a single critical vote, and are simply more informative. The final results of the a la carte polls are a good example of what to expect when you take the least informative possible information (yes/no unweighted information). The over-full voting rounds and 10 instead of 5 votes also injected a lot of noise into the voting round, as people padded out their votes with works they didn't care for and gave too much room to strategically vote against works (Brahms Horn Trio anyone?).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Is the plan here to do sequential TC Top works poll for a number of composers? After Mozart we'd select another and continue until interest dies.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

pjang23 said:


> The final results of the a la carte polls are a good example of what to expect when you take the least informative possible information


By which you mean, a fairly close approximation of the results of several more complicated and sometimes mutually incompatible processes that ask a question to which no definitive answer can ever be obtained?


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> Is the plan here to do sequential TC Top works poll for a number of composers? After Mozart we'd select another and continue until interest dies.


Yes, I was hoping to do Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, etc.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Yes, I was hoping to do Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, etc.


Do some C20 composers if participation gets out of control. Works every time. :lol:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> Do some C20 composers if participation gets out of control. Works every time. :lol:


Will do, thanks for the tip. :lol::devil:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

So is the general proposal that everyone will cast their top 10 votes, ranking 50-41? That is what I am thinking of doing right now, but any other thoughts of agreement or objection?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Yes, we are only doing 30 or so per composer, so need to worry about 65, 59, or 73...


Okay. Curious to see how it progresses.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay, all of these ideas sound great... how many votes are we really ranking though? If the list is up to 50, should we still rank our top 10, because it's one big round? How many votes should we cast? 20? 30? 35?


Take a look at Nereffid's polls, they where well done and van be found in his signature.


----------



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

@Tchaikov6
I thought about another system. All these point systems, which are linked with ranks, aren't individual enough IMO. Let's say somebody love 5 Mozart works equally: Despite of that he have to rank these works and every work gets absolulety different points (although he loves all 5 works equally). My idea: Every voter gives 1-3 points to every work - and NO ranks.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Another alternative would be to give all participants say 50 points to distribute over as many of the works as they like, with a maximum of 10 points for one work. This allows a better reflection of each individual's feelings.


----------



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Another alternative would be to give all participants say 50 points to distribute over as many of the works as they like, with a maximum of 10 points for one work. This allows a better reflection of each individual's feelings.


Your system is probably too confusing. If you want more precision, we can take 5 instead of 3 points. But my system is based on the assumption that choosed works are already favorites. 3 points are enough IMO for a Top 10. 1 point = love it very much, 2 points = love it very, very much, 3 points = can't imagine my life without it.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

wolkaaa said:


> Your system is probably too confusing. If you want more precision, we can take 5 instead of 3 points. But my system is based on the assumption that choosed works are already favorites. 3 points are enough IMO for a Top 10. 1 point = love it very much, 2 points = love it very, very much, 3 points = can't imagine my life without it.


Why is my system confusing?

In your system, you are saying that a work that two people love very much is not better than one work that one person loves very very much. Does not seem fair.


----------



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Why is my system confusing?
> 
> In your system, you are saying that a work that two people love very much is not better than one work that one person loves very very much. Does not seem fair.


1. I mean, the effort for every participant is huge. Split up the points, calculate... Some people wouldn't participate. If we want many participants we should make it as simple as possible. Also, don't forget that it's impossible to judge art that precise. How can I quantify my love for musical pieces? But everybody knows his favorites, so: the simpler, the better.

2. For me it is fair.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Look, while everyone has their preferences, no system is going to satisfy everyone, and ultimately there is no way of perfectly determining the answer to the question "what are Mozart's top 50 works?", whether it's by ranking or scoring or approval or expert committee.

Actually, I'm coming round to the idea of score voting, or range voting, as described by wolkaaa. Sina's been using it on the 21st century listening thread (scale of 1-4), and Portamento used it on his composer polls (scale of 1-100). If there are 50 works it would of course be best if all participants had an opinion on all 50, which might be asking a lot, but that can be worked around.

But there's no point in getting into a heated argument about it: let Tchaikov6 decide what he wants, and unless there's deliberate shenanigans, all the methods will produce roughly the same results.



Is anyone else interested in an experiment to test all the proposed methods simultaneously? This would not be connected to the Mozart poll, of course.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Well, thank you everybody for your insight so far. I will have to think about these different options, and hopefully by the time the voting round comes around, I will have my mind made up. I do agree with Nereffid's statement though, that "all the methods will produce roughly the same results," so I don't think it will matter too much.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I am actually thinking of using the method that Bulldog is doing in the "Sacred Choral Works Game." All the pieces that made into voting are given 10 points, and eventually we will narrow down the pieces to a final one. Then I would rank the pieces by the first one being eliminated is last on the list and the last one to be eliminated is first on the list.

I do like wolkaaa's method of no ranking but giving pieces 1-5 points (or maybe I would change it to 1-7). I'll open up thoughts again, since we are around 3 days away from the voting round.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I am actually thinking of using the method that Bulldog is doing in the "Sacred Choral Works Game." All the pieces that made into voting are given 10 points, and eventually we will narrow down the pieces to a final one. Then I would rank the pieces by the first one being eliminated is last on the list and the last one to be eliminated is first on the list.
> 
> I do like wolkaaa's method of no ranking but giving pieces 1-5 points (or maybe I would change it to 1-7). I'll open up thoughts again, since we are around 3 days away from the voting round.


I'd prefer you operate the voting round like the other "TC Top Recommended" lists, solely because we already have one survival game and I would get bored.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Portamento said:


> I'd prefer you operate the voting round like the other "TC Top Recommended" lists, solely because we already have one survival game and I would get bored.


I like the style of the survival game, but one game in operation is easily enough for me.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Okay, well I guess that's off the table. What about my other method? Or of course we could do the "traditional" method used by other lists. Would we rank 1-10 of our favorites then? or 1-20?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay, well I guess that's off the table. What about my other method? Or of course we could do the "traditional" method used by other lists. Would we rank 1-10 of our favorites then? or 1-20?


If we are enshrining 30 works, then, as a rule of thumb, take the top 30 works from the nomination round and have people rank 1-20. Numers may adjust accordingly for a longer list.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> If we are enshrining 30 works, then, as a rule of thumb, take the top 30 works from the nomination round and have people rank 1-20. Numers may adjust accordingly for a longer list.


We are enshrining 50 works (but it might be less if 50 works aren't nominated). So would people rank 1-40 then?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Portamento said:


> If we are enshrining 30 works, then, as a rule of thumb, take the top 30 works from the nomination round and have people rank 1-20. Numers may adjust accordingly for a longer list.


Why not put all nominated pieces up for voting and let participants pick their top 20 (or 30 or 40, depending on the target number for the final list).


----------



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> We are enshrining 50 works (but it might be less if 50 works aren't nominated). So would people rank 1-40 then?


I thought, participants can choose as many works they want for max. individuality. I forgot to mention it.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Why not put all nominated pieces up for voting and let participants pick their top 20 (or 30 or 40, depending on the target number for the final list).


That's basically what I was trying to say.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> We are enshrining 50 works (but it might be less if 50 works aren't nominated). So would people rank 1-40 then?


How many works have been nominated so far?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I like the style of the survival game, but one game in operation is easily enough for me.


Giving my above comment a little more thought, I've changed my mind. I do believe I can handle multiple survival games, and the fact is that to administer such a game does not involve much effort.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I've already said


> while everyone has their preferences, no system is going to satisfy everyone, and ultimately there is no way of perfectly determining the answer to the question "what are Mozart's top 50 works?", whether it's by ranking or scoring or approval or expert committee... there's no point in getting into a heated argument about it: let Tchaikov6 decide what he wants, and unless there's deliberate shenanigans, all the methods will produce roughly the same results.


and didn't think I needed to add any more to this latest discussion, but I do want to just note that despite my comments above, if this becomes a "survival game" I have no interest in it. Not that my participation is essential for the success of the venture! - but I suspect the need to respond every day rather than just once may kill off interest from some others too.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> How many works have been nominated so far?


Which reminds me, can you please specify which divertimento in E-flat you have nominated? There are several.

The total is 89. Here is the list I compiled, with the number of nominations in parentheses. It could more or less after other people respond to the questions I posted about divertimentos.

Piano Concerto No. 20 (23)
Jupiter Symphony (16)
Requiem Mass (18)
Symphony No. 40 (19)
Clarinet Concerto (17)
Piano Concerto No. 23 (18)
Piano Concerto No. 21 (18)
Piano Concerto No. 25 (9)
The Magic Flute (17)
Gran Partita Serenade (9)
Piano Concerto No. 24 (13)
Turkish Concerto (9)
Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (5)
Kegelstatt Trio (3)
Piano Concerto No. 22 (8)
Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola (13)
Piano Concerto No. 12 (1)
The Marriage of Figaro (13)
String Quintet No 4 (11)
Jeunehomme Concerto (3)
Divertimento in E-flat (3)
Dissonance Quartet (8)
Fantasy in D Minor (3)
Piano Sonata No. 8 (4)
Piano Sonata No. 11 (7)
Piano Sonata No. 13 (2)
Piano Sonata No. 14 (4)
Piano Sonata No. 18 (1)
Symphony No. 38 (7)
Piano Quartet No. 1 (4)
Clarinet Quintet (18)
Quintet for Piano and Winds (7)
Oboe Concerto (6)
Piano Concerto No. 17 (5)
Piano Concerto No. 19 (4)
Masonic Funeral Music (2)
Piano Quartet No. 2 (3)
Four-Hand Piano Sonata in F (1)
String Quartet No. 20 (4)
String Quintet No. 3 (6)
Don Giovanni (16)
Cosi Fan Tutte (7)
Piano Concerto No. 26 (2)
Piano Concerto No. 27 (10)
Horn Concerto No. 3 (2)
Horn Concerto No. 4 (1)
Piano Concerto No. 18 (3)
Symphony No. 25 (5)
Mass in C Minor (10)
Symphony No. 39 (8)
Adagio and Fugue in C Minor, K. 546 (2)
Adagio in B Minor, K. 540 (2)
Ave Verum Corpus (2)
Exsultate, jubilate (1)
Violin Concerto No. 3 (4)
String Quartet No. 14 (2)
String Quartet No. 15 (1)
String Quartet No. 16 (1)
String Quartet No. 17 (1)
String Quartet No. 18 (1)
Piano Concerto No. 14 (1)
Posthorn Serenade (2)
Symphony No. 31 (2)
Horn Concerto No. 1 (1)
Violin Concerto No. 1 (1)
Piano Sonata No. 10 (1)
Flute Concerto No.2 (1)
Rondo in A Minor, K. 511 (1)
Oboe Quartet (1)
Flute and Harp Concerto (6)
Symphony No. 36 (2)
Piano Concerto No. 16 (2)
Piano Sonata No. 2 (1)
Piano Trio No. 3 (2)
Vesperae solennes de confessore (2)
Violin Sonata No. 21 (3)
Violin Concerto No. 4 (1)
Piano Concerto No. 15 (1)
Divertimento for String Trio in E-flat (3)
Haffner Symphony (3)
Piano Sonata No. 16 (1)
Flute Concerto No. 1 (1)
Piano Concerto No. 10 (1)
La Clemenza di Tito (1)
String Quartet No. 21 (1)
Violin Sonata No. 24 (1)
Per questa bella mano (1)
Serenade No. 12 (1)
Piano Sonata No. 9 (1)


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I'm thinking of doing the top 45 pieces by Mozart. That would be including all of the pieces with 3 nominations and up. When people respond about Divertimenti it'll clarify some more.

Edit: Now that there is a response only the top 47 pieces include pieces with 3 nominations and up.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

What I could do is offer all the pieces that have 2 nominations, and then whichever 6 have the most votes (you can only vote for 1) will move on to the next round.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Which reminds me, can you please specify which divertimento in E-flat you have nominated? There are several.


K. 563.



Tchaikov6 said:


> What I could do is offer all the pieces that have 2 nominations, and then whichever 6 have the most votes (you can only vote for 1) will move on to the next round.


How about you send the top ~50 pieces to the voting round and have people rank 1-20 from just those pieces? Then just take the top _x_ pieces to form your list. Tiebreakers can be resolved by the number of nominations the respective works received the previous round.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> K. 563.
> 
> How about you send the top ~50 pieces to the voting round and have people rank 1-20 from just those pieces? Then just take the top _x_ pieces to form your list. Tiebreakers can be resolved by the number of nominations the respective works received the previous round.


I feel like my method of giving the pieces with 2 nominations (because now the total is 47 with 3 and over) and the top 3 make it is more simple.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I feel like my method of giving the pieces with 2 nominations (because now the total is 47 with 3 and over) and the top 3 make it is more simple.


Then go for it. This is your game. I am currently in a place with very limited cellular so I will step out of the way (so to speak).


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> Then go for it. This is your game. I am currently in a place with very limited cellular so I will step out of the way (so to speak).


Well, I didn't mean to be rude, I just thought that my method would work better. If you think that yours would work better we could try it. I am planning to do more of these lists with different composers if all is successful.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

There's, what, 12 pieces that have 2 nominations? And 47 with 3 or more?

I'd say that cutting the 14 down to 3 to get a neat 50 is a reasonable idea, but on the other hand a more straightforward approach (in terms of what the participants are asked to do) might be to just allow voting on any work that has 2 or more nominations: in this case, vote on 59 works to reduce it to a final list of 50.

You're the boss though... :tiphat:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> There's, what, 12 pieces that have 2 nominations? And 47 with 3 or more?
> 
> I'd say that cutting the 14 down to 3 to get a neat 50 is a reasonable idea, but on the other hand a more straightforward approach (in terms of what the participants are asked to do) might be to just allow voting on any work that has 2 or more nominations: in this case, vote on 59 works to reduce it to a final list of 50.
> 
> You're the boss though... :tiphat:


Okay, that sounds like a better idea than mine. That's what I will do. The total with 2 nominations and above is 60, so I would include those 60 works. Would someone mind doing a quick double check to make sure that the total is 60 for 2 nominations and above? I've done it twice, but I just want to make sure.

Edit: The Divertimento in E-flat should have *1* nomination instead of 3, because some people confirmed my questions. I am unable to edit, though.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay, that sounds like a better idea than mine. That's what I will do. The total with 2 nominations and above is 60, so I would include those 60 works. Would someone mind doing a quick double check to make sure that the total is 60 for 2 nominations and above? I've done it twice, but I just want to make sure.
> 
> Edit: The Divertimento in E-flat should have *1* nomination instead of 3, because some people confirmed my questions. I am unable to edit, though.


I make it 60 if the Divertimento in E flat has only 1 nomination.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> I make it 60 if the Divertimento in E flat has only 1 nomination.


Yeah, it's really confusing because a couple people put "Divertimento in E-flat" and he wrote several of them, and then one person put "Divertimento" so I asked them and 2 out of the 3 responded, but there's one that hasn't. So if by the end of the day they don't I just will have to not include their nomination.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

So, my final plan:

Everyone ranks their top 20 pieces on the voting list, from 20 being favorite to 1 being least favorite. 10 pieces will be excluded to make the top 50. Is everyone okay with that?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> So, my final plan:
> 
> Everyone ranks their top 20 pieces on the voting list, from 20 being favorite to 1 being least favorite. 10 pieces will be excluded to make the top 50. Is everyone okay with that?


Any way you want to do it is fine with me - your plan, your thread, your standards.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> So, my final plan:
> 
> Everyone ranks their top 20 pieces on the voting list, from 20 being favorite to 1 being least favorite. 10 pieces will be excluded to make the top 50. Is everyone okay with that?


Any way you want to do it is fine with me - your plan, your thread, your standards.

Edit: I feel so strongly about this that I posted it twice! Only kidding.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Any way you want to do it is fine with me - your plan, your thread, your standards.
> 
> Edit: I feel so strongly about this that I posted it twice! Only kidding.


lol:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Well, the voting round will be ending in 1-2 days and I am thinking of starting a new recommended list- maybe Bach? 

Do you think this was a successful enough list that we could continue with different composers. Thoughts?


----------



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Well, the voting round will be ending in 1-2 days and I am thinking of starting a new recommended list- maybe Bach?
> 
> Do you think this was a successful enough list that we could continue with different composers. Thoughts?


I think your idea is great. And: Beethoven!!


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

wolkaaa said:


> I think your idea is great. And: Beethoven!!


Okay, one vote for Beethoven.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

It seems to have worked well, but I think for the next one you should have a new thread for the voting round.

I'd certainly like to see plenty more lists - why not ultimately have lists for several dozen composers!


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> It seems to have worked well, but I think for the next one you should have a new thread for the voting round.
> 
> I'd certainly like to see plenty more lists - why not ultimately have lists for several dozen composers!


Yep, I definitely agree- I've learned my lesson to keep nominating and voting in separate threads.

And yes, I was thinking we could do Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Haydn, etc.


----------

