# Top Recommended Post-1950 Works



## MoonlightSonata

Since the String Quartets list is in its last round (and the list makes interesting reading) I thought I might suggest this again. The top of the "modern classical music" list is almost entirely made up of works from the first half of the 20th century.
Would anyone be willing to participate?


----------



## Weston

Count me in. Though I've only scratched the surface of post 1950s works, the same could be said of all of classical music and it never stopped me before.


----------



## SimonNZ

If there's enough interested parties, then yup, I'm in.


----------



## brotagonist

I haven't got a clue what you are supposed to do and the instructions and procedure for the SQ list seemed so time-consuming that I ended up dropping out before I began. I know a bit more about this era, since it is the music I began with, so I might be able to make a more significant contribution.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

brotagonist said:


> I haven't got a clue what you are supposed to do and the instructions and procedure for the SQ list seemed so time-consuming that I ended up dropping out before I began. I know a bit more about this era, since it is the music I began with, so I might be able to make a more significant contribution.


I was planning on doing it more like the original Classical Music Project, so that there's no need to worry about rounds or voting or anything.


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> I was planning on doing it more like the original Classical Music Project, so that there's no need to worry about rounds or voting or anything.


That could be OK then! The SQ thing was well beyond my ken.


----------



## ptr

Count me in!

/ptr


----------



## GioCar

Since I joined TC, I have started developing a new interest in contemporary music, so happy to join this project!


----------



## Blancrocher

I'll get more than I give, but I'd love for this to get off the ground. Thanks!


----------



## MagneticGhost

Great idea. I'm in. Perhaps we could make it a little more up to date by starting from 1960 though. (or even 1970)


----------



## joen_cph

Me too, as much as listening habits & available time will permit it .


----------



## cjvinthechair

If it's simple enough for this musical fool, happy to try !


----------



## MarkW

The most conventionally beautiful music written during the 1950s can be found in Michael Tippett's opera "The Midsummer Marriage" (1954).


----------



## brotagonist

I hope we will get some really exciting stuff on the list and cast convention aside, as I feel that this is what the period is about.

If the list starts in the '60s or even '70s, then we would be losing some of the greatest music of the century... and risk turning this into a list of things before their prime, as the latter decades have not cellared long enough to make a true assessment.


----------



## Blancrocher

brotagonist said:


> If the list starts in the '60s or even '70s, then we would be losing some of the greatest music of the century... and risk turning this into a list of things before their prime, as the latter decades have not cellared long enough to make a true assessment.


One advantage of a 1950 cutoff would be that it would allow the inclusion of early masterworks by still-living but aged composers like Boulez and Penderecki.


----------



## Guest

I've accepted that the 1950 cutoff is probably the best idea in terms of exposing music not present in former lists. Hopefully enough posters will take the notion of contemporary music seriously enough that we don't have a top 10 of solely late Vaughan Williams works.


----------



## Guest

Probably the best idea for exposing music not present in former lists is to get more people involved who know the music well.

Without going and finding those lists--which is admittedly lame--I'm willing to bet that things like Rossolo's _Serenata_ (1921), Schwitter's _Ursonate_ (1922), Cage's _Credo in US_ (1942) and Ignace's _It Is (for orchestra)_ (1949) also did not make the cut, though possibly Varese's _Intégrales_ (1925) made it to one or other of those lists.

While I admire your hopefulness, I have to say that I do not have any of that left, myself. A post-1950 list is just as likely to ignore certain kinds of things as the pre-1950 lists did.

Still, I wish you well, of course!


----------



## isorhythm

Sounds like a good idea, I'm in.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

With my extremely limited listening experience, I could recommend a few works off the top of my head. I'm probably missing a few.

I'm sure some of these would make the cut.

Luciano Berio: Linea
Luciano Berio: Ekphrasis
Luciano Berio: Sinfonia (1968)
Luciano Berio: Visage (1961)
Ligeti: Horn Trio (1982)
Ligeti: String Quartet 1 "Métamorphoses nocturnes" (1953-54)
Ligeti: String Quartet 2 (1968)
Ligeti: Atmospheres (1961)
Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
Ligeti: Lux Aeterna (1966)
Thomas Ades: Violin Concerto "Concentric Paths" (2005)
Thomas Ades: Music for Cello and Piano, "Lieux Retrouves" (2009)
Messiaen: Éclairs sur l'au-delà (1987-91)
Nono: Il Canto Sospeso (1955-56)
Nono: Sofferte Onde Serene (1976)
Stravinsky: Requiem Canticles (1966)
Stravinsky: Threni (1957-58)
Boulez: Dérive 1 (1984)
Boulez: Dérive 2 (1988 - 2006)
Part: Tabula Rasa (1977)
Part: My Heart's in the Highlands


----------



## MoonlightSonata

DiesIraeVIX said:


> With my extremely limited listening experience, I could recommend a few works off the top of my head. I'm probably missing a few.
> 
> I'm sure some of these would make the cut.
> 
> Luciano Berio: Linea
> Luciano Berio: Ekphrasis
> Luciano Berio: Sinfonia (1968)
> Luciano Berio: Visage (1961)
> Ligeti: Horn Trio (1982)
> Ligeti: String Quartet 1 "Métamorphoses nocturnes" (1953-54)
> Ligeti: String Quartet 2 (1968)
> Ligeti: Atmospheres (1961)
> Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
> Ligeti: Lux Aeterna (1966)
> Thomas Ades: Violin Concerto "Concentric Paths" (2005)
> Messiaen: Éclairs sur l'au-delà (1987-91)
> Nono: Il Canto Sospeso (1955-56)
> Nono: Sofferte Onde Serene (1976)
> Stravinsky: Requiem Canticles (1966)
> Stravinsky: Threni (1957-58)
> Boulez: Dérive 1 (1984)
> Boulez: Dérive 2 (1988 - 2006)
> Part: Tabula Rasa (1977)
> Part: My Heart's in the Highlands


I forgot that Stravinsky was still alive after 1950!
(Were you reading my mind with that Adès one? He was going to be probably my second vote.)


----------



## Guest

Bugger, have we started already?

Is it a free for all, or is there any semblance of process or rules?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

dogen said:


> Bugger, have we started already?
> 
> Is it a free for all, or is there any semblance of process or rules?


No, we haven't started yet. I think DiesIrae was just recommending some works.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Here's the process I was thinking of using - copied from the main Classical music project.



> HOW TO VOTE
> 
> You can vote every 9 hours. Everybody votes for works on the "board". When a work becomes popular enough, it's moved to the list of recommended works.
> 
> The voting template looks like this:
> 
> After [last poster]
> 
> My votes
> 
> (UPDATED BOARD)
> 
> Nominated
> 
> Seconded
> Here's how to fill it out:
> 
> 1. Go to the end of the thread and find the most recent vote. Put the voter's username under "After".
> 
> 2. Vote for two works: give one work +2, and the other +1. You can either pick works from the board or nominate something else. If you nominate something else, make sure it's not already on the list of recommended works.
> 
> When you nominate a work, you cannot vote for it again until somebody else seconds it.
> 
> Make sure it's clear what you're voting for - especially if there are multiple works by one composer on the board.
> 
> 3. Include an "Updated board" in your post if you can: copy the board from the most recent post, and simply update the points tally of the works you voted for.
> 
> If you nominated a work, add it to the "Nominated" section like this: "Composer: Title - number of points (My username)". And if you voted for something in the "Nominated" section, move it to the "Seconded" section.
> 
> 4. If the most popular work on the board gets 7 points more than anything else, it's removed from the board and added to the list of recommended works.
> 
> TIPS
> 
> 1. Vote for the works that you like and want to recommend, even if others disagree. Everyone's participation is valued.
> 
> 2. The list of recommendations is not meant as an official, objective canon of Western art music. It simply reflects what we as a group like.
> 
> 3. If you vote often, we encourage you to spread your votes around different works that you like, rather than repeatedly voting for one.
> 
> FINAL NOTES
> 
> 1. Shorter works usually recorded as a group - e.g. Chopin's nocturnes - are usually regarded as one work, so long as they're not collectively too long (not more than two or three hours). If there's doubt about this, we'll discuss it.
> 
> 2. If there's an inconsistency between a person's votes and their "Updated board", we'll change the board to reflect the votes.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

nathanb said:


> Now, about the list... MoonlightSonata, may I ask what leads you to take the TC Project approach? It's a fantastic long-term project, but I think you're going to get some griping if the rules aren't modified. For instance, the vote-every-9-hours rule might be viewed as catering to the posters with more leisure time if you set it in this kind of list that some tend to take more seriously.


Perhaps we could change this to one morning vote and one afternoon one?
I've recently started to explore more modern works, so I thought it might be nice to find out which ones people recommend most.


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> Perhaps we could change this to one morning vote and one afternoon one?
> I've recently started to explore more modern works, so I thought it might be nice to find out which ones people recommend most.


I think I was just trying to say that when you put the "Top Recommended" tag on there, people prefer a more systematic approach to make sure they are heard. Equal number of nominations, equal number of votes.


----------



## Guest

Jeez vote every 9 hours? I have enough trouble organising my meal times, I may be an interested observer/listener here...!


----------



## Prodromides

Post-WWII musical compositions constitute more than half of my music collection, so this thread topic covers my core focus/interests. 
However, I don't have access to the internet every day, so I wouldn't be able to participate as a regular voter.

There is no paucity of post-1950 works which deserve consideration; the 'difficulty' might be to locate the members who are well acquainted with this repertoire. [how can one vote for (or veto) a piece with which one is unfamiliar?]


----------



## Haydn man

I would certainly enjoy and learn from this type of thread as my knowledge of post 1950 music is fairly thin.
I certainly don't enjoy watching some of you insult each other


----------



## isorhythm

nathanb said:


> Absolutely. Check some of the more recent voting rounds in the currently ongoing SQ list. If you have a set of 10 nominations up for voting, and, for instance, 6 of them were written by composers born after 1900, you can be damn sure that some posters will simply type: "Round X Votes: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... 4. ... 5. No 5th Vote". And I don't think I need to tell you which 4 receive the votes *every time* in such a scenario.


I admit I haven't looked at that list. But surely those people won't participate in a list that's exclusively about post-1950 works, so I can't imagine this will be a problem.

Anyway, will the voting happen in this thread, or will there be a separate one?


----------



## KenOC

Certainly the finest examples of some genres came from the second half of the century. The symphony and the cello concerto spring to mind...and obviously keyboard preludes and fugues in all keys.


----------



## musicrom

How big of a list are we planning to have? 100?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

musicrom said:


> How big of a list are we planning to have? 100?


I don't have a set number in mind, really.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

some guy said:


> Schwitter's _Ursonate_


Are you suggesting we should include poetry into these lists? You know it has rhythm, form and timbre; that's more than some pieces by radical artists that are supposed to be considered clasical music by who knows what criteria outside intentions.


----------



## DJA Boyle

I would like to contribute to the discussion


----------



## MagneticGhost

dogen said:


> Jeez vote every 9 hours? I have enough trouble organising my meal times, I may be an interested observer/listener here...!


The Vote every 9 hours is in effect - 2 votes a day. People vote in their morning and their bed time.
If I'm on nights I sometimes get a 3rd vote in but quite rarely.
It's quite casual- some people dip in and out. And voting isn't compulsory. Some nominate and leave


----------



## Guest

MagneticGhost said:


> The Vote every 9 hours is in effect - 2 votes a day. People vote in their morning and their bed time.
> If I'm on nights I sometimes get a 3rd vote in but quite rarely.
> It's quite casual- some people dip in and out. And voting isn't compulsory. Some nominate and leave


Oh OK I'll try to add my two pence worth. My suggestions may tend to be named Gyorgy...


----------



## Weston

MagneticGhost said:


> The Vote every 9 hours is in effect - 2 votes a day. People vote in their morning and their bed time.
> If I'm on nights I sometimes get a 3rd vote in but quite rarely.
> It's quite casual- some people dip in and out. And voting isn't compulsory. Some nominate and leave


We should bear in mind many of these pieces are going to require reviewing or in many cases first listens. I'll probably be out of my league after the first 20 or so of the best known examples.


----------



## 20centrfuge

I'm ALL IN! I think such a thing would be great fun. Let's just do it!

(Wait, what are we talking about?)😋


----------



## maestro267

I'd be interested in this. I'm starting to get into post-1950 music now, so it'll be a good way to introduce me to other works as well.


----------



## Guest

When's kick-off then?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

dogen said:


> When's kick-off then?


If nobody has any complaints, we might as well start now.

After nobody
Schnittke / Ligeti

Nominated:
Schnittke: Viola Concerto - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Ligeti: Requiem - 1 - MoonlightSonata

Seconded:


----------



## Dim7

I would be willing to participate, but only in the sense of reminding you all constantly how stupid of an idea I think this is.

obviously kidding


----------



## Guest

Aaaaalrighty then...

After Moonlight Sonata

Nominated:
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras - 1 - nathanb
Ligeti: Requiem - 1 - MoonlightSonata
Schnittke: Viola Concerto - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Stockhausen: LICHT - 2 - nathanb

Seconded:


----------



## 20centrfuge

An idea. I think it would be helpful to list the date in parenthesis after the composition. What do you think???

After: nathanb

Adams/Rzewski

Nominated:

Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)- 2 - 20centrfuge
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1977) - 1 - nathanb
Ligeti: Requiem (1965) - 1 - MoonlightSonata
Rzewski: The People United Never Will be Defeated! (1975) - 1 - 20centrfuge
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985) - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Stockhausen: LICHT (1991)- 2 - nathanb

Seconded:


----------



## 20centrfuge

Ooh, I'm listening to LICHT right now on youtube. It sounds cool!


----------



## Trout

After 20centrfuge:

Reich / Ligeti Etudes

Nominated:

Adams: Harmonielehre (1985) - 2 - 20centrfuge
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras - 1 - nathanb
Ligeti: Études pour Piano (1985-2001) - 1 - Trout
Ligeti: Requiem (1965) - 1 - MoonlightSonata
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976) - 2 - Trout
Rzewski: The People United Never Will be Defeated! (1975) - 1 - 20centrfuge
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985) - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Stockhausen: LICHT - 2 - nathanb

Seconded:


I agree with the inclusion of dates.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

20centrfuge said:


> An idea. I think it would be helpful to list the date in parenthesis after the composition. What do you think???


Ah, that's a good idea! I'll do that from now on.


----------



## SimonNZ

After Trout:

Grisey/Takemitsu

Nominated:

Adams: Harmonielehre (1985) - 2 - 20centrfuge
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras - 1 - nathanb
Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-1985) - 2 - SimonNZ
Ligeti: Études pour Piano (1985-2001) - 1 - Trout
Ligeti: Requiem (1965) - 1 - MoonlightSonata
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976) - 2 - Trout
Rzewski: The People United Never Will be Defeated! (1975) - 1 - 20centrfuge
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985) - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Stockhausen: LICHT - 2 - nathanb
Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990) - 1 - SimonNZ

Seconded:


----------



## Weston

Hmm. I guess I'm a little lost as to procedure. Maybe I'll catch on.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Weston said:


> Hmm. I guess I'm a little lost as to procedure. Maybe I'll catch on.


You may vote for two works, giving two points to one and one to another. The works go onto the "nominated" list until a different person votes for them, then they move to the "seconded" list. You may not "second" your own nomination.

When the work with the most points has seven points more than the next-highest, it is added to the final list.


----------



## SONNET CLV

An intriguing project -- recommendations of post-1950 works.

I ponder the possibility while listening to Frank Bedrossian's composition "Swing" (2009), performed by the Ictus Ensemble conducted by Georges-Elie Octors, the 21 minute track one on the NEOS disc titled _Donaueschinger Musiktage 2009_, Vol. 2. The work may not be a familiar one to many of you.

Here's what Bedrossian, born in 1971, says of the piece in the liner notes: "This work develops in a more substantial way the idea of 'saturation' (colour saturation) as it relates to aesthetics, a concept I explored in some of my earlier works.... Here, once again, the implied reference to jazz music must also be understood in relation to a kind of irony rich in allusion, because every connoted musical element is changed and engenders another meaning in a sometimes almost subversive way; it appears and then disappears again behind unpredictable musical material that threads to overgrow all in its path...." Etc. Etc.

We've all read (heard) such blather as some composer attempts to discuss his work, usually only to confusing results, the work itself being confusing enough just to listen to.

Whether or not Bedrossian's work is a masterpiece, though, is something that remains to be seen. And that proves one of the great difficulties with attempting to provide a "list" of "100" or however so many "essential contemporary works" especially "Post-1950". We simply cannot know, this soon in the music's history, what is going to be great, influential, essential, and what is going to fall to the wayside as so much drudge.

The Donaueschinger Musiktage works themselves (recorded for the NEOS label following the yearly music festival) provide a provocative peek into what is currently happening in the world of contemporary music. I'm awaiting my order for the latest release, the 2014 disc, but as I look back at last year's issue, a four CD sampling of the 2013 concerts, I note the following works: Enno Poppe's "Speicher" for large ensemble (2008-2013), Bernhard Lang's "Monadologie XIII (The Saucy Maid)" for two orchestras one quartertone apart (2013), and Walter Zimmermann's "Suave Mari Magno - Cinamen I-VI" for six orchestral groups (1996-1998/2010-2013), among other works. Which of these works will qualify as "keepers"? Who can say?

But looking back at an early issue of the Musiktage, a 4-disc set from Col Legno titled _Donaueschinger Musiktage 1950-1990 _and presenting works from the festivals of those years, I see a number of intriguing pieces that I'll bet sounded as unfamiliar to common ears in the years they were first presented as do the works I listed above. Those pieces on the 1950-1990 discs include the following: Messiaen's "Reveil des oiseaux" (1953), Elliot Carter's "Oboe Concerto" (1988), Pierre Boulez's "Polyphonie X" (1951), Nono's "Due Espressioni" (1953), Xenakis's "Metastasis" (1955), Penderecki's "Anaklasis" (1960), and Ligeti's "Atmospheres" (1961). Certainly Donaueschinger Musiktage was doing something right in presenting these radical works.

So ... what of today's more current offerings should be recommended? I will suggest one listens to the entire Donaueschinger Musiktage releases, if possible. It's a look at what is happening now, and what may well be shaping the future of this art form we all love so much.

Or maybe not.

It's hard to tell, at such an early time in the music's history.

But I will suggest that Penderecki and Xenakis deserve recommended hearings, and they count among my favorite contemporary era composers.

But there is, again, so much contemporary music, contrary to what the uninitiated might think. What of it is essential and certainly worth recommending remains problematic, at best. I say, just listen. Find something and give it a try. You may like it. You may not. But your personal opinion about the work's "quality" is no determinant of its ultimate importance any way. I'm sure there were folks years ago who hated Beethoven's radical Ninth Symphony and dismissed it off hand, but who loved the symphonies of, say, Ferdinand Ries .

Not to mention the reaction someone like Schoenberg got back in, say, 1911. And isn't Arnold somewhat "old fashioned" nowadays? I mean, commentators talk about how his music is an extension of Brahms. Brahms?!

In any case, turning to another label, the Vienna Modern Masters (over a hundred discs worth of contemporary music), I will recommend one piece from the very first disc offering of that label: VMM 3001. Jean-Claude Wolff's Symphony No. 2. Essential listening.

I'll be watching this thread. It promises to be exciting.


----------



## SimonNZ

I assume there's a limit to the number of nominations someone can have going at one time. Is it just the two?

edit: and am i right in thinking that I can't vote for my own nominations the following day?


----------



## Weston

Ah! Got it now - I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

After SimonNZ

Ligeti -Requiem / Salonen

Nominated:

Adams: Harmonielehre (1985) - 2 - 20centrfuge
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras - 1 - nathanb
Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-1985) - 2 - SimonNZ
Ligeti: Études pour Piano (1985-2001) - 1 - Trout
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976) - 2 - Trout
Rzewski: The People United Never Will be Defeated! (1975) - 1 - 20centrfuge
Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004) - 1 - Weston
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985) - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Stockhausen: LICHT - 2 - nathanb
Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990) - 1 - SimonNZ

Seconded: 
Ligeti: Requiem (1965) - 3? - MoonlightSonata / Weston?


I'll repair whatever I misunderstood.


----------



## Weston

SimonNZ said:


> I assume there's a limit to the number of nominations someone can have going at one time. Is it just the two?


Yes, what is the permitted frequency?


----------



## mmsbls

After Weston:

Carter / Adams

Nominated:

Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-1985) - 2 - SimonNZ
Ligeti: Études pour Piano (1985-2001) - 1 - Trout
Ligeti: Requiem (1965) - 2 - Weston
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976) - 2 - Trout
Rzewski: The People United Never Will be Defeated! (1975) - 1 - 20centrfuge
Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004) - 1 - Weston
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985) - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Stockhausen: LICHT (2003) - 2 - nathanb
Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990) - 1 - SimonNZ

Seconded:
Adams: Harmonielehre (1985) - 3
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1976) - 3


----------



## Trout

Weston seconded Ligeti's requiem so the board is:

Nominated:

Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-1985) - 2 - SimonNZ
Ligeti: Études pour Piano (1985-2001) - 1 - Trout
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976) - 2 - Trout
Rzewski: The People United Never Will be Defeated! (1975) - 1 - 20centrfuge
Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004) - 1 - Weston
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985) - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Stockhausen: LICHT - 2 - nathanb
Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990) - 1 - SimonNZ

Seconded:
Adams: Harmonielehre (1985) - 3
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1976) - 3
Ligeti: Requiem (1965) - 3


----------



## MoonlightSonata

SimonNZ said:


> I assume there's a limit to the number of nominations someone can have going at one time. Is it just the two?
> 
> edit: and am i right in thinking that I can't vote for my own nominations the following day?


I don't think there is a limit to how many works you can nominate.
No, once you've nominated a work it remains on the "nominated list" until somebody else (not you) seconds it, after which you are allowed to vote for it again.


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> I don't think there is a limit to how many works you can nominate.


And yet, there probably should be.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

nathanb said:


> And yet, there probably should be.


How many would you suggest?


----------



## senza sordino

I would have participated if we had used the method of nominating we use for compiling the string quartet list. I don't know contemporary music well enough to nominate as quickly as the rest of you. I need time to listen to the music. I work long hours. I'm out. Though, I'll probably follow along a bit find contemporary music to listen to.


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> How many would you suggest?


I would go for three, personally (two can be a bit stifling if you get an unpopular one stuck on there). I always wished the Classical Music Project had a limitation on this, but like I've said earlier, I think people are going to expect a little more equality between voters on one of these shorter term projects.

But, by the way... thanks for getting this going, MS


----------



## SimonNZ

senza sordino said:


> I would have participated if we had used the method of nominating we use for compiling the string quartet list. I don't know contemporary music well enough to nominate as quickly as the rest of you. I need time to listen to the music. I work long hours. I'm out. Though, I'll probably follow along a bit find contemporary music to listen to.


But the nominated works will be around for a while before they gain the requisite number of votes. You (I, we) will have plenty of time to assess.

It depends on how many people play, but I think it would be better to have a good sized list of nominations to work from, but still with a limit. I'm thinking four each at any given time...but I'll roll with whatever.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> But the nominated works will be around for a while before they gain the requisite number of votes. You (I, we) will have plenty of time to assess.
> 
> It depends on how many people play, but I think it would be better to have a good sized list of nominations to work from, but still with a limit. I'm thinking four each at any given time...but I'll roll with whatever.


Or 4, that'd work


----------



## musicrom

After mmsbls:

Schnittke S1 / Shostakovich

Nominated:

Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-1985) - 2 - SimonNZ
Ligeti: Études pour Piano (1985-2001) - 1 - Trout
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976) - 2 - Trout
Rzewski: The People United Never Will be Defeated! (1975) - 1 - 20centrfuge
Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004) - 1 - Weston
Schnittke: Symphony No. 1 (1969) - 2 - musicrom
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985) - 2 - MoonlightSonata
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 15 (1971) - musicrom
Stockhausen: LICHT - 2 - nathanb
Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990) - 1 - SimonNZ

Seconded:
Adams: Harmonielehre (1985) - 3
Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1976) - 3
Ligeti: Requiem (1965) - 3


----------



## MoonlightSonata

nathanb said:


> I would go for three, personally (two can be a bit stifling if you get an unpopular one stuck on there). I always wished the Classical Music Project had a limitation on this, but like I've said earlier, I think people are going to expect a little more equality between voters on one of these shorter term projects.
> 
> But, by the way... thanks for getting this going, MS


Three sounds good.
Thanks very much.  I'm glad to see so many people interested.

Edit: Missed the posts suggesting a limit of four. Perhaps we should go with that instead.


----------



## Weston

senza sordino said:


> I would have participated if we had used the method of nominating we use for compiling the string quartet list. I don't know contemporary music well enough to nominate as quickly as the rest of you. I need time to listen to the music. I work long hours. I'm out. Though, I'll probably follow along a bit find contemporary music to listen to.


I'm going to limit myself to listening only to the seconded pieces that I am unfamiliar with. Or if that list grows too large too quickly, I listen to those with the highest votes first.

I've listened to the Adams Harmonielehre this evening and consider it a 3 out of 5 stars. I love the orchestral colors, but like much of Adams' work, I wish it would change chords or something a little more often.

I'm listening to the Carter (Symphony of Three Orchestras) now and may give it the same rating. The trouble is, this type of music often requires many listens before a judgement is cogent.

[Edit: Darn it! I was listening to something called "Three Occasions," which I take is not the same thing. Well, fortunately both works aren't massively long.]


----------



## Guest

For the record, that there Grisey would've been another of my early nominations. What a monolithic way to establish spectralism, easily one of the most important trends of the last 50 years.


----------



## GreenMamba

FWIW, I think you really should have started a new thread with this. List the rules in the opening post, etc. Still discussing the rules when the list has begun?


----------



## SimonNZ

That can still be done. Just make the most recent vote list the second post, after the rules.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Right then, I'll start one.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I'm going to nominate Cage's Roaratorio, Feldman's For Philip Guston, and Xenakis's Persepolis.

And second Stockhausen's Licht.


----------



## KenOC

I've got a list of 25 ready to go on my next turn...


----------



## SimonNZ

SeptimalTritone said:


> I'm going to nominate Cage's Roaratorio, Feldman's For Philip Guston, and Xenakis's Persepolis.
> 
> And second Stockhausen's Licht.


You'll have to choose two for now (and two votes/nominations for subsequent turns), give one two points and one one point, and add to the list on this thread following the template:

http://www.talkclassical.com/37569-tc-top-recommended-post.html


----------



## MarkW

I'll nominate: Tippett Piano Concerto (1956?); Rochberg String Quartet No. 3 (ca. 1972)

And Second: Rzewski "People United . . ."


----------



## senza sordino

Nine hours later, can I vote for a piece I nominated once it's been seconded?

Can I keep voting for the same piece and give it two points each time?


----------



## Guest

senza sordino said:


> Nine hours later, can I vote for a piece I nominated once it's been seconded?
> 
> Can I keep voting for the same piece and give it two points each time?


You certainly are allowed to be that guy. 

I personally try to approach the other thread with the mindset: "If, of all these voters, *I* alone am giving this piece a majority of its votes, does it deserve its rank?" - That, and the mindset: "Share the love." Oh, and don't forget: "I'm on an internet forum with other people."


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> I admit I haven't looked at that list. But surely those people won't participate in a list that's exclusively about post-1950 works, so I can't imagine this will be a problem.
> 
> Anyway, will the voting happen in this thread, or will there be a separate one?


Oh they will, and they are. Shostakovich may have only lived for a third of the period, composing in a style established well before the war, but the voters have made clear that he's the pinnacle of 1950 to the present!


----------



## isorhythm

nathanb said:


> Oh they will, and they are. Shostakovich may have only lived for a third of the period, composing in a style established well before the war, but the voters have made clear that he's the pinnacle of 1950 to the present!


Are we looking at the same poll?


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> Are we looking at the same poll?


The one where Shostakovich works make up some 20% of the seconded options on a decent-sized board? I thought so...


----------



## SimonNZ

nathanb said:


> You certainly are allowed to be that guy.
> 
> I personally try to approach the other thread with the mindset: "If, of all these voters, *I* alone am giving this piece a majority of its votes, does it deserve its rank?" - That, and the mindset: "Share the love." Oh, and don't forget: "I'm on an internet forum with other people."


Though I'm sure senza's question was innocent, it might be worth getting a concensus on this issue.

It seems to me the whole point of the exercise is discovery-listening and reassessments, not having "your guy" "win".

I'd rather not be voting for my own nominations, as its more interesting to see if my initial feelings are shared.


----------



## Guest

I agree Simon. I won't vote for my own nominations but...I think it hard to keep up with the nominations if, like me, they're new to you. It'll be a great resource (hopefully) for modern composition but I'll probably vote for stuff I already know (and like) unless I'm really struck by recommendations that are new to me (which is what I'm hoping for).


----------



## tortkis

I agree with nathanb, SimonNZ and dogen. I wish prohibiting double voting will be a rule. Otherwise, the result could become very uninteresting. What if one person repeats voting for only her/his nominations while others refrain from doing so?


----------



## Trout

I think at this stage, we should discourage double-voting as the top positions on the list should at least reflect some sort of consensus. Maybe we can enforce a rule stating something like, for a work to be enshrined, no single member can contribute more than 40% (for example) of its points?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Perhaps we should allow each member to give a certain number of points to the work - perhaps 5? 10, maybe?

Another point - the board is getting very large. Should we hold nominations until a work is enshrined, perhaps? Or is that unfair?


----------



## mmsbls

I think it's hard to police individual voting (e.g. how many points they give to their nominations). Voters (and others) would have to keep a record of their votes. Maybe just suggesting that people vote rarely for their own nominations would be sufficient. 

I do feel the board is getting large, but I'm not sure that holding nominations or, for example, limiting the total board to a fixed number, say 50, is the best way to proceed. Again I think pointing out that the board is large and that perhaps people could keep the total size in mind when nominating might work. If the board continues to grow even after such suggestions, maybe we need to place a limit.


----------



## SimonNZ

mmsbls said:


> I think it's hard to police individual voting (e.g. how many points they give to their nominations). Voters (and others) would have to keep a record of their votes. Maybe just suggesting that people vote rarely for their own nominations would be sufficient.
> 
> I do feel the board is getting large, but I'm not sure that holding nominations or, for example, limiting the total board to a fixed number, say 50, is the best way to proceed. Again I think pointing out that the board is large and that perhaps people could keep the total size in mind when nominating might work. If the board continues to grow even after such suggestions, maybe we need to place a limit.


This would be my feeling exactly.


----------



## GreenMamba

I think it is wrong to say you can never vote on your own noms at all. It would probably then be wise to wait for someone else to nominate your favorite work. Then you could "legally" force it through.

I do think no one should try to force anything through by themselves. Max points per work might be nice, but would be hard to track. Plus, we have no idea how many points will be needed to succeed. It might end of freezing the tops works as their adherents don't have any points left to push them through. 

The large board is reflective of subject. This is always going to be more diffuse than a general list, where you just know that Beethoven's 9th will make it through, etc. I wouldn't hold off noms yet -- it would be unfair to late arrivals (we've really only just begun).

I think maybe people will catch on and start voting strategically soon. You simply have to do that. "I prefer X, but it's not going anywhere until Y gets through."


----------



## Guest

Self-policing is a very viable way to go, as seen in the Project that's been going on for years... a few newcomers here and there may get a little over-excited, but in general, the thing has been as about as stable as possible for a long time. 

I guess we just see trouble because it seems that several people are jumping on board at once that don't seem to have ever set foot in that other thread. But spend a few days in either thread and you realize you're in a community effort, and power-voting just looks silly


----------



## Guest

I've not set foot in the other thread, the system seemed a bit daunting and I'd probably not want to feel like a johnnycumlately.
Regarding this one...just what I want! - listened to Xenakis : Persopolis last night. Good grief, it would't be out of place on a This Heat album.
I shall be voting accordingly!


----------



## Guest

It's like a political election! I quite like A, I'm really a B supporter, don't mind C but am going to have to vote D to keep the goddam E party out!


----------



## ptr

Showing a spot of self restraint in voting on Your own nominations is a part of these kinds of games! For me, creating the list is only a secondary purpose, I mainly see it as a method of finding new and unheard music! 

/ptr


----------



## Nereffid

A shame this got going over the few days I was away from TC, because now it just seems like total churlishness on my part to say that much as I'd love to participate in the creation of this list, I hate the chosen voting system even more than I hate the nomination/vote thing used in other recent lists. So, have fun without me!


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> A shame this got going over the few days I was away from TC, because now it just seems like total churlishness on my part to say that much as I'd love to participate in the creation of this list, I hate the chosen voting system even more than I hate the nomination/vote thing used in other recent lists. So, have fun without me!


Ah, that's a shame. Not even a drive-by vote??!!


----------



## Guest

just a thought...

would it be a good idea to have a size limit on one or both of the lists? (nominated and seconded) to keep it manageable and promote a "through-put" of works to the hallowed recommended list?


----------



## ptr

^^ I suggest a cap on the seconded list, think there was 38 when I voted this morning, lets say that we should not allow more the 40 seconded works at any one time for there to be some voting action on the list as well as nominations! :wave:

/ptr


----------



## Blancrocher

ptr said:


> ^^ I suggest a cap on the seconded list, think there was 38 when I voted this morning, lets say that we should not allow more the 40 seconded works at any one time for there to be some voting action on the list as well as nominations! :wave:
> 
> /ptr


I'd say that as long as people keep it down to 2 nominations (whether seconded or not) on the board at a time, it will be fine. Otherwise we'll get into a situation where a minority never nominates anything. There would also be races to make a nomination every time something was enshrined.


----------



## Guest

I do wonder how it could be managed and not cause difficulties...!

I was just concerned it might all get a bit unwieldy, but maybe once stuff starts being Enshrined*, it'll ease up.

*is that the official term??!!


----------



## ptr

Enshrined is the term!

As I wrote above (before the cap post), how manageable a collective effort like this becomes are usually down to the individual restraints and input from all the users that participate. I have not nominated anything myself yet as I was anticipating a slight bit of nominating chaos in the start up phase. This is fine with me, my time will come, patience is my friend! 

The Cap suggestion was more something to get some discussion storm from!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

ptr said:


> The Cap suggestion was more something to get some discussion storm from!
> /ptr


I'm just a click bait spreader :lol:


----------



## Blancrocher

ptr said:


> Enshrined is the term!


Speaking of which, doesn't Berio have it now?


----------



## SuperTonic

Blancrocher said:


> Speaking of which, doesn't Berio have it now?


Not quite. As of right now the Berio is at 17 and Ligeti's Requiem is at 12. We are potentially one vote away from the Berio being enshrined though.


----------



## GreenMamba

As I wrote earlier, it's silly to get upset because the list is a little too big, as.... HOLY CRAP DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF IT NOW!!!

(But thanks to a certain hero, it's one smaller than before )


----------



## KenOC

dogen said:


> I'm just a click bait spreader :lol:


A well-known acronym for "A cerebral dipstick." The message is clear.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> A well-known acronym for "A cerebral dipstick."


Hey that's my two favourite organs.


----------



## Blancrocher

GreenMamba said:


> As I wrote earlier, it's silly to get upset because the list is a little too big, as.... HOLY CRAP DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF IT NOW!!!
> 
> (But thanks to a certain hero, it's one smaller than before )


When the tension gets to be too much for me in the voting thread, it's a relief to be able to come here to relax.

Interesting to see whether Rzewski, the current leader, seizes the #2 slot.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Blancrocher said:


> When the tension gets to be too much for me in the voting thread, it's a relief to be able to come here to relax.
> 
> Interesting to see whether Rzewski, the current leader, seizes the #2 slot.


I'll be voting for Ligeti. 
Edit: Ooh! Ligeti is 6 ahead of Rzewski!


----------



## SimonNZ

fwiw.. I quite like the pool size roughly as it is now - which is 60


----------



## brotagonist

I'm glad to see that another Hartmann Symphony has been proposed. I wasn't sure which one to pick, but this one might fare better, hopefully. The same with Messiaen. Perhaps the organ work, Méditations, was not the best choice. I was also thinking of La Transfiguration, which is a major orchestral work with chorus.

I've still got a fair number of things on my list that I would like to nominate  Scelsi, Rihm, Schnittke, perhaps Honegger Symphony 5, Feldman Piano and String Quartet, maybe some Henze and Hindemith...? I need to sift through my collection, because I know there's lots I'd still like to see on the list, great stuff that has been passed by on the first go-round.


----------



## brotagonist

So, I have a question, which might already have been answered somewhere, but then I missed it, so I will ask again:

Can I vote on things that have been seconded, even if I was the initial nominator?

We've got 2 selected, I believe, but, unless I can 'waste'  a vote on something I initially proposed, then things will move slowly, not that I am in a hurry to end it, because, as I just said, I think many more pieces deserve to be nominated yet. There are lots of things I didn't initially propose that I would second, too, of course. And that poses another question:

If I already seconded a piece once, can I second it another time(s) to up the vote count?


----------



## Celloman

brotagonist said:


> I'm glad to see that another Hartmann Symphony has been proposed. I wasn't sure which one to pick, but this one might fare better, hopefully. The same with Messiaen. Perhaps the organ work, Méditations, was not the best choice. I was also thinking of La Transfiguration, which is a major orchestral work with chorus.


Yeah, that was me! I thought about seconding #8, but wasn't sure if people would pick up on this. There seems to be a pretty broad opinion that #6 is his best, and I'm more familiar with it than his other symphonies. Anyway, I would love to see Hartmann on that list whichever work gets picked.


----------



## Guest

Yes and yes. But please note previous discussion. Voting for the same piece over and over can be pretty lame. 

FYI, my general rule for my own votes is that I only throw my own stuff a vote say...every third time or so. Or every two days or so. And I only ever push anyone's nomination especially hard if it's looking strong and ready for enshrinement. For instance, I believe I gave Le Marteau Sans Maitre a +1 this morning or last night, but I gave it another vote this evening simply because it was high on points and my single additional vote probably put it above another work in the rankings. 

If you are giving it your +2 vote every time, on the other hand...well, that portion of the list becomes "So-and-so's Top Recommended Post-1950 Works" in my eyes, because it's clear there isn't much consensus going into the thing...


----------



## tdc

brotagonist said:


> Can I vote on things that have been seconded, even if I was the initial nominator?
> 
> If I already seconded a piece once, can I second it another time(s) to up the vote count?


Yes to both questions. Once a work has been seconded, anyone (including the initial nominator) can vote on that work as much as they want.


----------



## SimonNZ

...though if anyone were doing nothing but that it might suggest they're not open to investigating anything outside the blinkered familiar, which seems against the spirit of the thing.


----------



## brotagonist

nathanb said:


> Yes and yes. But please note previous discussion. Voting for the same piece over and over can be pretty lame.


I understood that. If one were to repeatedly vote for the same piece, it could get picked on the basis of very few, which would completely defeat the purpose of the list. Similar to what you said, I think to do so perhaps one or two times over the course of the entire voting period, if a piece is looking strong and needs that little extra nudge AND you couldn't justify voting for something else on the list, then it might be okay... as long as you realize that the purpose is not to just get your own choices on the list.

The reason I asked was that there are a few things that have been seconded that I simply would not vote for. That would leave me with likely only four choices: nominate yet another piece, vote for something I couldn't support, vote for something I initially proposed or seconded, or skip a turn.



SimonNZ said:


> ...though if anyone were doing nothing but that it might suggest they're not open to investigating anything outside the blinkered familiar, which seems against the spirit of the thing.


I think the list is not about investigating or exploring; it is about recognizing the great pieces that we know. To nominate something for a Top Recommended list that one has not heard or doesn't particularly like, etc., would completely defeat the purpose of the list. The list should end up showing the collective top choices of TC participants. It's not about getting someone's name on the list just for the sake of getting people in the future to pay more interest to that composer. Otherwise, we could have people colluding to vote for one another's nominations, just to get a piece onto the list, even if the majority of TCistes don't care for the work or composer.


----------



## SimonNZ

brotagonist said:


> To nominate something for a Top Recommended list that one has not heard or doesn't particularly like, etc., would completely defeat the purpose of the list.


I would never suggest that. I'm arguing that if other knowledgeable members are saying that something one is unfamiliar with is one of the best works post '50, then it behoves us to compare with our nominations, and challenge our preconcieved notions. If they're this highly recommended then many should prove at least rewarding listening, even if the way you vote remains ultimately unchanged.

Each to their own, but I wouldn't understand it if anyone was entering this process and choosing to not listen to anything new, or not prepared to be surprised

(I'm not aiming this at you, or anyone specific, btw)


----------



## tdc

SimonNZ said:


> ...though if anyone were doing nothing but that it might suggest they're not open to investigating anything outside the blinkered familiar, which seems against the spirit of the thing.


Yes, however I was just trying to explain the rules exactly as they are in a clear and simple way.

For the record I haven't nominated any works yet and have seconded only one. My other votes have been spread out amongst different works already on the board.

I agree that its great to have an attitude of exploration when approaching this, but I also agree with brotagonist that it isn't the sole purpose of this list, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect that everyone has necessarily listened to all of the pieces before voting.


----------



## brotagonist

SimonNZ said:


> I'm arguing that if other knowledgeable members are saying that something one is unfamiliar with is one of the best works post '50, then it behoves us to compare with our nominations, and challenge our preconcieved notions. If they're this highly recommended then many should prove at least rewarding listening, even if the way you vote remains ultimately unchanged.





tdc said:


> I agree that its great to have an attitude of exploration when approaching this, but I also agree with brotagonist that it isn't the sole purpose of this list, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect that everyone has necessarily listened to all of the pieces before voting.


I presumed it a given that one should explore/have explored before nominating or seconding something. Honestly, I do think one should have heard everything one is endorsing. If Joe, who sounds like he knows a lot, says something is great, then should we all just, in the spirit of exploration and openness, vote it as one of the greatest works of the last half century? How are we going to get a meaningful list, if this is how we proceed?

I admit that I thought there was something a little strange, when Adams' Harmonielehre went to first place almost overnight, yet I don't believe I have ever seen it in the Current Listening thread and the little talk I have heard about John Adams was that many were not terribly keen on his music. And Rzewski or whoever? I've been following new music for decades, not like an insider, but like a guy who haunts the record shops, and I'd never even come across that name until 2 days ago, only to find that one of his works is one of the greatest works of the past 50 years!?

I always did wonder about those other TC Recommended lists. There were always a few odd pieces mixed in that had me thinking: what's this? and how did it achieve that exalted rank?

I guess I had different assumptions about how a TC list is created. I didn't participate in the String Quartet list, because I didn't honestly know the pieces well enough to be able to determine whether I thought #1 or #4 or #15 was the best and the effort to hear them in time for the vote was greater than I could reasonably muster.

Well, no matter. This is the list we are generating and this is how it is being created. I just hope that people referring to the list know how it was made and what it actually says about the works we (aren't sure that we) recommend


----------



## tdc

brotagonist said:


> I presumed it a given that one should explore/have explored before nominating or seconding something. Honestly, I do think one should have heard everything one is endorsing. If Joe, who sounds like he knows a lot, says something is great, then should we all just, in the spirit of exploration and openness, vote it as one of the greatest works of the last half century? How are we going to get a meaningful list, if this is how we proceed?
> 
> I admit that I thought there was something a little strange, when Adams' Harmonielehre went to first place almost overnight, yet I don't believe I have ever seen it in the Current Listening thread and the little talk I have heard about John Adams was that many were not terribly keen on his music. And Rzewski or whoever? I've been following new music for decades, not like an insider, but like a guy who haunts the record shops, and I'd never even come across that name until 2 days ago, only to find that one of his works is one of the greatest works of the past 50 years!?
> 
> I always did wonder about those other TC Recommended lists. There were always a few odd pieces mixed in that had me thinking: what's this? and how did it achieve that exalted rank?
> 
> I guess I had different assumptions about how a TC list is created. I didn't participate in the String Quartet list, because I didn't honestly know the pieces well enough to be able to determine whether I thought #1 or #4 or #15 was the best and the effort to hear them in time for the vote was greater than I could reasonably muster.
> 
> Well, no matter. This is the list we are generating and this is how it is being created. I just hope that people referring to the list know how it was made and what it actually says about the works we (aren't sure that we) recommend


Yes, I agree it would be rather ridiculous if people are voting for works they haven't listened to. I only vote for works that I have both listened to and enjoy very much. Sometimes my tastes might not match up with what is necessarily considered by many others as the "greatest" (Ie - I've been voting for Rzewski), but I only support works I genuinely love. These TC lists always seem to have their quirks. I think people should view them as an interesting project reflecting the tastes of some of the posters at TC and nothing more.


----------



## SimonNZ

I was probably overstating my position a bit - I was thinking of that hypothetical person who just hammers the voting on their one or two own recommendations.

Also: I've seen Harmonielehre mentioned on Current listening a few times (including my own). Not so much Rzewski, though. But that needn't be surprising - the works you feel are the most important / strongest needn't be the ones that you play most often for everyday enjoyment.


----------



## Guest

Are the Enshrined visible anywhere, or have they transcended the electromagnetic spectrum?


----------



## Guest

People will of course vote for various reasons.

For my part:
My intention is not to vote for what I've nominated. 
I will vote for:
Stuff I already really like (surprise!) from within my current limited palette.
Stuff I discover from The Thread. It would be impractical to say all of them, but I shall do my best. For me it is going to be a great resource, for which I am grateful.


----------



## SimonNZ

dogen said:


> Are the Enshrined visible anywhere, or have they transcended the electromagnetic spectrum?


001: Berio: Sinfonia (1968-70) 
002: Ligeti: Requiem (1965)


----------



## Guest

How long is that Feldman!!! Jeez....I only have a two day weekend....


----------



## SimonNZ

Perhaps I could interest you in a nine-minute Jonathan Harvey work...?


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Perhaps I could interest you in a nine-minute Jonathan Harvey work...?


My bank account is always receptive.


----------



## Weston

dogen said:


> Are the Enshrined visible anywhere, or have they transcended the electromagnetic spectrum?


I agree. With my short term memory being what it is these days, I'm likely to nominate the Ligeti Requiem, not seeing it on the board. On the other hand the list is unwieldy enough as it is so maybe I should just check back here once in a while if the finalists are posted here.


----------



## senza sordino

I am writing down a list of pieces I'll listen to, I'll nominate and I'll second. I will keep track of my voting on a piece of paper so as to avoid voting for my own nominations over and over. I used something similar with the string quartet list.

I rate each piece out of four stars. Four stars is excellent, three is good, two is not good and one star is bad. This system of four rather than five prevents one from sitting on the fence (3 out of 5). When the rating is out of four one has to decide either mostly like or mostly not like. 

I was initially put off by the voting system, but once I got used to it, it works well. And I can manage on my iPad mini. 

You can laugh if you want, but my question is serious. Can I nominate West Side Story and / or Candide? My thinking is that Leonard Bernstein was a serious composer, but these pieces might not qualify. What do you people think?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

senza sordino said:


> I am writing down a list of pieces I'll listen to, I'll nominate and I'll second. I will keep track of my voting on a piece of paper so as to avoid voting for my own nominations over and over. I used something similar with the string quartet list.
> 
> I rate each piece out of four stars. Four stars is excellent, three is good, two is not good and one star is bad. This system of four rather than five prevents one from sitting on the fence (3 out of 5). When the rating is out of four one has to decide either mostly like or mostly not like.
> 
> I was initially put off by the voting system, but once I got used to it, it works well. And I can manage on my iPad mini.
> 
> You can laugh if you want, but my question is serious. Can I nominate West Side Story and / or Candide? My thinking is that Leonard Bernstein was a serious composer, but these pieces might not qualify. What do you people think?


I personally would accept these.


----------



## Weston

When in doubt there is always the Symphonic Dances from "West Side Story."


----------



## GreenMamba

I was thinking about Candide as a possible nomination. I also thought about jokingly nominating Dark Side of the Moon (remember that thread?).


----------



## Weston

I have thought about nominating 4'33", but thought no one would take it seriously. It would have been a serious suggestion though. Now I'm finding the list almost too much to handle already.

One thing I'm finding disappointing in trying to browse the unfamiliar pieces is that a lot of the more contemporary composers must have inflated egos to match the inflated lengths of their works. It's not just one composer either; it's several. Do they really think they have that much more to say than Mahler or Beethoven, and that we have the time to invest in their largely aleatoric statements?


----------



## tortkis

Weston said:


> I have thought about nominating 4'33", but thought no one would take it seriously. It would have been a serious suggestion though. Now I'm finding the list almost too much to handle already.


I thought about it, but I nominated _Music of Changes_ instead, because it preceded _4'33"_ and was the basis of following chance works, in a sense including _4'33"_.



> One thing I'm finding disappointing in trying to browse the unfamiliar pieces is that a lot of the more contemporary composers must have inflated egos to match the inflated lengths of their works. It's not just one composer either; it's several. Do they really think they have that much more to say than Mahler or Beethoven, and that we have the time to invest in their largely aleatoric statements?


I was thinking about _LICHT_... I am interested in the work, but it's too expensive and too long. I want to listen to it eventually, but not in the near future.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Weston said:


> One thing I'm finding disappointing in trying to browse the unfamiliar pieces is that a lot of the more contemporary composers must have inflated egos to match the inflated lengths of their works. It's not just one composer either; it's several. Do they really think they have that much more to say than Mahler or Beethoven, and that we have the time to invest in their largely aleatoric statements?


I vehemently, vehemently disagree.

Feldman's For Philip Guston is an amazing, life changing, monumental work that, yes, is more powerful and drives deeper into the human and universal spiritual psyche than Beethoven's and Mahler's 9th symphonies. The four hour or four and a half hour length is necessary. It is one of the greatest works of all time. You may not agree that it's one of the greatest works ever, but to call it (to paraphrase) "inflated, egotistical fluff not worth the time investment" is simply not giving this piece a chance.

And no, Feldman was not an egotist. He was a very humble person. He couldn't even remotely be considered in the ego department of a Wagner or Scriabin.

And likewise goes for Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Lachenmann, etc.


----------



## Celloman

Weston said:


> I have thought about nominating 4'33", but thought no one would take it seriously.


I say put it up there. You might be surprised.

Or do you want me to dare you?


----------



## brotagonist

I still have a few that I would like to nominate, but I am pretty much going for the final spurt:

Harrison Birtwistle Secret Theatre (a major favourite)
Roberto Gerhard Symphony 4 (ditto; one of the few or only Schoenberg pupils that could qualify for this list)
Giacinto Scelsi Okanagon (ditto; difficult to pick a piece, since they're so brief, but this one is fairly substantial)
Alfred Schnittke Concerto Grosso 4/Symphony 5, or Symphony 3 (both are favourites; 1 is not getting any love)

A few others that could be nominated, to see if there is any TC resonance, but maybe not essential:

Wolfgang Rihm Jagden und Formen (not sure that I can nominate a composer on the merit of only one piece)
Hans Werner Henze Symphony 7 (or 10, but I personally prefer 7)
Bruno Maderna Aura (winner of the City of Bonn's Beethoven Prize)
Ivo Malec Exempla (I think it sums up his work, as the name suggests)
Olivier Messiaen Catalogue d'Oiseaux (there are already a couple seconded, so this is not a must)

That would pretty much exhaust every composer that I am 'intimate' with that I think deserves to be mentioned.


----------



## SimonNZ

001: Berio: Sinfonia (1968-70)
002: Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
003: Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1955)
004: Messiaen: Des canyons aux étoiles... (1971-74)
005: Rzewski: The People United Will Never be Defeated! (1975)


----------



## science

_Des canyons_ over _Éclairs..._.

I have really underestimated _Des canyons_ and overestimated _Éclairs..._.


----------



## MagneticGhost

science said:


> _Des canyons_ over _Éclairs..._.
> 
> I have really underestimated _Des canyons_ and overestimated _Éclairs..._.


I wouldn't attempt to make any sense of the order of enshrinement or to draw any conclusions. It's Fun and we'll all hopefully learn some new pieces - but I suspect that these are probably not the 5 greatest pieces of the last 64 years.


----------



## Nereffid

MagneticGhost said:


> I wouldn't attempt to make any sense of the order of enshrinement or to draw any conclusions.


Then why on earth is it a numbered list?


----------



## MagneticGhost

These polls are not scientifically rigorous and as such should not be used to gauge public opinion - or words to that effect as an addendum to every online poll ever carried out. 
Always read the small print.


----------



## ptr

Nereffid said:


> Then why on earth is it a numbered list?


Cuz my OCD'ich brain put it there for the first enshrinement...  (Force of habit; "We" do it in the other thread, mostly as a way to keep count of how many works that has been enshrined! Sorry if it is confusing! )

/ptr


----------



## MagneticGhost

And this from the (elder) Sister project



> . 2. The list of recommendations is not meant as an official, objective canon of Western art music. It simply reflects what we as a group like.


And my insignificant little point was directed at Science who said he thought it meant he was wrong about his like for a particular Messiaen piece.


----------



## Guest

A suggestion : (before such a task might become onerous)

Would it be better for the enshrined list to be alphabetical, rather than numerical?


----------



## ptr

dogen said:


> A suggestion : (before such a task might become onerous)
> 
> Would it be better for the enshrined list to be alphabetical, rather than numerical?


Because it is a hierarchical list that add new additions at the bottom! (On the parent more general list we have an alphabetical sorting published after the end of every hundredth enshrinement... (Whether or not this is how this list should proceed I leave to the collective to decide!) 

/ptr


----------



## MoonlightSonata

--deleted post, please ignore--


----------



## Albert7

dogen said:


> How long is that Feldman!!! Jeez....I only have a two day weekend....


Which Feldman piece are you referring to?


----------



## Guest

Dear Lord,
Please grant me the patience to remember Rome was not built in a day.


----------



## Albert7

dogen said:


> Dear Lord,
> Please grant me the patience to remember Rome was not built in a day.


... indeed, a thousand years for China to be built.


----------



## Guest

Is there a time limit or some sort of voting minimum for pieces on the seconded list? Otherwise, is it not in effect a given that eventually all pieces will be enshrined; which then begs the question of what's the point in distinguishing between a seconded list and an enshrined list...



(extracted from the Voting thread)


----------



## tdc

dogen said:


> Is there a time limit or some sort of voting minimum for pieces on the seconded list? Otherwise, is it not in effect a given that eventually all pieces will be enshrined; which then begs the question of what's the point in distinguishing between a seconded list and an enshrined list...


You have a point, you may not find there is any point to distinguishing between a seconded list and enshrined list. I think for some it is interesting to see which works there is more group consensus on, and what works people will use a lot of votes on - I think this way gives a little more information about how people feel about certain works. This also turns it into more of an interactive game-like activity as opposed to having people just list off works they recommend and then having others second them.

*edit -* I'm also assuming there eventually will be an end to the game which means that when there is a cut-off point there will be some works that were seconded that are left off the enshrined list.


----------



## Guest

Thanks tdc. As much a process as goal then. 

I don't want to add an unnessesary complication, but could I suggest nominaters are able to un-nominate? - to size-manage the seconded list, if (after an appropriate time) the nominated piece doesn't seem to have gained any "traction." (sexy word, huh?)


----------



## tdc

dogen said:


> Thanks tdc. As much a process as goal then.
> 
> I don't want to add an unnessesary complication, but could I suggest *nominaters are able to un-nominate?* - to size-manage the seconded list, if (after an appropriate time) the nominated piece doesn't seem to have gained any "traction." (sexy word, huh?)


Absolutely, I agree with this rule. I would say its fine. I've seen people un-nominate at the other classical music project. That said personally I have no problem leaving my nominations up for a long time. I'd be especially patient at these very early stages of the project...people are still voting like mad to get there very favorite works in.


----------



## tdc

dogen said:


> Thanks tdc. As much a process as goal then.
> 
> I don't want to add an unnessesary complication, but could I suggest nominaters are able to un-nominate? - *to size-manage the seconded list,* if (after an appropriate time) the nominated piece doesn't seem to have gained any "traction." (sexy word, huh?)


Sorry, I didn't notice initially you were referring to the seconded list - I don't think you can un-nominate those works. I was referring to the works that are in the nominated list.

As far as size-management of the seconded list I think putting some kind of a maximum number of works allowed at one time might be the only way.


----------



## Blancrocher

Don't worry--things will slow down as we get out of the greatest-hits phase.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Sorry, I didn't notice initially you were referring to the seconded list - I don't think you can un-nominate those works. I was referring to the works that are in the nominated list.
> 
> As far as size-management of the seconded list I think putting some kind of a maximum number of works allowed at one time might be the only way.


Oh OK. Yes I do think a limit might be needed. It's starting to look like a shopping list by Tolstoy.


----------



## Nereffid

I agree, the list is too long.

On the other hand, it's too short!

By which I mean, there are probably plenty of works not on the list that would be enshrined much quicker than many of the works already there.
If you limit the length of the list, then you're assuming that what's on the list has wide enough support to justify its presence at the expense of other works that are excluded because the length limit has been reached. Seeing as it only takes support from 2 people to get on the list, that assumption can't be safely made.

Oh... I've already said I don't like this system. I don't want to be curmudgeonly and go on about the flaws, but I will note that since the project started various people who are more enthusiastic than me have raised various issues. I've decided to put up and contribute; it's the system agreed on, so it should be stuck with as far as I'm concerned now.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I agree, the list is too long.
> 
> On the other hand, it's too short!
> 
> By which I mean, there are probably plenty of works not on the list that would be enshrined much quicker than many of the works already there.
> If you limit the length of the list, then you're assuming that what's on the list has wide enough support to justify its presence at the expense of other works that are excluded because the length limit has been reached. Seeing as it only takes support from 2 people to get on the list, that assumption can't be safely made.
> 
> Oh... I've already said I don't like this system. I don't want to be curmudgeonly and go on about the flaws, but I will note that since the project started various people who are more enthusiastic than me have raised various issues. I've decided to put up and contribute; it's the system agreed on, so it should be stuck with as far as I'm concerned now.


There should be a pre-nomination poll list. Simples! :devil:


----------



## brotagonist

dogen said:


> There should be a pre-nomination poll list. Simples! :devil:


I thought that all along. We should have collectively determined which pieces go onto the list, through discussion, voting, whatever. We could have discussed which piece best represents a composer, how many composers we want on the list, possibly represent each composer by only one or two pieces, etc. Then, each one of us votes once on their rank (it would be an ongoing process to allow all interested parties to vote, with a closing date). This would have done away with people needing to vote for their own favourite pieces twice and other confusions.


----------



## Guest

brotagonist said:


> I thought that all along. We should have collectively determined which pieces go onto the list, through discussion, voting, whatever. We could have discussed which piece best represent a composer, how many composers we want on the list, possibly represent each composer by only one or two pieces, etc. Then, we vote on their rank. This would have done away with people needing to vote for their own favourite pieces twice and other confusions.


I know. Voting forever for something seems rather hard work! Better that we all just met up in a pub somewhere to discuss all this face to face.

Or just meet up in a pub. :lol:

(actually I imagine there'd never be a consensus to move things forward!)


----------



## Blancrocher

dogen said:


> I know. Voting forever for something seems rather hard work! Better that we all just met up in a pub somewhere to discuss all this face to face.


I'm not sure it's a good idea to have alcohol in the mix at the point when 4'33'' comes up.


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> I'm not sure it's a good idea to have alcohol in the mix at the point when 4'33'' comes up.


It is if you're unconscious!!!


----------



## brotagonist

All methods have their flaws: good ones might not get the level of deserved appreciation; lesser ones could get more than their share.

The list is looking good :tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid

brotagonist said:


> All methods have their flaws: good ones might not get the level of deserved appreciation; lesser ones could get more than their share.
> 
> The list is looking good :tiphat:


Yeah, funnily enough though I don't think much of the method, I don't have any real problems with the results.


----------



## Albert7

Let us not de-nominate works but classify those into an honorable mention list like the way the string quartet list has been done.


----------



## Trout

Do we still plan to remove works from the nominated list that no one has seconded after a week? If so, I think the Hartmann and Bernstein works are now overdue.


----------



## SimonNZ

I suspect (based on Current Listening comments) that Coptic Light would have had a more enthusiastic response than the five Feldmans currently on the board.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> I suspect (based on Current Listening comments) that Coptic Light would have had a more enthusiastic response than the five Feldmans currently on the board.


I would have nominated that one but the rules don't allow for anymore nominations from me.


----------



## Weston

I posted a temporary list in vote order because it was simply too overwhelming trying to figure out which works are far enough ahead to be close to enshrinement. But I see now that _none of them are close_. Well that at least gives us a chance to listen to the unfamiliar works to make an informed vote.


----------



## Blancrocher

I'd recommend switching to Weston's system of arranging the list from most to least votes rather than alphabetically. Makes it easier to see what's at or near enshrinement, and the length of the list doesn't matter so much.

http://www.talkclassical.com/37569-tc-top-recommended-post-44.html#post863664

*p.s.* we posted at the same time about it, Weston--but as you can see I don't think it should be temporary!


----------



## MagneticGhost

re. Nathanb's concerns re. Shosty 
I understand where you're coming from but it is what it is.
I listen to contemporary music and don't think it died with Shosty. But the fact is, to my mind, Sq8, symphonies 10+15, and the cello concerto are out and out masterpieces which would stand out in any era. He should not be penalised just because he lived and composed pre that date. 
This is why I suggested post 70. We would then have pretty much cut off Shosty, Britten and Stravinsky and could have concentrated on and celebrated contemporary. 
But we went to post 50 - for better and worse. Therefore if people want to vote for Shostakovich 10 no-one can really complain. It's one of the all time great symphonic works.


----------



## Trout

I do like Weston's idea, but I have a concern that with the frequent copying, cutting, and pasting, we may end up accidentally dropping works at times. Maybe we don't have to rearrange the board with each vote as we should be able to identify the works at the top rather easily, but maybe someone can reorganize it once every, say, 24 hours.


----------



## GreenMamba

I would suggest that, from a contemporary music standpoint, it is more impressive to have the current list with the occasional Britten and Shostakovich than to have a "pure" list one where the rules are rigged to exclude them. You'd have less participation in the latter case, and many forum members would never even look at the list.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> I would suggest that, from a contemporary music standpoint, it is more impressive to have the current list with the occasional Britten and Shostakovich than to have a "pure" list one where the rules are rigged to exclude them. You'd have less participation in the latter case, and many forum members would never even look at the list.


*I have no problem with the inclusion of Shostakovich.* I only have a slight chip on my shoulder when the composer, termed by ArtMusic "The Last Of The Great Composers", **dominates** most of the innovations of the period with his style, established in the ~1930's.


----------



## GreenMamba

Albert7 said:


> I would have nominated that one but the rules don't allow for anymore nominations from me.


I believe you are permitted to withdraw your un-seconded nom and replace it. You might want confirmation from someone else first.


----------



## Weston

Trout said:


> I do like Weston's idea, but I have a concern that with the frequent copying, cutting, and pasting, we may end up accidentally dropping works at times. Maybe we don't have to rearrange the board with each vote as we should be able to identify the works at the top rather easily, but maybe someone can reorganize it once every, say, 24 hours.


That's really all I was up to. I rearranged it for myself just to make sure I didn't have to use bold font and enshrine anything, then thought others might benefit seeing it that way once in a while.


----------



## isorhythm

nathanb said:


> *I have no problem with the inclusion of Shostakovich.* I only have a slight chip on my shoulder when the composer, termed by ArtMusic "The Last Of The Great Composers", **dominates** most of the innovations of the period with his style, established in the ~1930's.


OK, but since this domination is not actually happening, we don't have to worry about it.

As long as we're proposing changes, I wonder if we might be allowed to withdraw our own nominations if they haven't gotten any votes for a while and replace them with something else. Maybe for works with less than 10 votes that haven't gotten any votes in two days, something like that.


----------



## science

In my fantasy world, talkclassical would have a sub-forum-ish thing where there would be a program that would do this for us. Any active member could vote (+2, +1, -1) every 9 hours, and the program would keep score for us. We could do away with enshrinements, just have a list of works ranked by points (also sortable by composer's last name and date).


----------



## science

isorhythm said:


> OK, but since this domination is not actually happening, we don't have to worry about it.
> 
> As long as we're proposing changes, I wonder if we might be allowed to withdraw our own nominations if they haven't gotten any votes for a while and replace them with something else. Maybe for works with less than 10 votes that haven't gotten any votes in two days, something like that.


On the other project, that is the normal thing to do. I guess it would be for this one too.


----------



## mmsbls

nathanb said:


> *I have no problem with the inclusion of Shostakovich.* I only have a slight chip on my shoulder when the composer, termed by ArtMusic "The Last Of The Great Composers", **dominates** most of the innovations of the period with his style, established in the ~1930's.


I'm not sure exactly what you'd like to see with respect to Shostakovich (or Britten). One problem is that we must have clear rules for playing the game. I suppose we could have required that all composers must have a majority of works published after 1950, but I think Varese would not qualify. Also that would be a pain for members to determine.

I don't care whether an older composer "beats" a newer composer in having 2 or more works enshrined. I really just like listening to and thinking about all the great works. I actually voted for Gruppen and from now on will give Gruppen my support (above Shostakovich). Both works are great.


----------



## mmsbls

isorhythm said:


> OK, but since this domination is not actually happening, we don't have to worry about it.
> 
> As long as we're proposing changes, I wonder if we might be allowed to withdraw our own nominations if they haven't gotten any votes for a while and replace them with something else. Maybe for works with less than 10 votes that haven't gotten any votes in two days, something like that.


Long ago on the Classical Music Project we used to sometimes chat with one another about what works others would support. Someone might nominate Part's Fratres, but someone else may prefer Tabula Rasa. If the nominator also liked Tabula Rasa, she could withdraw Fratres and nominate Tabula Rasa. (True story almost).

It might be fun to have a bit more discussion about what we'd all like. Too much discussion can get a bit iffy though. The point was not to collude and get what you want in but rather to match tastes a bit better.

I would prefer people state their intentions for removing a work because there are several works nominated and seconded that have received little support, but I would eventually want to support them.


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> I believe you are permitted to withdraw your un-seconded nom and replace it. You might want confirmation from someone else first.


Honestly I prefer "For Bunita Marcus" over "Coptic Light"  so I'm keeping my nomination intact.


----------



## 20centrfuge

I'm slowly trying to hear every seconded piece. Im listening to Kurtag SQ 2 now, and really am enjoying it.

I have to tell you all how nice it is for me to communicate with like minded people about contemporary music. I feel like we are a relatively rare breed.


----------



## ptr

I would love if there was a simple way to highlight a "jump vote" so that the next voter can adjust and less non voting disturbance occurred in the thread!

Otherwise I second Science suggestion of sending the Mod-team on the lookout for a web-board system plug in that would automatically tally the votes and create the enshrined list! 

/ptr


----------



## Guest

I'd like to hear some thoughts on Louis Andriessen, whose most famous work appears to be doing relatively well here. Never checked him out much because of the minimalist connection (which is hit or miss to the highest degree), but this is, of course, not the first time I've seen that name drop. Among other instances, he appears as one of Tom Service's choices in his concise list of 50 contemporary composers, _most_ of whom are winners who need to introduction.


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> I'd like to hear some thoughts on Louis Andriessen, whose most famous work appears to be doing relatively well here. Never checked him out much because of the minimalist connection (which is hit or miss to the highest degree), but this is, of course, not the first time I've seen that name drop. Among other instances, he appears as one of Tom Service's choices in his concise list of 50 contemporary composers, _most_ of whom are winners who need to introduction.


I only came across him because of our list; so that's all I've heard. I've listened to it several times and really enjoy it; very uplifting. I suppose it is in the "minimalist" camp but I think the repetitious nature of it is counteracted by quite a high level of variation and development through the piece.


----------



## Guest

Here's another suggestion to add further confusion:

How about a limit to the number of pieces that can be enshrined by any one composer?


----------



## isorhythm

A formatting suggestion: I think ordering the list by number of votes, as someone did in one post, is a good idea and would not be too difficult to keep up. I understand that the alphabetical list makes it easier to see at a glance what composers and works are on the list, but it seems to me that we can always use ctrl+F for that, while keeping the votes straight is a bit more challenging.


----------



## GreenMamba

I've been copying the list into Excel and sorting it on my own. I would like to see it either way, but don't want it posted both ways all the time. Maybe occasionally post the top 10 sorted?

We have over 90 works seconded. At some point, will that list be winnowed by removing those stuck at the bottom? Maybe go back and check...if <5 points and no changes in two weeks, remove it? I dunno.



> How about a limit to the number of pieces that can be enshrined by any one composer?


I'm not worried about this yet, but maybe eventually. The max could be something like 5 pieces in the top 100 or something. Right now, our max is three I think (Ligeti).


----------



## SimonNZ

GreenMamba said:


> I
> We have over 90 works seconded. At some point, will that list be winnowed by removing those stuck at the bottom? Maybe go back and check...if <5 points and no changes in two weeks, remove it? I dunno.


I like this idea - or some version of it. Maybe the original nominators can self-police.


----------



## tdc

SimonNZ said:


> I like this idea - or some version of it. Maybe the original nominators can self-police.


Personally I'm fine with leaving the works up there, I think as we progress the list will decrease in size, if not maybe put a maximum work cap on it at some point.

For the record I hope you don't take down Dillon's Nine Rivers, its a good work I plan to support in the near future.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> For the record I hope you don't take down Dillon's Nine Rivers, its a good work I plan to support in the near future.


Agreed. I seconded it from some vague memories, but have just been waiting to re-listen to it to support it more. Given what I remember, and the strength of Dillon's oeuvre, I'm not expecting the slightest disappointment.

EDIT: Said re-listening is happening tonight. I've listened to the first four parts so far, and the cycle is deserving for these smaller settings already. And yet, we both know it's only gonna get more ambitious from here.


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> Agreed. I seconded it from some vague memories, but have just been waiting to re-listen to it to support it more. Given what I remember, and the strength of Dillon's oeuvre, I'm not expecting the slightest disappointment.
> 
> EDIT: Said re-listening is happening tonight. I've listened to the first four parts so far, and the cycle is deserving for these smaller settings already. And yet, we both know it's only gonna get more ambitious from here.


I've listened to some of this, but clearly a lot more time is needed!


----------



## Guest

20centrfuge said:


> I'm slowly trying to hear every seconded piece. Im listening to Kurtag SQ 2 now, and really am enjoying it.


That's good 

I'm wary of nominating anything really though; so many other people here have such broader and deeper experience to base theirs on. I'm sure I've only heard a small amount of Kurtag's work but I felt the need to nominate!

Having said that, I enjoyed listening to the 3 Xenakis pieces that have so far been seconded and promptly got an album of his from the library. My initial response is I am even more impressed by the pieces* on the album and would probably hurl more votes at them if they were featured in the seconded list. So hard to pick from such an ocean of music. 

Jonchaies, Shaar, Lichens and Antikhthon; seeing as you ask.


----------



## Weston

dogen said:


> . . .
> 
> I'm wary of nominating anything really though; so many other people here have such broader and deeper experience to base theirs on. . .


Don't let them fool you. The exercise is about what _we_ think should be recommended works. All of us.


----------



## 20centrfuge

I'm listening to Kernis Cello Concerto that KenOC nom'd. Great piece of music.


----------



## dzc4627

Iannis Xenakis "Mists"


----------



## Guest

dzc4627 said:


> Iannis Xenakis "Mists"


Hi dzc. I'm just discovering Xenakis, so thanks for the recommendation.

This thread led on to the Post 1950s Voting Thread. I recommend you check it out. It might look a bit daunting but if I can understand it anyone can!

http://www.talkclassical.com/37569-tc-top-recommended-post.html


----------



## MoonlightSonata

dzc4627 said:


> Iannis Xenakis "Mists"


I haven't heard that one, it sounds interesting. As dogen said, we have another thread for voting now.

(BTW, your profile says that you are a year older than me almost to the day. What a coincidence!)


----------



## senza sordino

I've only nominated one piece, Shostakovich SQ 8 (At least I think that was me, it's easy to forget at my age). But I've not nominated any other pieces because I'm afraid some might not deem the music modern enough (DSCH & RVW & Bernstein & Villa Lobos), and because there are so many other pieces on the seconded list. 

I am slowly trying to listen to some of the pieces I'm unfamiliar with on the seconded list. I really dig the music of Saariaho. But not Schnittke (sorry fans of him)

I'm only able to vote once a day on work days, I don't have enough time in the morning running around like the house is on fire getting ready to catch the bus. Week-ends I manage to vote twice a day. So I'm way behind some of you in voting.


----------



## Weston

I've thought about giving some votes to more conventional music. After all I think there's still plenty to explorer there. It's just that the most conventional on the list is a Prokofiev symphony, and I find it one of his lesser works. RVW might garner votes from me depending on the piece.


----------



## GreenMamba

I was wondering whether someone was going to nominate a late RVW symphony. I am not opposed to having some of that on the list, and personally would take that over a lot of Shostakovich. If we're going to have traditionalists, why just him?


----------



## Blancrocher

My own view: don't worry about whether something's modern or forward-looking or whatever or not, and just nominate works you like that follow the chronological cutoff. At any time, people can share their personal lists on separate threads that reflect a different kind of interest and coherence--and I hope they will, since those are always fun reading. But this project is a group effort.

Not that I'm opposed to people periodically complaining about Shosty, love him though I do, so long as it's humorous--I also loved the grumbling from the Haydn enthusiasts on the SQ thread. 

Let's all chill out and have fun with it!


----------



## isorhythm

My difficulties with Shostakovich also have nothing to do with his being "not modern enough" or whatever. I'm actually a big fan of RVW and he should probably be represented at some point. Right now, though, I'm focusing on listening to stuff on the board before voting more.


----------



## Guest

It's only since coming to this forum that I've discovered what a goldmine Youtube is for art music. A great resource!


----------



## GioCar

Weston said:


> I've thought about giving some votes to more conventional music. After all I think there's still plenty to explorer there. It's just that the most conventional on the list is a Prokofiev symphony, and I find it one of his lesser works. RVW might garner votes from me depending on the piece.





GreenMamba said:


> I was wondering whether someone was going to nominate a late RVW symphony. I am not opposed to having some of that on the list, and personally would take that over a lot of Shostakovich. If we're going to have traditionalists, why just him?





isorhythm said:


> My difficulties with Shostakovich also have nothing to do with his being "not modern enough" or whatever. I'm actually a big fan of RVW and he should probably be represented at some point. Right now, though, I'm focusing on listening to stuff on the board before voting more.


Sorry but I cannot agree. I think that the spirit of the "recommended post-1950 works" thread is to give all of us an opportunity to know better, and listen to what composers did and deeply changed from the pre-war way of making music, regardless the pure chronological aspect. I have nothing against RVW but he belongs from every point of view (apart from his death in 1958) to the early 20th century.

Luckily Richard Strauss died in 1949...


----------



## GioCar

Poor Nono, he's is still quite low in the overall ranking...

Here's an interesting article on _La lontananza_
http://www.lafolia.com/nonos-shrug-at-immortality-la-lontananza-nostalgica-utopica-futura/

For those who are unfamiliar with this piece, it deserves a reading, followed by an informed listening. 
There are many available recordings. I have the original DG one with Gidon Kremer. The final version of the 8-track magnetic tape (produced under the direction of the composer) based on the solo part recorded by Kremer, was prepared together by Sofia Gubaidulina and Gidon Kremer.


----------



## Guest

There's just such a lot to check out. I''m systematically/randomly listening to as much that's new to me as poss. Just on a second listen to Haas Approximations and totally loving it.

Just need Albert to comply with the regs now!


----------



## Albert7

dogen said:


> There's just such a lot to check out. I''m systematically/randomly listening to as much that's new to me as poss. Just on a second listen to Haas Approximations and totally loving it.
> 
> Just need Albert to comply with the regs now!


Sins cannot be undone, only forgiven.

-Igor Stravinsky


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Sins cannot be undone, only forgiven.
> 
> -Igor Stravinsky


I forgive you!

And you've undone.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Sins cannot be undone, only forgiven.
> 
> -Igor Stravinsky


Context is everything.

"Sins cannot be undone, only forgiven. Illegal nominations, on the other hand... well there's a whole host of things we can do about that."

-Igor Stravinsky, browsing TC to de-stress before the premiere of _Les Noces_


----------



## GreenMamba

In defense of Albert, I don't think he's the only one to go over four noms on the board. I think he's the only one to retract a nom.

BTW, I know we talked about not removing works from the seconded list. But what if a piece never gains any traction and the original nominator wants to remove it to free up a nom? I have qualms about removing a work that others have voted for. But sometimes you don't know what work will click with others.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> In defense of Albert, I don't think he's the only one to go over four noms on the board. I think he's the only one to retract a nom.
> 
> BTW, I know we talked about not removing works from the seconded list. But what if a piece never gains any traction and the original nominator wants to remove it to free up a nom? I have qualms about removing a work that others have voted for. But sometimes you don't know what work will click with others.


If the original nominator wants to remove it, he or she might post a warning of sorts (unless it's literally only been seconded the one time and nothing more, maybe), but I have no problem with it.


----------



## Blancrocher

I think that seconded works should stay on the list--if works aren't getting votes they're probably unfamiliar to most of us, and imo it's better to have some idiosyncratic recommendations than the same warhorses you get from every other list on the internet. 

If someone's got 4 nominations and none of them are moving after say a week or two, I think they should just feel free to make another nomination.


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> If someone's got 4 nominations and *none of them* are moving after say a week or two, I think they should just feel free to make another nomination.


I dunno. Maybe people should have to think about their nominations like I do (I'm mean that way). But I suppose if *none of them *are moving...


----------



## GreenMamba

It wouldn't be that hard to go back and see what hasn't moved. E.g., Cage's Roaratorium hasn't added a point in around two weeks. I listened and actually kind of like it, but this is a situation where the original nominator could clearly remove it to open up space. If someone wanted to re-nom it, they could. I'm hoping you wouldn't get people pulling works after a few days, etc.

I'd be wary of the "just add another nom" suggestion. I think it would be abused. I appreciate nathanb's "really think about" comment.


----------



## mmsbls

We never did decide whether the list would be an ongoing project similar to the Classical Music Project or whether the Post-1950 list will have a specified number of works (say 200). If the list will be ongoing, it becomes a subset of the Classical Music Project (which is certainly OK), but we would not then post the results in the sticky thread - Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists. If the list will have a fixed number of works, we should determine that number (or at least a target number). For example, if the target is 100, people would presumably vote and nominate differently that they currently are.

I think there would be less of an issue with deleting seconded works if the total were much smaller. The current list contains almost 100 seconded works. I'd eventually love to vote for several works (or vote more for them) on the list (Adams: Harmonium, Boulez: Sur Incises, Duckworth: Time Curve Preludes, Kernis: Cello Concerto "Colored Field", and Yoshimatsu: Symphony No. 5 to name a few), but there are simply too many great works "ahead" of them. I don't think the size is a problem (assuming the list is much longer than 100 or even 200 works), but some works clearly must wait their turn. The problem is knowing if their turn would even come in some reasonable time.


----------



## senza sordino

If the total number of pieces we want is 100, then we have enough already, it's just a matter of figuring out the order. I suggest a limit, but it could be quite high, 300 or 400 or 500 let's say. If we do limit the total number, that could influence and change how people vote and what they nominate.


----------



## GreenMamba

senza sordino said:


> If the total number of pieces we want is 100, then we have enough already, it's just a matter of figuring out the order.


I disagree. It's likely that works that have yet to be nominated that will receive more votes than what's already on the list. I think we should try to avoid giving priority to works which were nominated early.



senza sordino said:


> I suggest a limit, but it could be quite high, 300 or 400 or 500 let's say. If we do limit the total number, that could influence and change how people vote and what they nominate.


I agree, but I also think we have to see how long participation remains high.


----------



## 20centrfuge

I would love to hear more cajolling, pleas, bribes, arguments, persuasions, and discussions of the music on the list. Tell me why I should like YOUR piece. Tell me which recording(s) to listen to. Tell me why this piece is important in the current current music scene. 

It feels a little bit too removed. I personally would even like discussions to be happening on the "voting" board. But I am ok if everyone wants to put that type of stuff on this board.


----------



## tdc

20centrfuge said:


> I would love to hear more cajolling, pleas, bribes, arguments, persuasions, and discussions of the music on the list. Tell me why I should like YOUR piece. Tell me which recording(s) to listen to. Tell me why this piece is important in the current current music scene.
> 
> It feels a little bit too removed. I personally would even like discussions to be happening on the "voting" board. But I am ok if everyone wants to put that type of stuff on this board.


For the most part I just vote for the works that are my favorite. In some cases there are good works that I think deserve to make the list but others are already voting a lot for them, so I won't necessarily give them more votes. I try to narrow down what I'm voting for - if I tried to give one vote to all the works on the board I liked and/or felt deserved to make the list my votes would become more or less meaningless. There are of course works on the board (and list) that I don't care for much, but I don't see the point in discussing that too much.

For the most part I think the list is turning out quite nice with a good variety of different works representing the tastes of the different members participating, therefore I don't really feel a need to try to force my ideas on others too much of what I think are deserving works. I like the variety, I also respect the tastes of the other participants and their ability to decide what works they think are worthy to vote for.

I think all one needs to do is simply listen to a work and if one really likes it - vote for it. Personally, if I notice many other members are voting for certain works - those are generally the ones I prioritize in my listening. I don't think any extra persuasion beyond that is really necessary. This is after all just a list reflecting our little groups subjective tastes and opinions and I don't think should be taken as anything too serious or definitive.

On the other hand a little bit of banter (in a respectful way) reflecting our thoughts on certain works and why they may be deserving of enshrinement can be quite interesting and educational - so I certainly don't discourage that.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Well said, TDC. Frankly, I'm just looking for some good-humored banter and, even, trash-talking. :tiphat:

I will totally agree with you about the list. It has some good diversity and is showing some good taste on the part of it's participants. I am having a lot of fun with the voting, AND with the exploration of new music.


----------



## tdc

20centrfuge said:


> Frankly, I'm just looking for some good-humored banter and, even, trash-talking. :tiphat:


While at times this can be entertaining, things like sarcasm and an individual's tone can be hard to gauge on the internet. We had a bit of that banter going on at times in the other project and quite often it ends up just becoming fighting, disagreements, veiled insults etc. So its kind of a fine line.


----------



## SimonNZ

Any consensus or opinions about which Unsuk Chin should go first?

I ask because I almost nominated one at the last opportunity, but couldn't decide on a personal favorite.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Any consensus or opinions about which Unsuk Chin should go first?
> 
> I ask because I almost nominated one at the last opportunity, but couldn't decide on a personal favorite.


I would think that the violin concerto has the best rep, regardless of tastes. But they're all so juicy...


----------



## Guest

20centrfuge said:


> I would love to hear more cajolling, pleas, bribes, arguments, persuasions, and discussions of the music on the list. Tell me why I should like YOUR piece. Tell me which recording(s) to listen to. Tell me why this piece is important in the current current music scene.
> 
> It feels a little bit too removed. I personally would even like discussions to be happening on the "voting" board. But I am ok if everyone wants to put that type of stuff on this board.


"Gimme one reason why mah boy here shouldn't break your face."

*Cowering* "James Dillon!"

"Alright alright alright...we can work wid chu"


----------



## 20centrfuge

nathanb said:


> "Gimme one reason why mah boy here shouldn't break your face."
> 
> *Cowering* "James Dillon!"
> 
> "Alright alright alright...we can work wid chu"


OK, enough already. I'll vote for the soundtrack to Miss Saigon! Sheesh!


----------



## GreenMamba

SimonNZ said:


> Any consensus or opinions about which Unsuk Chin should go first?
> 
> I ask because I almost nominated one at the last opportunity, but couldn't decide on a personal favorite.





nathanb said:


> I would think that the violin concerto has the best rep, regardless of tastes. But they're all so juicy...


I was debating nominating the VC. If not, then the Cello Concerto. I'm not as sure about that Acrostic piece.

My guess is the VC may win over more skeptics. That first movement is gorgeous.


----------



## Mahlerian

SimonNZ said:


> Any consensus or opinions about which Unsuk Chin should go first?
> 
> I ask because I almost nominated one at the last opportunity, but couldn't decide on a personal favorite.


My favorite is Xi. I'm possibly alone in that...


----------



## GreenMamba

20centrfuge said:


> I would love to hear more cajolling, pleas, bribes, arguments, persuasions, and discussions of the music on the list. Tell me why I should like YOUR piece. Tell me which recording(s) to listen to. Tell me why this piece is important in the current current music scene.
> 
> It feels a little bit too removed. I personally would even like discussions to be happening on the "voting" board. But I am ok if everyone wants to put that type of stuff on this board.


I'm OK with this as long as it stays out of the voting thread (both trash-talking and championing).

So let me just say I'm a bit distressed to see Cage's 4'33 as his top work. I'm not opposed to it, but it's not his best. And to whoever nominated Rouse's Iscariot, I'll say I could have gotten behind a different work by this composer.

On a more positive note, I really, really like the Grisey piece on the list now. Along with the Harvey work, I'd say they are my favorite finds. C'mon, let's push for Grisey!

Since someone else asked about a Chin work, I'll do the same w/r/t the *Carter String Quartets*. Which is the one? I'd pick 4, I think. He seemed to do well on the Top SQ list.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

20centrfuge said:


> I would love to hear more cajolling, pleas, *bribes,* arguments, persuasions, and discussions of the music on the list. Tell me why I should like YOUR piece. Tell me which recording(s) to listen to. Tell me why this piece is important in the current current music scene.
> 
> It feels a little bit too removed. I personally would even like discussions to be happening on the "voting" board. But I am ok if everyone wants to put that type of stuff on this board.


This could be fun. It would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts.

How would we do bribes, though? "I'll give you a "like" if you vote for Schnittke"?


----------



## Celloman

MoonlightSonata said:


> How would we do bribes, though? "I'll give you a "like" if you vote for Schnittke"?


I can do better than that. I'll give your next thread 5 stars if you vote for Karl Amadeus Hartmann. Either symphony will do.


----------



## SimonNZ

Mahlerian said:


> My favorite is Xi. I'm possibly alone in that...


Funny you should say that, because I was leaning slightly towards Xi, but thought _I_ would be alone in that.

The violin concerto probably does, though, have a wider appeal, and would win over more sceptics as GreenMamba says (plus it got the big award).


----------



## SimonNZ

MoonlightSonata said:


> How would we do bribes, though? "I'll give you a "like" if you vote for Schnittke"?


"Okay, but I'd prefer it to be St.Florian or the Choir Concerto"

(doubtless I get similar responses to my choices...)


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> My favorite is Xi. I'm possibly alone in that...


Sadly, practical nominations have to come first in some cases :/

Pretty much everything I have by Unsuk Chin is phenomenal though...









....Lovely!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Unsuk Chin? I think her Cello Concerto would be a work that might come first out of her oeuvre. I don't know a huge deal of her compositions, but that one seems to be performed more frequently. And it IS awesome.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Chin: only work I know is VC but I like it!


----------



## 20centrfuge

So, Cage fans, which work do you feel should represent his best?


----------



## Weston

Maybe the Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano. I've been voting for 4'33" though simply because people need to know what it is in the unlikely event they don't.

(I should hasten to add I'm not a huge fan. He gets little percussive for me.)


----------



## GreenMamba

Weston said:


> Maybe the Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano. I've been voting for 4'33" though simply because people need to know what it is in the unlikely event they don't.


Sonatas and interludes are pre-1950.

I like Thirteen Harmonies myself.


----------



## Weston

There are so many works I'd love to vote for, and so many not yet nominated and so many I have not yet even heard. This method moves at such a glacial pace, I fear better works will be composed before we reach a consensus on very many more.


----------



## SimonNZ

I dunno...37 winners in 20 days doesn't seem so glacial.


----------



## Weston

Only three weeks? That's the problem then. They've been long weeks for me. I suppose it's better we get a chance to sample more.


----------



## senza sordino

It took us one week to nominate and vote on ten pieces for string quartet, over five months to compile a list of 200. This list for contemporary pieces is quite quick in comparison.


----------



## 20centrfuge

I quite like Chin's Rocaná for orchestra (2008) as well as the Violin Concerto. Which do you think would get more support?


----------



## Guest

For someone like me this is an epic endeavour! I don't know a lot of the works and I'm interested to hear them. So I'm spending lots of my spare time checking them out. Those I love I'm sending my love to! How fantastic is that Haas piece Approximate ???!! And I'd not heard of him till this list. 
Brilliant thread for the explorer.


----------



## 20centrfuge

dogen said:


> For someone like me this is an epic endeavour! I don't know a lot of the works and I'm interested to hear them. So I'm spending lots of my spare time checking them out. Those I love I'm sending my love to! How fantastic is that Haas piece Approximate ???!! And I'd not heard of him till this list.
> Brilliant thread for the explorer.


I completely agree! That's the best thing about this process -- the discovering of new works.


----------



## Guest

Anyone recall that twitter post about 20th century music? I can't find it...
There was a piece called Play...


----------



## SimonNZ

I don't know about the twitter thing, but was this the work you were thinking of?:


----------



## Mahlerian

No, I think he was thinking of the piece Play, by young American composer Andrew Norman.


----------



## Guest

Thank you SimonNZ and Mahlerian. Yes, it was the Andrew Norman piece.


----------



## SimonNZ

D'oh! Of course! Thanks.

In which case the link dogen is looking for is here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/37469-21st-century-orchestral-works.html


----------



## Weston

1. Look at last vote.
2. Copy and paste into spreadsheet.
3. Sort by column A descending.
4. Decide if I want to hear or review something.
5. Determine which pieces get a vote.
6. Go back to thread and reload for new posts.
7. Copy nominated and seconded from last post and paste into Notepad.
8. Add "After so-and-so"
9. Add votes
10. Hastily update tally
11. Select all and copy
12. Reload thread page.
13. Find new latest post and repeat steps 7 through 13 as needed.
14. Paste into Quick Reply and quickly press Post Quick Reply button.
15. Correct spelling and math errors and add side comments if any.

Piece of cake! (Pant-pant-pant . . .)


----------



## 20centrfuge

Weston said:


> 1. Look at last vote.
> 2. Copy and paste into spreadsheet.
> 3. Sort by column A descending.
> 4. Decide if I want to hear or review something.
> 5. Determine which pieces get a vote.
> 6. Go back to thread and reload for new posts.
> 7. Copy nominated and seconded from last post and paste into Notepad.
> 8. Add "After so-and-so"
> 9. Add votes
> 10. Hastily update tally
> 11. Select all and copy
> 12. Reload thread page.
> 13. Find new latest post and repeat steps 7 through 13 as needed.
> 14. Paste into Quick Reply and quickly press Post Quick Reply button.
> 15. Correct spelling and math errors and add side comments if any.
> 
> Piece of cake! (Pant-pant-pant . . .)


Where is the mandatory bacon break!?


----------



## MagneticGhost

1. Look at thread and decide what I want to vote for and whether listening is required
2. Go to last post and click Quick Reply
3. Edit as necessary
4. Click Post Quick Reply
5. Check whether clash has occurred and everything is in order.
6. Edit if necessary - otherwise eat bacon


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> D'oh! Of course! Thanks.
> 
> In which case the link dogen is looking for is here:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/37469-21st-century-orchestral-works.html


Merci beaucoup...!


----------



## Guest

You know, I quite regret that I feel the need to suggest this in the first place, but...

_Would anyone be opposed to setting a limit on consecutive votes for the same piece?_ I think a reasonable standard would be voting for the same work only every third vote at the most (so 18 hours at the least).

Of course, most people are doing this already, so I can't fathom any real objections, but there is at least one poster who has pretty much zero regard for anyone else on this forum, and I think the idea behind this list is some level of consensus.

Note: This would create a balance between SimonNZ's notion that it's kinda lame to support your own works in the first place and alternative notions that, either way, you could just powervote a piece after another user has seconded it. IOW: I think it should apply to all works.


----------



## Nereffid

Is there _any_ aspect of this voting process that hasn't been queried since the project started?

If you don't want people to abuse the process, don't use a process that easily permits abuse.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Is there _any_ aspect of this voting process that hasn't been queried since the project started?
> 
> If you don't want people to abuse the process, don't use a process that easily permits abuse.


For the record, I was never in favor of using this process over the standard TC Top Recommended process. However, given that this is essentially a replica of the TC Project, which people have self-policed with ease for years, one might think that people would be able to do the same here. But then, there's this one guy...


----------



## ptr

I try to wote randomly, sometimes tho I unashamedly do consecutive voting if there is a work I feel should be high on the list!  
I still have not nominated anything as I think that the seconded list is way to unmanageable at the moment and there is enough works on the list nominated by others that would be on my list to nominate anyway! 

And an ending comment on Nathan's post above (#265), as this is a Gentleman's game, a Gentleman would never allow him- or her-self to cast the final vote for anything he or she have nominated. Self indulgent voting should be frowned up on in a sincere and loving way... 

/ptr


----------



## 20centrfuge

nathanb said:


> ...but there is at least one poster who has pretty much zero regard for anyone else on this forum, and I think the idea behind this list is some level of consensus.


I hope it isn't me you are referring too . I know that I may have had some disproportionate voting on some of my favorite works.
I am trying to stay within the spirit of consensus that is hoped for.


----------



## MagneticGhost

ptr said:


> I try to wote randomly, sometimes tho I unashamedly do consecutive voting if there is a work I feel should be high on the list!
> I still have not nominated anything as I think that the seconded list is way to unmanageable at the moment and there is enough works on the list nominated by others that would be on my list to nominate anyway!
> 
> And an ending comment on Nathan's post above (#265), as this is a Gentleman's game, a Gentleman would never allow him- or her-self to cast the final vote for anything he or she have nominated. Self indulgent voting should be frowned up on in a sincere and loving way...
> 
> /ptr


But sometimes - I keep away from voting too much for my own piece but like the symmetry of giving it's final enshrinement vote. Is that bad 
I do think some people could vary it up a bit. The same here as over on the other project. But people are people. 
FWIW I've only nominated 1 piece on this side and I didn't have to give it many votes.


----------



## GreenMamba

nathanb said:


> For the record, I was never in favor of using this process over the standard TC Top Recommended process. However, given that this is essentially a replica of the TC Project, which people have self-policed with ease for years, one might think that people would be able to do the same here. But then, there's this one guy...


I participated in that thread for a bit, and I recall some of the same issues occurring. Maybe by the time you get over 2,000 works, people catch on to what the norms are.


----------



## Trout

Nereffid said:


> Is there _any_ aspect of this voting process that hasn't been queried since the project started?
> 
> If you don't want people to abuse the process, don't use a process that easily permits abuse.


We didn't really have much of an opportunity to discuss a process though: one member just decided to choose this one and go with it. I believe that this process is good for a very long-term project in which the end goal is not necessarily to create a hierarchical sort of list, rather a conglomerate of pieces we all like with the order being quite arbitrary. Thinking back on it now, I probably would have advocated for the other voting process in the fashion of the other TC lists now realizing some of these issues which do not really crop up in the TC Project, but hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## Guest

Trout said:


> *We didn't really have much of an opportunity to discuss a process though: one member just decided to choose this one and go with it.* I believe that this process is good for a very long-term project in which the end goal is not necessarily to create a hierarchical sort of list, rather a conglomerate of pieces we all like with the order being quite arbitrary. Thinking back on it now, I probably would have advocated for the other voting process in the fashion of the other TC lists now realizing some of these issues which do not really crop up in the TC Project, but hindsight is 20/20.


I have no problems with Mr. MoonlightSonata, but in fairness, this is what happened, yes.


----------



## Trout

nathanb said:


> I have no problems with Mr. MoonlightSonata, but in fairness, this is what happened, yes.


Don't get me wrong, I'm sure MS simply wanted to begin after seeing there was a substantial amount of interest; interest may have waned if we discussed for too long about the process. What we have is still a fine project exemplifying the quality and diversity of modern classical music, but I think we will have to interpret the results a bit differently than the other TC Recommended lists.


----------



## KenOC

Somehow I don't see the point of a voting game where the participants can't vote consistently for their favorite works. Is doing that somehow "ungentlemanly"? It's not. Is the proposed approach intended to build a better "consensus"? It doesn't.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Is the proposed approach intended to build a better "consensus"? It doesn't.


Logically, it actually does. Take a look at the voting patterns that contributed to the current scores for Babbitt and Feldman, for starters. Great composers, yes. But from the looks of it, "TC" isn't recommending them as highly as is a certain fellow.

And if you don't have a solid 6 works here at least (Thus, in line with my proposed rule) that you can vote for, given that you're allowed to nominate 4, I can't really say I wouldn't prefer you study up on youtube before voting again.


----------



## GreenMamba

Trout said:


> We didn't really have much of an opportunity to discuss a process though: one member just decided to choose this one and go with it. I believe that this process is good for a very long-term project in which the end goal is not necessarily to create a hierarchical sort of list, rather a conglomerate of pieces we all like with the order being quite arbitrary. Thinking back on it now, I probably would have advocated for the other voting process in the fashion of the other TC lists now realizing some of these issues which do not really crop up in the TC Project, but hindsight is 20/20.





nathanb said:


> I have no problems with Mr. MoonlightSonata, but in fairness, this is what happened, yes.


And if he didn't, we'd probably still be debating which process to use. 

I don't have a problem with "gentleman's agreements" and whatnot. However, it does look like the 2000+ project had a note in the OP encouraging people to spread their votes around. This doesn't even have that, so I'm not sure someone would necessarily know what is supposed to be good and bad form. Not that that would solve all are woes.


----------



## Guest

Regarding the "etiquette", as a newbie to it, I agree it may not be that obvious. I can see certain points once they have been mentioned or discussed. I can see the rationale and so try to go with flow.
F'rinstance I've just read it's bad form to cast the final vote for enshrinement for a work that you'd nominated. Call me a tactless sociopath but that would never have occured to me.


----------



## tdc

Trout said:


> We didn't really have much of an opportunity to discuss a process though: one member just decided to choose this one and go with it. I believe that this process is good for a very long-term project in which the end goal is not necessarily to create a hierarchical sort of list, rather a conglomerate of pieces we all like with the order being quite arbitrary. Thinking back on it now, I probably would have advocated for the other voting process in the fashion of the other TC lists now realizing some of these issues which do not really crop up in the TC Project, but hindsight is 20/20.


There seem to be problems with the other systems too though - for example members complained about the SQ voting process as well, one of the issues was when a composer has many great works (ie - Haydn) there can be less consensus on which Quartet to vote for causing the final position of the SQ to be lower, ultimately I seem to recall some members suggesting that the list would be more useful alphabetically and that the order was fairly arbitrary. Both lists certainly have their quirks, but I'm not really convinced the order of this list is any more or less arbitrary than the SQ list was using the other voting system.


----------



## 20centrfuge

For me, these lists are a springboard for listening. It is fun to vote etc. but I don't get too bent out of shape if my favorite is ranked #13 and not #1. 

Ultimately, it's all about having fun.


----------



## Celloman

Trout said:


> We didn't really have much of an opportunity to discuss a process though: one member just decided to choose this one and go with it.


Could you let us know the name of the piece in question, at least? That way, the individual might be able to reform, albeit discreetly, without fear of public humiliation!

(Is it the Barber piano concerto?)


----------



## tdc

Celloman said:


> Could you let us know the name of the piece in question, at least? That way, the individual might be able to reform, albeit discreetly, without fear of public humiliation!
> 
> (Is it the Barber piano concerto?)


No. Trout was talking about the voting method in the post you quoted and this initial discussion was spurred by nathanb observing that a certain poster was voting all the time for Babbitt and Feldman and not switching up their votes.

edited - took out poster's name.


----------



## Weston

I for one have been unashamed to vote the Vaughan Williams Symphony 7 up two or three consecutive times, but I was making up for lost time. I honestly thought it was a 1940s work or I would have nominated it from the very beginning. Then I saw it on the seconded list and decided to mend my error. My ignorance does not lessen the value or impact of the work. (However I have already thought it's time for me to move on to other works.)

I think this contemporary era that is within many of our own lifetimes is too new to make a really informed consensus, and also the voting pool is probably too small and some of us get to vote about twice or three times as much as others can, so I'm with 20cent. It's a growing exercise and great fun. I won't get uptight about the process either way -- my tongue in cheek whining about how fast I make myself post notwithstanding.


----------



## mmsbls

Given the voting rules, I have assumed that this list will be considered similar to the Classical Music Project - a long list of works enjoyed by the group of TC members that participated. The early Music Project included a negative vote (-1) so works collectively considered lessor by the participants were significantly less likely to become enshrined. 

I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other about consecutive votes. Since the rules do not mention restrictions, I assume participants should feel comfortable voting how they please. I'm not sure we collectively care strongly about how others vote, but if more do feel strongly, maybe they should speak up, and we can determine whether to make changes in the rules.


----------



## Guest

I should also note that I would have quickly seconded Thorvaldsdottir if anyone else had been the original nominator. However, when I become very aware that the piece will be power-voted above the even worthier works of Nono, Murial, etc... the minute I second it, I think I'd rather let it pass for this round.


----------



## senza sordino

I have, so far, not voted for a piece more than three times. My own arbitrary limit. I suppose it's possible that a piece could be enshrined with only two people voting for it - and that doesn't seem quite right. But how likely is that? 

In the end, the order doesn't really matter. It's all about generating a list of contemporary works worthy of listening and recognition. 

The other method of nominating and voting takes a bit longer, and it's probably a more rigorous method. But like I said, it's just a list of classical music, it's not vital we get it right.


----------



## Nereffid

I don't get this "it's not about the voting, it's about finding stuff to listen to" argument.

If you want to find stuff to listen to, why don't we just each nominate 100 works?


----------



## Guest

20centrfuge said:


> For me, these lists are a springboard for listening. It is fun to vote etc. but I don't get too bent out of shape if my favorite is ranked #13 and not #1.
> 
> Ultimately, it's all about having *fun*.


Steady on.

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


----------



## Guest

Is power-voting good for building your pecs?


----------



## SimonNZ

dogen said:


> Is power-voting good for building your pecs?


I suspect more for the glutes, as it seems to be favored by...


----------



## Polyphemus

dogen said:


> Is power-voting good for building your pecs?


Keep it clean please.


----------



## musicrom

There are so many works on the nominated list; it's impossible to stay on top of all of them. If it's possible, I would be okay with removing Schnittke's first symphony for now, which I nominated (there doesn't seem to be any interest in it  ... only 8 points since the beginning, half of which are probably from me).

EDIT: Looks like 5 of the 8 are probably from me. No idea who else voted for it..


----------



## Guest

musicrom said:


> There are so many works on the nominated list; it's impossible to stay on top of all of them. If it's possible, I would be okay with removing Schnittke's first symphony for now, which I nominated (there doesn't seem to be any interest in it  ... only 8 points since the beginning, half of which are probably from me).


As long as you realise that the votes given to a seconded piece by other people need to be given back to the voter for them to reallocate to other pieces. We'll probably need to set up some sort of regression matrix...



:devil:

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

musicrom said:


> There are so many works on the nominated list; it's impossible to stay on top of all of them. If it's possible, I would be okay with removing Schnittke's first symphony for now, which I nominated (there doesn't seem to be any interest in it  ... only 8 points since the beginning, half of which are probably from me).


I'll start voting for Schnittke 1 then, so don't worry about it. I certainly consider it a more important work than just about anything else of his, regardless of favorites. My apologies, there are simply a lot of things to get around to. In fact...

...a quick count reveals that there are still only some 8 or so composers on the entire list that I have never listened to. And then there are dozens and dozens of other works I could nominate...


----------



## musicrom

nathanb said:


> I'll start voting for Schnittke 1 then, so don't worry about it. I certainly consider it a more important work than just about anything else of his, regardless of favorites. My apologies, there are simply a lot of things to get around to. In fact...
> 
> ...a quick count reveals that there are still only some 8 or so composers on the entire list that I have never listened to. And then there are dozens and dozens of other works I could nominate...


Cool. I think that Schnittke's 1st Symphony is amazing, and the best work of his that I've heard. And as for the number of composers that I haven't listened to in the nominated list, I have almost 25, so you're way ahead of me on that regard! I haven't been voting much because of that, but I've been listening to the enshrined works, and I've discovered some great pieces and I'm having lots of fun with this.


----------



## Mahlerian

Putting in a few plugs for the pieces I've nominated:


----------



## GreenMamba

Maybe we need an All Set push as it is not too far off. 

For Carter, in my case, it would be more supporting a composer than that particular work (which is likely an issue of familiarity on my part).


----------



## Weston

I haven;t had a chance to review Schnittke 1. Please leave it in a bit longer. I may help with All Set tonight. I really enjoyed that piece.


----------



## Mahlerian

GreenMamba said:


> Maybe we need an All Set push as it is not too far off.
> 
> For Carter, in my case, it would be more supporting a composer than that particular work (which is likely an issue of familiarity on my part).


I'd highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the Carter work. The adagio in particular is wonderful. It took a few listens for me, but I came to realize how fine the whole work is. Unfortunately, there's only a single commercial recording.

And here's one for my other nomination.


----------



## Guest

I have pasted the list into quick reply and managed to reduce it down to a sort of "current top 40" to focus on! As you can guess, 2 works per vote, and 40 isn't much of a "focus" at all. So if you feel your works have been neglected, perhaps poke me 

Adams: The Dharma at Big Sur (2003)
Babbitt: All Set (1957)
Babbitt: Philomel (1964)
Berio: Laborintus II (1965)
Boulez: Pli selon pli (1989)
Boulez: Sur Incises (1996-1998)
Cage: Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music (1962)
Cage: Music of Changes (1951)
Carter: Symphonia: Sum fluxae pretium spei (1996)
Chin: Violin Concerto (2001)
Dillon: Nine Rivers (1982-2000)
Ferneyhough: String Quartet No. 6 (2010)
Gerhard: Symphony 4 "New York" (1967)
Haas: String Quartet 3 "In iij. Noct" (2003)
Kurtag: 2nd String Quartet (12 Microludes) (1977/78)
Lachenmann: Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern (1996)
Ligeti: Piano Concerto (1985-8)
López: La Selva (1998)
Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra (1954)
Maderna: Quadrivium (1969)
Messiaen: St. Francois d'Assise (1975-83)
Murail: Gondwana (1980)
Nono: Como Una Ola De Fuerza Y Luz (1972)
Nono: La lontananza nostalgica utopica futura (1988)
Nono: Prometeo (1981-85)
Pärt: Tabula Rasa (1977)
Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995/2001)
Saariaho: Six Japanese Gardens (1994)
Schnittke: Symphony No. 1 (1969)
Sciarrino: Allegoria della Notte (1985)
Shostakovich: String Quartet #8 (1960)
Stockhausen: Kontakte (1958)
Stockhausen: Momente (1969)
Stravinsky: Agon (1957)
Stravinsky: Requiem Canticles (1966)
Takemitsu: November Steps (1967)
Vasks: Violin concerto, 'Distant Light' (1997)
Xenakis: Nomos Alpha (1965-66)
Xenakis: Tetras (1983)
Zimmermann: Die Soldaten (1957-64)


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

http://issuu.com/mariacalvorquin/docs/ligeti_double_concerto_for_flute__o


----------



## GreenMamba

musicrom said:


> Cool. I think that Schnittke's 1st Symphony is amazing, and the best work of his that I've heard.


Looking back to the beginning, it looks like the three longest suffering works are:

Schnittke: Viola Concerto (the very first work nominated)
Salonen: Wing On Wing
Schnittke: Symphony No. 1

I'm not unhappy to see this in that it suggests that this whole exercise isn't entirely a function of nomination order. Schnittke had a work leapfrog these two into enshrinement.

Regarded, I don't think Schnittke 1 should be abandoned.


----------



## 20centrfuge

At some point, I would like seeing a piece for prepared piano by John Cage:


----------



## 20centrfuge

Mahlerian said:


> Putting in a few plugs for the pieces I've nominated:


In my case, it has made a difference. I am liking that Carter piece. BTW, there are some very beautiful flutists in that orchestra!


----------



## Guest

Richannes Wrahms said:


> http://issuu.com/mariacalvorquin/docs/ligeti_double_concerto_for_flute__o


I've never before met someone who favored the double concerto so highly above his others... I love it (as I probably love just about everything Ligeti wrote), but it would probably not crack the top 5 concerti of his for me.


----------



## Guest

I think basically there's a marvellous problem: there's a vast amount of works worthy of consideration / nomination.


----------



## Guest

And on the subject of adding to the confusion, might there be any love out there for Norgard? I only have some SQs but think they are top drawer. I plan on listening to some of his larger works, starting with his 3rd Symphony...


----------



## mmsbls

dogen said:


> And on the subject of adding to the confusion, might there be any love out there for Norgard? I only have some SQs but think they are top drawer. I plan on listening to some of his larger works, starting with his 3rd Symphony...


I would definitely support his 3rd symphony.


----------



## Polyphemus

20centrfuge said:


> At some point, I would like seeing a piece for prepared piano by John Cage:


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I would definitely support his 3rd symphony.


Oh OK. Do you know much of his? Any particular recommendations? I have his SQs 7-10.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Polyphemus said:


> 20centrfuge said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, I would like seeing a piece for prepared piano by John Cage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you aren't a fan of prepared piano!!:lol:
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> And on the subject of adding to the confusion, might there be any love out there for Norgard? I only have some SQs but think they are top drawer. I plan on listening to some of his larger works, starting with his 3rd Symphony...


Norgard 3 is one of the works I've considered for nomination soon, so yes.


----------



## SimonNZ

dogen said:


> And on the subject of adding to the confusion, might there be any love out there for Norgard? I only have some SQs but think they are top drawer. I plan on listening to some of his larger works, starting with his 3rd Symphony...


Voyage Into The Golden Screen, perhaps?

But I'd probably support most of whatever was chosen of his.


----------



## mmsbls

I've heard several of Norgard's symphonies and favor the 3rd. I'd also suggest his string quartet #8.


----------



## Weston

20centrfuge said:


> In my case, it has made a difference. I am liking that Carter piece. BTW, there are some very beautiful flutists in that orchestra!


Wait. I'd better go back and watch that one. You never know when something might catch your eye - um, ear.


----------



## Albert7

For anyone who is interested in my methodology for voting in this list, I have been using a lil online computer script to stimulate a random number generator that stimulate a six sided die. My selection is a subset of six works that are inputted and then the script generates the top two choices which does the +2/+1 votes.

It's pretty cool in fact. Here is a sample script: http://greedroll.com/

I use this because I was inspired by Mozart and John Cage. I figure that aleatoricism in the voting process allows for a lot of chance events to happen with my input being in the six pieces that correspond to each face of a die.

Plus I'm a math nerd so why not?


----------



## Albert7

The lack of Ferneyhough or any New Complexity composer in the final list startles me .


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Albert7 said:


> The lack of Ferneyhough or any New Complexity composer in the final list startles me .


I believe there is a Ferneyhough work currently on the board.


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> For anyone who is interested in my methodology for voting in this list, I have been using a lil online computer script to stimulate a random number generator that stimulate a six sided die. My selection is a subset of six works that are inputted and then the script generates the top two choices which does the +2/+1 votes.
> 
> It's pretty cool in fact. Here is a sample script: http://greedroll.com/
> 
> I use this because I was inspired by Mozart and John Cage. I figure that aleatoricism in the voting process allows for a lot of chance events to happen with my input being in the six pieces that correspond to each face of a die.
> 
> Plus I'm a math nerd so why not?


Thats obviously not what's happening.

Either your computer's broken or you're something something and telling me its raining.

There are also more than six works for your consideration.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Albert7 said:


> The lack of Ferneyhough or any New Complexity composer in the final list startles me .


If _Terrain_ hasn't been voted in yet, I think it would make a good choice for the next Ferneyhough work. All his string quartets are fabulous and maybe more famous, but _Terrain_ is probably the best example of his work for a newcomer.


----------



## SimonNZ

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> If _Terrain_ hasn't been voted in yet, I think it would make a good choice for the next Ferneyhough work. All his string quartets are fabulous and maybe more famous, but _Terrain_ is probably the best example of his work for a newcomer.


You must still have some nominations up your sleve. And I for one would happily support that work.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> Thats obviously not what's happening.
> 
> Either your computer's broken or you're something something and telling me its raining.
> 
> There are also more than six works for your consideration.


LOL... hmm...

Speaking of which, one of my computers got knocked out due to spyware. So maybe my backup computer will give different results.

No claim to be random completely but semi-random.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> LOL... hmm...
> 
> Speaking of which, one of my computers got knocked out due to spyware. So maybe my backup computer will give different results.
> 
> No claim to be random completely but semi-random.


You'd be fantastic in the casino, Albert, because it looks to us like you're rolling the same thing every time!


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> You'd be fantastic in the casino, Albert, because it looks to us like you're rolling the same thing every time!


Want to collate my votes up then for me?


----------



## 20centrfuge

Norgard 3 is the most enjoyable non-cohesive mess I've ever heard.


----------



## 20centrfuge

For the record, I like the fact that Albert7 is passionate about music and votes with convictions.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Lutoslawski's Concerto for Orchestra is over-rated.


----------



## tortkis

Nørgård should be nominated. (I already used up my 4 votes.) I particularly like Nova Genitura and Fons Laetitiae, but I would like to check out anything nominated if I have not heard it yet.


----------



## Guest

20centrfuge said:


> Norgard 3 is the most enjoyable non-cohesive mess I've ever heard.


Praise indeed!

I've listened to some percussion & ensemble works that I rather like and will check out again e.g. Three Scenes.


----------



## Guest

So now I'm listening to All Set and I'm thinking mmmm jazz...

Sorry to do the labels thing.

Also enjoying Vasks.


----------



## Guest

20centrfuge said:


> Norgard 3 is the most enjoyable non-cohesive mess I've ever heard.


Norgard's music draws heavily from formulas, so, technically, that symphony should be one of the most cohesive works you've ever heard.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Want to collate my votes up then for me?


We already have. There's less variation in your votes than anyone else's here. John Cage would be sad.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> Looking back to the beginning, it looks like the three longest suffering works are:
> 
> Schnittke: Viola Concerto (the very first work nominated)
> Salonen: Wing On Wing
> Schnittke: Symphony No. 1
> 
> I'm not unhappy to see this in that it suggests that this whole exercise isn't entirely a function of nomination order. Schnittke had a work leapfrog these two into enshrinement.
> 
> Regarded, I don't think Schnittke 1 should be abandoned.


As well as *Stravinsky - Agon*, which has been on the board only ~9 hours less than Schnittke's Viola Concerto with significantly fewer votes. (I was the 2nd poster to nominate, right after MS. I nominated Stockhausen/Carter first, and 9 hours later I nominated Stravinsky/Boulez)


----------



## Mahlerian

nathanb said:


> We already have. There's less variation in your votes than anyone else's here. John Cage would be sad.


Actually, I think KenOC has voted almost entirely for a handful of works since the project's inception. He gave Shostakovich's 10th more than 50% of the points it had, by giving 2 every single round.


----------



## Guest

I'd defintely like to see a rule (which needs to come in sooner rather than later) limiting the number of works that can come from any single composer. A great enshrined roll call would be slightly less great IMHO if it had a great wodge of pieces by one composer. Variety is the star anise of life!


----------



## GreenMamba

I'm tempted to nominate _The Sun Shines on Our Motherland_ just to see how much support it gets.


----------



## mmsbls

dogen said:


> I'd defintely like to see a rule (which needs to come in sooner rather than later) limiting the number of works that can come from any single composer. A great enshrined roll call would be slightly less great IMHO if it had a great wodge of pieces by one composer. Variety is the star anise of life!


We've never had such a rule, and several prior lists have seen certain composers with a high percentage of selections (much higher than I expect could possibly be the case here). Given the wide diversity of nominations in this list I'd be rather surprised if one composer could garner any significant percentage of enshrinements.

Are you worried about a specific composer getting too many slots or concerned that several composers will lessen the overall diversity (or something else)?


----------



## ptr

GreenMamba said:


> I'm tempted to nominate _The Sun Shines on Our Motherland_ just to see how much support it gets.


You have my vote Comrade Green!

/ptr


----------



## senza sordino

FYI I voted for the Shostakovich Tenth Symphony three times, probably giving it six votes. I make a note of what I've heard, my own rating out of four and how many times I've votes for it. 

It's been a tough week here at work and home. I haven't voted much lately. I never got the chance to vote for Ades Concentric Paths

Here is a list of pieces I'd like to nominate. My knowledge of post 1950s classical is far from extensive, it's quite limited really. Compared to some of you, I'm a total rookie. Compared to my friends, colleagues and family - people I know in real life - I'm the one eyed king in the land of the blind. Anyway........here's my list, in no particular order. Please comment on what I should bring forward and nominate. I know it's a conservative list, but it's what I know. Give me a break, I like a lot of new music once I've heard it and so I'm happy to vote for your nominations too, once I've listened to it a couple of times and like it. 

Adams Violin Concerto (1991)
Bernstein Serenade for violin after Plato's Symposium (1954)
Khachaturian Spartacus (1954)
Rodrigo Fantasia para Gentihombre (1954)
Villa Lobos Guitar Concerto (1951)
Shostakovich Piano Concerto #2 (1957)
Walton cello concerto (1956, rev 1975)
Ligeti string quartet (1968)
Saariaho Nymphea (Jardin Secret III) (1987)
Golijov Last Round (199?)
Bernstein West Side Story (1957)


----------



## Albert7

I vote towards having every composer with at one piece in the final outcome so I push my tactics in that direction. Mental democracy.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> We've never had such a rule, and several prior lists have seen certain composers with a high percentage of selections (much higher than I expect could possibly be the case here). Given the wide diversity of nominations in this list I'd be rather surprised if one composer could garner any significant percentage of enshrinements.
> 
> Are you worried about a specific composer getting too many slots or concerned that several composers will lessen the overall diversity (or something else)?


I just like to get my worrying in early! I suppose if it's not to be a finite list then it's not such an issue. I'm not concerned about any particular composer; I just hope there isn't "over-representation"; whatever that might be!


----------



## Nereffid

senza sordino said:


> Here is a list of pieces I'd like to nominate. My knowledge of post 1950s classical is far from extensive, it's quite limited really. Compared to some of you, I'm a total rookie. Compared to my friends, colleagues and family - people I know in real life - I'm the one eyed king in the land of the blind. Anyway........here's my list, in no particular order. Please comment on what I should bring forward and nominate. I know it's a conservative list, but it's what I know. Give me a break, I like a lot of new music once I've heard it and so I'm happy to vote for your nominations too, once I've listened to it a couple of times and like it.
> 
> Adams Violin Concerto (1991)
> Bernstein Serenade for violin after Plato's Symposium (1954)
> Khachaturian Spartacus (1954)
> Rodrigo Fantasia para Gentihombre (1954)
> Villa Lobos Guitar Concerto (1951)
> Shostakovich Piano Concerto #2 (1957)
> Walton cello concerto (1956, rev 1975)
> Ligeti string quartet (1968)
> Saariaho Nymphea (Jardin Secret III) (1987)
> Golijov Last Round (199?)
> Bernstein West Side Story (1957)


I don't know the Golijov but I'd happily vote for all the others. Conservative schmonservative. Has anyone even thought of Poulenc's Gloria?


----------



## senza sordino

That's on my paper list in front of me too, I forgot to add it to my list here! Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## MagneticGhost

I'm always thinking about Poulenc's Gloria.


----------



## GreenMamba

senza sordino said:


> FYI know it's a conservative list, but it's what I know. Give me a break, I like a lot of new music once I've heard it and so I'm happy to vote for your nominations too, once I've listened to it a couple of times and like it.
> 
> Adams Violin Concerto (1991)
> Bernstein Serenade for violin after Plato's Symposium (1954)
> Khachaturian Spartacus (1954)
> Rodrigo Fantasia para Gentihombre (1954)
> Villa Lobos Guitar Concerto (1951)
> Shostakovich Piano Concerto #2 (1957)
> Walton cello concerto (1956, rev 1975)
> Ligeti string quartet (1968)
> Saariaho Nymphea (Jardin Secret III) (1987)
> Golijov Last Round (199?)
> Bernstein West Side Story (1957)


I don't want to tell anyone how to nominate, but since you asked, I'd suggest maybe moving away from Shostakovich, who is already well-represented (and to be honest, you could probably sit back and wait for someone else to nominate that piece).

As far as conservative is concerned, part of the issue relates to "carry over" composers, i.e., those whose heyday was pre-1950. Bernstein is at least not one of those.


----------



## 20centrfuge

senza sordino said:


> FYI I voted for the Shostakovich Tenth Symphony three times, probably giving it six votes. I make a note of what I've heard, my own rating out of four and how many times I've votes for it.
> 
> It's been a tough week here at work and home. I haven't voted much lately. I never got the chance to vote for Ades Concentric Paths
> 
> Here is a list of pieces I'd like to nominate. My knowledge of post 1950s classical is far from extensive, it's quite limited really. Compared to some of you, I'm a total rookie. Compared to my friends, colleagues and family - people I know in real life - I'm the one eyed king in the land of the blind. Anyway........here's my list, in no particular order. Please comment on what I should bring forward and nominate. I know it's a conservative list, but it's what I know. Give me a break, I like a lot of new music once I've heard it and so I'm happy to vote for your nominations too, once I've listened to it a couple of times and like it.
> 
> Adams Violin Concerto (1991)
> Bernstein Serenade for violin after Plato's Symposium (1954)
> Khachaturian Spartacus (1954)
> Rodrigo Fantasia para Gentihombre (1954)
> Villa Lobos Guitar Concerto (1951)
> Shostakovich Piano Concerto #2 (1957)
> Walton cello concerto (1956, rev 1975)
> Ligeti string quartet (1968)
> Saariaho Nymphea (Jardin Secret III) (1987)
> Golijov Last Round (199?)
> Bernstein West Side Story (1957)


I'm actually very happy to see West Side Story on your list. I had been thinking to nominate it sometime, myself.


----------



## GreenMamba

Albert7 said:


> I vote towards having every composer with at one piece in the final outcome so I push my tactics in that direction. Mental democracy.


Is that an argument against Feldman, who is already represented?


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> Is that an argument against Feldman, who is already represented?


he is already repped so I am voting elsewhere.


----------



## MagneticGhost

If I was John Cage - I'd be really narked off if my 4'33 of silence was voted as my best representative work, decades after my death on an internet forum, ahead of something that I'd actually composed.

Just Sayin'


----------



## Celloman

MagneticGhost said:


> I'm always thinking about Poulenc's Gloria.


I am very close to nominating this one. I was also debating whether or not _Dialogues des Carmelites_ or the _Stabat Mater_ would stand a better chance. But the Gloria is fine with me.

What do you say? Should we get it in there?


----------



## MagneticGhost

^^^And when was the Organ Concerto composed. 

I think the Gloria will appeal to more people but I would favour Dialogues des Carmelites myself. It might not generate enough interest on the board though. If you nominate one I'll support it either way 



Senza Sordini has beaten us to it. Poulenc's Gloria is up and running now.


----------



## Blancrocher

dogen said:


> I just like to get my worrying in early! I suppose if it's not to be a finite list then it's not such an issue. I'm not concerned about any particular composer; I just hope there isn't "over-representation"; whatever that might be!


I've been doing a good job so far of not using all 4 of my nominations on Ligeti, but I'm constantly feeling the strain as several of my favorites haven't been mentioned yet. I hope you appreciate it! It's harder than quitting smoking!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I forgot completely about Crumb's Vox Balanae (or however you spell it)! It's very good, I would recommend it.


----------



## Albert7

We need more female composer nominations...

For example, Joan Tower.

I am at my full nominations so need pushes on my choices out of the bin to make way for more nominations from me.

BTW, I don't solicit votes but would be nice to have Hrim pushed out the bin . Thanks.

Also would drink a beer to celebrate for Hrim.


----------



## Guest

Actually, Hrim is now a dead nomination ( > 1 week ). I'll remove it when I get back in town I guess.

And no, we don't need more female composers. We need people to vote for the best works rather than obscure/trendy ones.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Actually, Hrim is now a dead nomination ( > 1 week ). I'll remove it when I get back in town I guess.
> 
> And no, we don't need more female composers. We need people to vote for the best works rather than obscure/trendy ones.


Best works... that's a social construct and doesn't exist. There is no objective measure or scientific procedure to see which work is better than another.


----------



## Guest

Every word you speak is a social construct, but that doesn't change the fact that the words "social construct" are essentially always a meaningless red herring.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Actually, Hrim is now a dead nomination ( > 1 week ). I'll remove it when I get back in town I guess.
> 
> And no, we don't need more female composers. We need people to vote for the best works rather than obscure/trendy ones.


No worries. I can withdraw my nomination for Hrim and nominate something else if people don't mind.


----------



## GreenMamba

Albert7 said:


> No worries. I can withdraw my nomination for Hrim and nominate something else if people don't mind.


You can withdraw it, and by the the rules it's probably required to be removed now.

Speaking of female composers, Unsuk Chin now has two on the list.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Chin, Gubudailina, Saariaho


----------



## mmsbls

Anna Clyne is also a woman. Not a huge percentage but modestly encouraging.


----------



## Prodromides

nathanb said:


> We need people to vote for the best works rather than obscure/trendy ones.


According to my perspective, many previously (to me) obscure works can over time become favorites - and, as such, the 'best' to me.

Horațiu Rădulescu's _Byzantine Prayer_ may be obscure to most folks, but its recording on an Adda CD has been with me for around 20 years...


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Albert7 said:


> Best works... that's a social construct and doesn't exist. There is no *objective measure or scientific procedure* to see which work is better than another.


Quite. That's why it's called _*art*_.
The idea is you vote for the music you like the best, regardless of the gender of the composer. By all means vote for female composers, but don't vote for composers _because they are female_.


----------



## Mahlerian

The score may be viewed at the publisher's website (you are required to sign up, but it is free): http://www.boosey.com/cr/perusals/score.asp?id=27378


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> Quite. That's why it's called _*art*_.
> The idea is you vote for the music you like the best, regardless of the gender of the composer. By all means vote for female composers, but don't vote for composers _because they are female_.


Exactly. If Anna Clyne was nominated with the intent of nominating a good female composer's work, then I think it should be withdrawn 

My iPod is diverse, but it is not governed by some diversity department that keeps us from being sued or infringing on constitutional rights...


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Exactly. If Anna Clyne was nominated with the intent of nominating a good female composer's work, then I think it should be withdrawn
> 
> My iPod is diverse, but it is not governed by some diversity department that keeps us from being sued or infringing on constitutional rights...


Clyne is very exceptional in her compositions and for me, she represents the forefront of the Holy Grail of postmodern composition--the conjunction between electroacoustic and traditional methodologies.

The piece selected is a good introduction to her oeuvre. Open ears => great and varied possibilities.








"The Violin" is is a collaboration between composer Anna Clyne and visual artist Josh Dorman. Amy Kauffman and Cornelius Dufallo perform Clyne's seven compositions on violin with layers of sound and fragments of spoken poetry, performed by Clyne herself. The stop-motion animations by Dorman vary from abstract to narrative, and incorporate materials such as graphite, tealeaves, paint, and collaged paper.

Basically Clyne collaborates a lot with visual artists... Between disciplines... for me that is the future of classical music when it is with other art forms.


----------



## SimonNZ

MoonlightSonata said:


> Quite. That's why it's called _*art*_.
> The idea is you vote for the music you like the best, regardless of the gender of the composer. By all means vote for female composers, but don't vote for composers _because they are female_.


Exactly this. Joan Tower would be appaled to think she was getting attention through the "tokenism" Albert is advocating, rather than through her manifest skill and talent.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> Exactly this. Joan Tower would be appaled to think she was getting attention through the "tokenism" Albert is advocating, rather than through her manifest skill and talent.


And what benchmarks does one measure skill and talent of one composer against another? Classical music is not like boxing... And we don't have a clear winner here like Mayweather. Instead of pitting one composer against another composer, let us all share the joys that we even the know the stuff here and be peaceful and chill about it all.

And hopefully someone will nominate Joan Tower honestly. She would like to relish  more props by the group here.

 Peace.


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> Clyne is very exceptional in her compositions and for me, she represents the forefront of the Holy Grail of postmodern composition--the conjunction between electroacoustic and traditional methodologies.


"Exceptional" is a social construct etc etc yawn etc. "Forefront" is a social construct etc etc yawn etc.

You're just doing this for attention and for reactions, aren'y you?


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> And what benchmarks does one measure skill and talent of one composer against another? Classical music is not like boxing


Then you've got no reason to be part of this project if you believe this. So please stop now.

You must be aware by now that almost everything you do here serves only to disregard peoples wishes and to stir them up.Which may be fun for you, but diminishes the joy of this process for others. But do you care if that's the effect you're having? Or is it just "game on! Tee hee!"?


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> "Exceptional" is a social construct etc etc yawn etc. "Forefront" is a social construct etc etc yawn etc.
> 
> You're just doing this for attention and for reactions, aren'y you?


No... I really do believe in the social construct issue. Not a jokey joke to me here.

And nope, not playing the devil's advocate either. The **** is real to me.

In fact, I already had a great Indian buffet meal with my tuba pal Ben and my dad and we were discussing the sermon at his church this morning in relation to social constructs during the ancient times of the tribes... the great book in relation to Pasolini's films.

Yep, I'm a passionate postmodernist and laid back about it. I don't care whether people subscribe to it like I do but for me, it has brought me a lot of inner peace knowing how fleeting everything is in my life.

And the point of this thread to educate people about works post-1950's not to determine who is better than another.


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> And the point of this thread to educate people about works post-1950's not to determine who is better than another.


The whole of TC is to educate people, the point here is to suggest which works they might want to listen to _first_ - ie, which works are considered through consensus to be _better._. The list will serve as a gateway for those unfamiliar with contemporary - or would if you weren't constantly messing with he process, against widespread and very vocal criticism.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> The whole of TC is to educate people, the point here is to suggest which works they might want to listen to _first_ - ie, which works are considered through consensus to be _better._. The list will serve as a gateway for those unfamiliar with contemporary - or would if you weren't constantly messing with he process, against widespread and very vocal criticism.


There is no consensus for no piece to be better than another. Ask a panel of music critics on The Guardian which are their recommendations for post-1950's works and they will all give you different results.


----------



## SimonNZ

If you really feel this - and I don't see why you'd advocate _any_ composer if you do - then I can only repeat that this process is clearly not for you, and you should just leave the rest of us to our misguided ways.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> If you really feel this - and I don't see why you'd advocate _any_ composer if you do - then I can only repeat that this process is clearly not for you, and you should just leave the rest of us to our misguided ways.


Misguided?

Never implied that. In fact, we should be happy that everyone has a different way of voting here. He or she can do whatever she wants. If expectation of normalization exists there, then I guess that I'm a rebel with a cause?


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> Misguided?
> 
> Never implied that. In fact, we should be happy that everyone has a different way of voting here. He or she can do whatever she wants. If expectation of normalization exists there, *then I guess that I'm a rebel with a cause?*


And I can only ask again - and I'd like you to really consider this and actually give me an answer: do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others, people who have repeatedly said so?


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> And I can only ask again - and I'd like you to really consider this and actually give me an answer: do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others, people who have repeatedly said so?


The question is whether you speak for the masses here.

Schadenfreude is expected now but my peaceful nature does not concur.

I view this thread as a form of education/pedagogical experience for everyone on TC equally. Many people are not familiar with the post-1950's works and this is a wonderful opportunity to spread out one piece per composer in the final list rather than having 10 Shostabear works in the enshrined version...

It's a blessing to have classical music being composed regularly in today's world. And not just from a select few.


----------



## mmsbls

I can't speak for others, of course, but certainly the Classical Music Project started with participants voting for "the best works". Only after many hundreds of enshrinements did the voting change (eliminated the -1 vote), and a more relaxed attitude gave way to a broader range of works. I certainly feel that the early portion of this project is an attempt to list what we collectively view as "great" modern works rather than diverse modern works. 

Obviously everyone has different views on what is "great" or even their favorites, but in theory people would attempt to vote based on some view of the works value. I do not favor a list based on diversity.


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> The question is whether you speak for the masses here.


No it isn't. I'm reiterating what the "masses" have said for themselves repeated, as you well know, including on a 28 page - _28 page _- thread in Area 51, as you also well know.

So I ask again:

Do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others?


----------



## tortkis

Albert7 said:


> I view this thread as a form of education/pedagogical experience for everyone on TC equally. Many people are not familiar with the post-1950's works and this is a wonderful opportunity to spread out one piece per composer in the final list rather than having 10 Shostabear works in the enshrined version...


You oppose rating, and the purpose of this thread is rating, however tentative and non-authoritative it is. If you truly believe what you posted here, people would think that basically you are saying that you are opposing the purpose of this thread and trying to destroy the purpose. I do believe you have no ill intention, and that is why I am perplexed by your posts.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> No it isn't. I'm reiterating what the "masses" have said for themselves repeated, as you well know, including on a 28 page - _28 page _- thread in Area 51, as you also well know.
> 
> So I ask again:
> 
> Do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others?


"Traditionally, power was what was seen, what was shown, and what was manifested...Disciplinary power, on the other hand, is exercised through its invisibility; at the same time it imposes on those whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility. In discipline, it is the subjects who have to be seen. Their visibility assures the hold of the power that is exercised over them. It is this fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection. And the examination is the technique by which power, instead of emitting the signs of its potency, instead of imposing its mark on its subjects, holds them in a mechanism of objectification. In this space of domination, disciplinary power manifests its potency, essentially by arranging objects. The examination is, as it were, the ceremony of this objectification."

― Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

People select with their free will how to respond. I go by spiritual concerns here.


----------



## SimonNZ

And again...let's try for just a yes or no answer to start:

Do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others?

Yes or no?


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> And again...let's try for just a yes or no answer to start:
> 
> Do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others?
> 
> Yes or no?


There is never a yes or no answer in my universe. Sorry. I don't believe in Western dichotomies in my personal philosophy.


----------



## SimonNZ

Then answer the question in your own words:

Do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others?


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> Then answer the question in your own words:
> 
> Do you care at all if you're diminishing the enjoyment of a large number of others?


To put it succinctly, I believe in helping others. That is part of my personal beliefs... so to get back onto topic.

I am glad that more folks here are going to nominate more pieces. Should be fascinating to catch all of them via YouTube to see which ones I will be inputting in my computer random number generator for tonight.


----------



## SimonNZ

You're not helping others if you're diminishing their enjoyment. You're doing the opposite.

You don't care...do you?


----------



## isorhythm

I agree with Albert about female composers. Pauline Oliveros and Galina Ustvolskaya are two female composers off the top of my head who should have been on this list well before any piece by Shostakovich, let alone three. There is nothing wrong with us (mostly male) voters asking ourselves why that happened. If this were a top works of the 18th century list, it would be understandable, but it's not.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> You're not helping others if you're diminishing their enjoyment. You're doing the opposite.
> 
> You don't care...do you?


Think we've made it pretty clear after that whole exchange, sadly.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> You're not helping others if you're diminishing their enjoyment. You're doing the opposite.
> 
> You don't care...do you?


"To be able to bear provocation is an argument of great reason, and to forgive it of a great mind."

--John Tillotson


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Albert7 said:


> *There is no consensus for no piece to be better than another.* Ask a panel of music critics on The Guardian which are their recommendations for post-1950's works and they will all give you different results.


If this is the case, why are you participating in the creation of a new one? Why not go through every other post-1950 list ever made, since they're all equal?



Albert7 said:


> Misguided?
> 
> Never implied that. In fact, we should be happy that everyone has a different way of voting here. He or she can do whatever she wants. *If expectation of normalization exists there, then I guess that I'm a rebel with a cause?*


I readily admit that my organisation is not always very good, but if you disagree with the way this project is run, simply say so - please do not "rebel".


----------



## Albert7

MoonlightSonata said:


> If this is the case, why are you participating in the creation of a new one? Why not go through every other post-1950 list ever made, since they're all equal?
> 
> I readily admit that my organisation is not always very good, but if you disagree with the way this project is run, simply say so - please do not "rebel".


"To give a reason is to go through a process of calculation, and to ask for a reason is to ask how one arrived at the result. The chain of reasons comes to an end, that is, one cannot always give a reason for a reason. But this does not make the reasoning less valid. The answer to the question, Why are you frightened?, involves a hypothesis if a cause is given. But there is no hypothetical element in a calculation."

--Ludwig Wittgenstein


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Albert7 said:


> "To give a reason is to go through a process of calculation, and to ask for a reason is to ask how one arrived at the result. The chain of reasons comes to an end, that is, one cannot always give a reason for a reason. But this does not make the reasoning less valid. The answer to the question, Why are you frightened?, involves a hypothesis if a cause is given. But there is no hypothetical element in a calculation."
> 
> --Ludwig Wittgenstein


Could you please state this more simply?


----------



## ptr

MoonlightSonata said:


> Could you please state this more simply?


And adding to MS' comment; in Your own word's please, not citing a reference of dubious relevance just to cover up a lack of argument!

Why am I having a Qui-Gon Jinn vis JarJar Binks moment when I read this exchange?

/ptr


----------



## Albert7

Algorithm has been modified on my end. Instead of the 6 works inputted into a random matrix I have decided to modify so that it factors in the other votes from other people and thus there will be a more even distribution of pieces. Also I have decided to not vote for Shostabear because it is likely that 10 pieces will appear in the final list when this project is completed.

Also I just noticed that Xenakis isn't getting enough support. That will be solved.


----------



## GreenMamba

The problem with using a randomness to its is it doesn't assure your points will be evenly spread out. You could manually distribute the points among those in your matrix and you'd do a better job "sharing the wealth."


----------



## science

We have gotten distracted from what really matters. Dozens of people - probably the majority of active people on this forum - have contributed to this project enthusiastically and eagerly. 

But we don't count. We don't matter. We are nobody. Our enthusiasms and loves are nothing. 

Someone said something negative about modern music and now the board is dominated by that person. Or maybe it's even two or three people. And now their opinion counts, and ours don't. Bach and Beethoven are gods, the music we've been celebrating in these threads is worthless, all of us put together cannot equal even a flippant little remark from even one or two people who probably doesn't know much about this music anyway. 

Why do we even bother, therefore? If all of us put together are so helpless, so insignificant in the face of anyone, anyone at all, disliking this music at all, making even the most ridiculous flippant little comments about it, why do we bother? What is the point? Are we actually that worthless? I cannot see any other explanation.


----------



## SimonNZ

Are you sure you've posted this on the right thread, science?

I'm guessing this was for that Area 51 thing.


----------



## Celloman

science said:


> We have gotten distracted from what really matters. Dozens of people - probably the majority of active people on this forum - have contributed to this project enthusiastically and eagerly.
> 
> But we don't count. We don't matter. We are nobody. Our enthusiasms and loves are nothing.
> 
> Someone said something negative about modern music and now the board is dominated by that person. Or maybe it's even two or three people. And now their opinion counts, and ours don't. Bach and Beethoven are gods, the music we've been celebrating in these threads is worthless, all of us put together cannot equal even a flippant little remark from even one or two people who probably doesn't know much about this music anyway.
> 
> Why do we even bother, therefore? If all of us put together are so helpless, so insignificant in the face of anyone, anyone at all, disliking this music at all, making even the most ridiculous flippant little comments about it, why do we bother? What is the point? Are we actually that worthless? I cannot see any other explanation.


Well, what makes you so cheerful today?

Everyone has an equally valid opinion. Nobody is dominating anyone. If someone really is getting on your nerves, I would suggest that you avoid the thread. I do this frequently, and it helps. Complaining about it isn't going to get us anywhere.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> Are you sure you've posted this on the right thread, science?
> 
> I'm guessing this was for that Area 51 thing.


I don't think it matters.

As asserted there, the board is _*dominated*_ by people who hate this music. *Dominated*.

*Dominated*.

I look at this thread and the voting - we can hardly prevent ourselves from clashing, the voting is so fast and furious, but the board is _*dominated*_ by people who hate this music.

*Dominated*.

I just want us all to internalize as thoroughly as I have what that says about _us_.


----------



## science

Celloman said:


> Well, what makes you so cheerful today?
> 
> Everyone has an equally valid opinion. Nobody is dominating anyone. If someone really is getting on your nerves, I would suggest that you avoid the thread. I do this frequently, and it helps. Complaining about it isn't going to get us anywhere.


I didn't even see the thread. I just saw the declarations that it had invalidated the rest of us.


----------



## GreenMamba

science said:


> I don't think it matters.
> 
> As asserted there, the board is _*dominated*_ by people who hate this music. *Dominated*.
> 
> *Dominated*.
> 
> I look at this thread and the voting - we can hardly prevent ourselves from clashing, the voting is so fast and furious, but the board is _*dominated*_ by people who hate this music.
> 
> *Dominated*.
> 
> I just want us all to internalize as thoroughly as I have what that says about _us_.


Dominated? Where do you get that? In fact, most Shosty voters seem to support some modernist works as well.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> I didn't even see the thread. I just saw the declarations that it had invalidated the rest of us.


I'm not following at all. What declarations? Who is dominating who in this project?

Could you go back to the beginning of your trouble here? Is it specifically the post 1950 project you're unhappy with?


----------



## Albert7

science said:


> I don't think it matters.
> 
> As asserted there, the board is _*dominated*_ by people who hate this music. *Dominated*.
> 
> *Dominated*.
> 
> I look at this thread and the voting - we can hardly prevent ourselves from clashing, the voting is so fast and furious, but the board is _*dominated*_ by people who hate this music.
> 
> *Dominated*.
> 
> I just want us all to internalize as thoroughly as I have what that says about _us_.


Wow, holy beep. Someone just articulated what I thought somewhat. But I'm a shy guy so thanks, science.



GreenMamba said:


> Dominated? Where do you get that? In fact, most Shosty voters seem to support some modernist works as well.


Yes, modernist works but what about post-modernist works?


----------



## KenOC

What we really have is a problem with intolerant proto-modernist fans.


----------



## tdc

Albert7 said:


> Wow, holy beep. Someone just articulated what I thought somewhat. But I'm a shy guy so thanks, science.


I'm pretty sure science post about us being dominated was sarcasm - so, I'm confused here what exactly do you agree with?


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> I'm not following at all. What declarations? Who is dominating who in this project?
> 
> Could you go back to the beginning of your trouble here? Is it specifically the post 1950 project you're unhappy with?


Come on, man. I love the kind of music in that project. You know that.


----------



## tdc

science said:


> I didn't even see the thread. I just saw the declarations that it had invalidated the rest of us.


Can you reference the initial declaration because you lost me. I thought people were talking about Albert7 switching his votes up more, I don't remember anything about this domination or invalidation stuff.

Albert has only been voting for modern works (not Shostakovich) so I find this whole line of conversation confusing.


----------



## Albert7

tdc said:


> Can you reference the initial declaration because you lost me. I thought people were talking about Albert7 switching his votes up more, I don't remember anything about this domination or invalidation stuff.
> 
> Albert has only been voting for modern works (not Shostakovich) so I find this whole line of conversation confusing.


I think that science is trying to have some type of post-modernist musing. Some read sarcasm. I read irony instead.

Either that I drunk one beer too many tonight . j/k


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> Come on, man. I love the kind of music in that project. You know that.


I know, which is why I'm wondering what the issue is.

You might have to be clear - as it stands Albert thinks you share his world view and are his mouthpiece (70-posts-a-day "shy" person that he is)


----------



## science

tdc said:


> Can you reference the initial declaration because you lost me. I thought people were talking about Albert7 switching his votes up more, I don't remember anything about this domination or invalidation stuff.
> 
> Albert has only been voting for modern works (not Shostakovich) so I find this whole line of conversation confusing.


I wasn't talking about Albert; whatever he's been doing hasn't concerned me.

I only meant to make the point that the enthusiasm for this project from many, I'd guess even the majority of people currently active on this site, shows that in fact the board is _not_ dominated by people who hate modern music, and any claim that it is is totally ridiculous. It makes me angry to see not only me but all of us invalidated like that. One or two, maybe even three or four people say something on some thread that I can't even find about modern music and just like that, the board is declared dominated by those people. All of us who enjoy modern music enough to participate in this project are wiped out of existence just like that. Just like that.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> I know, which is why I'm wondering what the issue is.
> 
> You might have to be clear - as it stands Albert thinks you share his world view and are his mouthpiece (70-posts-a-day "shy" person that he is)


If anything I've written here has been relevant to Albert's concerns, it's coincidental.

I wrote about that already in a post yesterday.



science said:


> One of the things I think we're seeing in this thread is that postmodern theory, to the degree that it was ever alive, is now about as dead as "the author" ever was. Sorry, Al. The army has moved on; the old postmodern vanguard is now the rearguard, facing the wrong way, soon to be forgotten.
> 
> But postmodern theory wasn't entirely without merit: at the very least, hopefully it made us more cynical about power dynamics implicit in texts. The absence of that cynicism, I'd say, is not only naive, but immoral. So that was good. I hope this part of its legacy lives and grows. We could use more of it.
> 
> Anyway, I suspect that the theory that called itself "postmodern" was in reality ultramodern. Its texts aspired to power, especially to social power, more aggressively than almost any of their predecessors, not excluding the likes of Joyce or Eliot. Their most characteristic trait, the intentional obscurity of their diction and syntax, is _nothing but_ social strategy.
> 
> Seeing through the "seeing through," the world (intellectual, high-cultural, and mass-cultural) has moved on; we have murdered the scholar-fathers who taught us to murder scholar-fathers, but we have done it passively, just by "moving on," rather than actively with pretentious ideological denunciations. There's no "there" there anymore, so we move on. We again dream of progress and truth - holding on, however, as I hope, to a little more cynicism about our own motivations.
> 
> So that was fun.
> 
> But even if postmodern theory is dead, postmodernism is alive: it's really just a synonym for postindustrial: postmodernism is the culture of postindustrial society. We are creating new and better theories all the time: theories that in the old modernist way aspire to power through successful explanation of the world rather than through sheer (ambiguity intended) assertion.


That's good enough for that.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> I know, which is why I'm wondering what the issue is.
> 
> You might have to be clear - as it stands Albert thinks you share his world view and are his mouthpiece (70-posts-a-day "shy" person that he is)


70 posts a day? No way. I am not even that prolific of a writer nowadays.

And honestly lately I've been more isolated at home after work due to personal stuff going on. This poll has been very educational for me as I listen to every single enshrined piece known to mankind. Off YouTube if I can.

I see this as a blessing. I don't know anyone else who have criticized what is going on here.


----------



## SimonNZ

Science: This is probably the wrong thread for your complaint, then. Try the Which Century Is Your Favorite, where most people voted 20th and were told by ArtMusic "that not what people in _the real world_ think". You need to drop this complaint at his door, as he's done more than anyone to stoke the flames of the trad vs modern sillyness. And after more than two years is still allowed.

Here you're just preaching to the choir.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> This is probably the wrong thread for your complaint, then. Try the Which Century Is Your Favorite, where most people voted 20th and were told by ArtMusic "that not what people in _the real world_ think". You need to drop this complaint at his door, as he's done more than anyone to stoke the flames of the trad vs modern sillyness. And after more than two years is still allowed.
> 
> Here you're just preaching to the choir.


Artmusic is one person.

One.

Person.

How many people?

One.

Enough to dominate the board?

DOMINATE the board?

Enough to invalidate everyone who has participated in this project?

I wouldn't say so, but apparently I would be wrong.


----------



## GreenMamba

Sharik isn't exactly a fan of the newer stuff either. Actually, a fair number aren't, but most of the others are humble about it.

But does anyone remember Harpsichord Concerto? He was far more vicious than ArtMusic. Scroll through the old threads. I probably shouldn't be naming names, but I don't care.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> Artmusic is one person.
> 
> One.
> 
> Person.
> 
> How many people?
> 
> One.
> 
> Enough to dominate the board?
> 
> DOMINATE the board?





science said:


> *One or two, maybe even three or four people say something *on some thread that I can't even find about modern music and just like that, the board is declared dominated by those people. All of us who enjoy modern music enough to participate in this project are wiped out of existence just like that. Just like that.


Yes - if one person is persistant, and learns which buttons to push - what gets the best reactions. If they're allowed to continue through a loophole in the ToS


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Yes - if one person is persistant, and learns which buttons to push - what gets the best reactions


And if said person(s) treats it like a full time job... :/


----------



## Albert7

Okay guys guys... let's play nice here. I want to be positive folks.

On a good tip, I have new noms planned when things are ready... two very good surprises that will please the crowd here.

And of course, let us appreciate each other here and not be negative about people who aren't huge on modern music. It's their choice and whether or not they declaim is their right.

My dad is like that and although I tease him for it, I do care about him. And seriously please don't needle just because someone doesn't share the same tastes as one another.

We must focus on the wonderful list here tonight. Quick question... what percentage of the pieces have you guys heard off the enshrined/seconded/nomed list? Before this started I only had a few under my belt. Now I have done quite a number.

Bobby McFerrin said "Don't worry, be happy."


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> Yes - if one person is persistant, and learns which buttons to push - what gets the best reactions. If they're allowed to continue through a loophole in the ToS





nathanb said:


> And if said person(s) treats it like a full time job... :/


Well, then, clearly the rest of us are that incredibly insignificant.


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> Okay guys guys... let's play nice here. I want to be positive folks.


Well isn't that sweet? You've done more that anyone to wind people up, and now you're telling us to stay positive.

There's a name for that.


----------



## tdc

science said:


> Artmusic is one person.
> 
> One.
> 
> Person.
> 
> How many people?
> 
> One.
> 
> Enough to dominate the board?
> 
> DOMINATE the board?
> 
> Enough to invalidate everyone who has participated in this project?
> 
> I wouldn't say so, but apparently I would be wrong.


No one in this thread has said Art Music or anyone else is dominating the board. As far as I recall no one has said anything whatsoever about invalidation or domination in this thread.

I certainly don't feel the board is being dominated by anti-modernists. I certainly don't feel invalidated. If some do feel that way I respect their opinion, but it is just their opinion, and again I do not see the relevance to this thread.

Its like Walter from The Big Lebowski always bringing up Vietnam in every conversation - even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> Well, then, clearly the rest of us are that incredibly insignificant.


If the modern-haters I'm talking about aren't the ones you're thinking of then you might need to say who it is that's bothering you - because I'm still confused.


----------



## science

tdc said:


> No one in this thread has said Art Music or anyone else is dominating the board. As far as I recall no one has said anything whatsoever about invalidation or domination in this thread.
> 
> I certainly don't feel the board is being dominated by anti-modernists. I certainly don't feel invalidated. If some do feel that way I respect their opinion, but it is just their opinion, and again I do not see the relevance to this thread.
> 
> Its like Walter from The Big Lebowski always bringing up Vietnam in every conversation - even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Well it has been said, and if it is true then what of all of the people who are participating this project?

Edit: And yes, actually, SimonNZ and nathanb both just said that ArtMusic, of 2425 posts in 27 months, is dominating the board:



SimonNZ said:


> Yes - if one person is persistant, and learns which buttons to push - what gets the best reactions. If they're allowed to continue through a loophole in the ToS





nathanb said:


> And if said person(s) treats it like a full time job... :/





SimonNZ said:


> If the modern-haters I'm talking about aren't the ones you're thinking of then you might need to say who it is that's bothering you - because I'm still confused.


I'm not talking about them. I don't believe you're confused either.

Just since my last vote on this project, nearly two dozen people have voted:

20centrfuge 
Albert7 
brotagonist 
Celloman 
Cygnenoir
dogen 
dzc4627 
GreenMamba 
MagneticGhost 
Mahlerian
Mika 
mmsbls 
MoonlightSonata 
nathanb
Nereffid 
PaulieGatto 
ptr 
Richannes Wrahms 
SeptimalTritone 
SimonNZ 
tdc 
Trout 
Weston

Look at that! That's a "Who's Who" of active talkclassical participants.

What is the list of modern-haters that is so impressive that those people are invalidated to the point that we can declare the board dominated by modern-haters?


----------



## SimonNZ

I don't have a list

You started this and it sounded like you were thinking of a handful of "invalidators" and "dominators"

I still don't know who you mean


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Well it has been said, and if it is true then what of all of the people who are participating this project?
> 
> I'm not talking about them. I don't believe you're confused either.
> 
> Just since my last vote on this project, nearly two dozen people have voted:
> 
> 20centrfuge
> Albert7
> brotagonist
> Celloman
> Cygnenoir
> dogen
> dzc4627
> GreenMamba
> MagneticGhost
> Mahlerian
> Mika
> mmsbls
> MoonlightSonata
> nathanb
> Nereffid
> PaulieGatto
> ptr
> Richannes Wrahms
> SeptimalTritone
> SimonNZ
> tdc
> Trout
> Weston
> 
> Look at that! That's a "Who's Who" of active talkclassical participants.
> 
> What is the list of modern-haters that is so impressive that those people are invalidated to the point that we can declare the board dominated by modern-haters?


I'm afraid there are members here that speak more loudly and bluntly and maliciously than all of us combined


----------



## science

nathanb said:


> I'm afraid there are members here that speak more loudly and bluntly and maliciously than all of us combined


Yes, we don't count. They do; we don't. Even - apparently - _one_ against twenty-three isn't enough.

We, all of us put together, add up in your mind to _zero_.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> I don't have a list
> 
> You started this and it sounded like you were thinking of a handful of "invalidators" and "dominators"
> 
> I still don't know who you mean


I don't know who YOU mean. Who are they? I'm asking YOU.


----------



## SimonNZ

Science: we're pals and I like you...but this has been a completely fruitless and confusing exchange.


----------



## isorhythm

nathanb said:


> I'm afraid there are members here that speak more loudly and bluntly and maliciously than all of us combined


Is this for real? I can't even tell any more.

I respect you and some guy and SimonNZ and the rest but..._come on_.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> Science: we're pals and I like you...but this has been a completely fruitless and confusing exchange.


I know you know what I'm saying, and you don't have to pretend to like me anymore.


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> Well isn't that sweet? You've done more that anyone to wind people up, and now you're telling us to stay positive.
> 
> There's a name for that.


Again I will repeat: "To be able to bear provocation is an argument of great reason, and to forgive it of a great mind."

John Tillotson

And honestly I don't call out names but so far it's only been two people who have been wound up here and considering that one can't please everyone here, that isn't a bad batting average for this thread.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> Is this for real? I can't even tell any more.
> 
> I respect you and some guy and SimonNZ and the rest but..._come on_.


I would rather not names because I've been baited into infractions here and there and would prefer to avoid a temp ban.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

^ Science, I understanding what you're saying, and I apologize and retract my exaggerated statements regarding anti-modernism. You're right, it's just a handful of people, and with the positive voting for Stockhausen, Varese, Xenakis, Cage, etc. we're doing well.

I was merely frustrated (and perhaps overreacted) with the Does Atonal Music Exist thread, where a good amount of people criticized the un-emotionality of the works in the second half of Schoenberg's career. And I was a bit frustrated with the 4'33" thread, where a large number of people called it "not music". I overreacted. I'm sorry.


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> ^ Science, I understanding what you're saying, and I apologize and retract my exaggerated statements regarding anti-modernism. You're right, it's just a handful of people, and with the positive voting for Stockhausen, Varese, Xenakis, Cage, etc. we're doing well.
> 
> I was merely frustrated (and perhaps overreacted) with the Does Atonal Music Exist thread, where a good amount of people criticized the un-emotionality of the works in the second half of Schoenberg's career. And I was a bit frustrated with the 4'33" thread, where a large number of people called it "not music". I overreacted. I'm sorry.


Well, I can see you're saying this with good intentions and I should not respond because I'm furious right now. But at least I can go see this thread that was so impressive that my existence and activities here - and dozens of people much more impressive than I am - were nullified by you, and continue to be nullified by others.

Edit: Looks like we're up to three, which is good news because that means that the rest of us put together probably add up to one. Not two: two would be a fair discussion, but it might be fair to say that three on one is domination. But that is good news because one is a lot more than zero.

I think I'm 1/90th or so of an actual participant here now. So, not entirely nullified. Just reduced considerably. Someone who's really well-spoken and influential - Mahlerian, SimonNZ, some guy, millionrainbows, violadude, or you yourself Septimal - could each count as much as about 7/90ths of an actual participant.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Fair enough. The domination... was grossly exaggerated on my part. It doesn't exist. I'm emphatic: you're quite right and I retract the domination statement.

Frustration can lead people (me) to... stretch reality and inflate things in their mind psychologically. But I see this was a mistake.


----------



## Guest

I have no clue what happened here (or elsewhere?)

The one thing I see is this: one side is obsessed with invalidating. The other side is obsessed with validating, to a defensive extent. An interesting dichotomy, I suppose.


----------



## science

nathanb said:


> I have no clue what happened here (or elsewhere?)


It doesn't matter. It's just a bunch of us nobodies discussing whether our opinions will ever be worth as much as three actual participants.


----------



## mmsbls

science, nathanb, SimonNZ, and SeptimalTritone (and essentially everyone else who votes in this thread) are basically on the "same side". We all love modern/contemporary music and love to talk about it. The difference lies in how we view a very small number of individuals on the forum who do not appreciate modern music as we do and who are vocal about thier distaste. Some find them a serious impediment to fully enjoying TC; whereas, many view them as a minor inconvenience. There are so many wonderful, interesting, fun threads that have no "interference" from those few individuals that I feel I can easily share my enjoyment of modern music with dozens of other members. That's wonderful. 

@science: When you used the term board on this thread, I assumed you were referring to TC and not the Post 1950 thread nominated and seconded board. Is that right? If so, I think that might clear up a little confusion.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> science, nathanb, SimonNZ, and SeptimalTritone (and essentially everyone else who votes in this thread) are basically on the "same side". We all love modern/contemporary music and love to talk about it. The difference lies in how we view a very small number of individuals on the forum who do not appreciate modern music as we do and who are vocal about thier distaste. Some find them a serious impediment to fully enjoying TC; whereas, many view them as a minor inconvenience. There are so many wonderful, interesting, fun threads that have no "interference" from those few individuals that I feel I can easily share my enjoyment of modern music with dozens of other members. That's wonderful.
> 
> @science: When you used the term board on this thread, I assumed you were referring to TC and not the Post 1950 thread nominated and seconded board. Is that right? If so, I think that might clear up a little confusion.


Very good post. Guilty as charged over here, personally.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Very good post. Guilty as charged over here, personally.


I would like to extend an olive branch to you.  Thanks.


----------



## KenOC

Science speaks the truth, for it is _*I*_ who shall dominate this forum and grind beneath my iron-shod heel the legions of worshippers at modernist shrines to pantsless emperors and drive into the outer darkness the tuneless, charmless, and ATONAL (sorry Mahlerian) so-called music of several Viennese composers not worthy of being named. Now please excuse me while I listen to some Schubert.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> Science speaks the truth, for it is _*I*_ who shall dominate this forum and grind beneath my iron-shod heel the legions of worshippers at modernist shrines to pantsless emperors and drive into the outer darkness the tuneless, charmless, and ATONAL (sorry Mahlerian) so-called music of several Viennese composers not worthy of being named. Now please excuse me while I listen to some Schubert.


That was really bold ... it's like waiting for Godot during the late late evening.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> science, nathanb, SimonNZ, and SeptimalTritone (and essentially everyone else who votes in this thread) are basically on the "same side". We all love modern/contemporary music and love to talk about it. The difference lies in how we view a very small number of individuals on the forum who do not appreciate modern music as we do and who are vocal about thier distaste. Some find them a serious impediment to fully enjoying TC; whereas, many view them as a minor inconvenience. There are so many wonderful, interesting, fun threads that have no "interference" from those few individuals that I feel I can easily share my enjoyment of modern music with dozens of other members. That's wonderful.
> 
> @science: When you used the term board on this thread, I assumed you were referring to TC and not the Post 1950 thread nominated and seconded board. Is that right? If so, I think that might clear up a little confusion.


I hope I'm not on a side, but if I am, it is only incidentally pro-modern music. I'm on that side because I like the music, not because I'm against people who don't like the music, even if they give "reasons" for their dislike.

Whether it's WoodDuck, Mahlerian, Sid James, Harpsichord Concerto, some guy... there's a lot of them, I don't intend to be making a full list or anything... I appreciate them for their _knowledge_. HC, whatever else we can say about him, he definitely knew baroque music, and I hope he brings his knowledge back. Same goes with strong language for Sid James. It's good that some guy has brought his knowledge back. It'd be good if PetrB did the same. And others. I don't necessarily want everyone's _attitude_ back - we've got too much attitude by multiple orders of magnitude. I do wish people would be kind to each other. Just be kind. But realistically, I know that kindness is way too much to ask. I know that some people are here _precisely_ in order not to be kind to people who don't like their music. So I'll settle for _tolerance_. Both sides have to accept that the other side _exists_ and _is here_. Because what I care about is the knowledge; everyone's knowledge is great, both side's knowledge is great, and I appreciate it very much.

I don't know, maybe I'm the problem. Maybe I just have to get used to the idea of campaigns to get the other side banned or whatever. Maybe I have to find a new hobby. I don't know. Everything sickens me, and maybe it's not worth it. I can enjoy music all by my own self, maybe.


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> ^ Science, I understanding what you're saying, and I apologize and retract my exaggerated statements regarding anti-modernism. You're right, it's just a handful of people, and with the positive voting for Stockhausen, Varese, Xenakis, Cage, etc. we're doing well.
> 
> I was merely frustrated (and perhaps overreacted) with the Does Atonal Music Exist thread, where a good amount of people criticized the un-emotionality of the works in the second half of Schoenberg's career. And I was a bit frustrated with the 4'33" thread, where a large number of people called it "not music". I overreacted. I'm sorry.


Ok, I'm calmed down now... I can make an actual response.

I don't care whether someone considers Schoenberg's works "unemotional." It doesn't affect me at all. I don't even care whether 4'33" is music.

But I don't know if this is the real you. The real you, I suspect, is the guy who is able to ignore absolutely everyone who enjoys those works just because someone out there doesn't. If the existence of one person who says something supposedly critical about some work of music overrides the existence of dozens of other people who like that work, what does that say about the dozens of people? We need to know this; we need to know where we stand in each other's estimation.

Anyway, it's good that we're both calm again, but I'm not going back from where I've been. I intend to have burned some bridges here. I will not forget, and I don't think anyone else who enjoys modern music should forget, that in your eyes and SimonNZ's eyes and nathanb's eyes, and who knows who else's eyes, we each - even collectively - count only some tiny fraction as much as someone who doesn't like modern music. That is permanent. It's not something to apologize for or whatever. It's something we all should know and remember.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Meanwhile I'm enjoying a cup of hot tea.


----------



## science

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Meanwhile I'm enjoying a cup of hot tea.


Be careful!

There might be a tempest in there too....


----------



## Albert7

Okay I woke at up 4 am because I couldn't sleep at all due to science's monologues.

Was worried about my friend and considering the situation with my spouse yesterday I'm suffering very much from insomnia during my manic phase.

On a positive note, I am pretty excited at the wonderful participation here by everyone involved.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Science, basic psychology says that people make mistakes in estimations of things. And that one of those is overestimation of things that hurt us. That's all. It's no big deal.

For example, when I get rejected by a girl, I'll go for a few days thinking all women are evil and abusive etc. I tend to overreact, in fact, I've been clinically tested on this issue. So, please, don't take the words of a clinically tested overreacter like me with too much weight.


----------



## isorhythm

SeptimalTritone said:


> Science, basic psychology says that people make mistakes in estimations of things. And that one of those is overestimation of things that hurt us. That's all. It's no big deal.


True, but I've never seen this taken to the comical extreme that it is on this forum, where two or three people who don't even post that much are apparently causing severe mental distress just by existing.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Science speaks the truth, for it is _*I*_ who shall dominate this forum and grind beneath my iron-shod heel the legions of worshippers at modernist shrines to pantsless emperors and drive into the outer darkness the tuneless, charmless, and ATONAL (sorry Mahlerian) so-called music of several Viennese composers not worthy of being named. Now please excuse me while I listen to some Schubert.


Here you go:


----------



## hpowders

isorhythm said:


> True, but I've never seen this taken to the comical extreme that it is on this forum, where two or three people who don't even post that much are apparently causing severe mental distress just by existing.


(Digression-Well, in Nazi Germany, the percent of Jews was less than 1% of the total population. One would have thought they were a majority, given the German paranoia. Such severe mental distress just by existing.)


----------



## Nereffid

Oh great, both 4'33" and the Nazis have now been mentioned! Thread's over... _or maybe it's just begun?!_


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Oh great, both 4'33" and the Nazis have now been mentioned! Thread's over... _or maybe it's just begun?!_


4 33 AND the nazis??!! That's like mixing matter and anti-matter.


----------



## KenOC

dogen said:


> 4 33 AND the nazis??!! That's like mixing matter and anti-matter.


There's a real connection. It's not well-known that 4'33" was actually written for the military in 1943. The plan was to play it at a conference of Nazi bigwigs, and they'd start arguing violently back and forth about whether it was really music. Then we could quietly sneak up on them from behind and POW!

Unfortunately, the plane carrying the recording was lost over the Atlantic, so the operation was canceled.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> There's a real connection. It's not well-known that 4'33" was actually written for the military in 1943. The plan was to play it at a conference of Nazi bigwigs, and they'd start arguing violently back and forth about whether it was really music. Then we could quietly sneak up on them from behind and POW!
> 
> Unfortunately, the plane carrying the recording was lost over the Atlantic, so the operation was canceled.


You know, it is possible to watch TOO MUCH Monty Python!


----------



## tdc

isorhythm said:


> True, but I've never seen this taken to the comical extreme that it is on this forum, where two or three people who don't even post that much are apparently causing severe mental distress just by existing.


Ironically it is also just a few other people posting that has caused all the fuss (and apparently mental distress) in this thread.

@science - why is their opinion given so much importance?!

More than all of the other people participating in this project?!


----------



## science

tdc said:


> Ironically it is also just a few other people posting that has caused all the fuss (and apparently mental distress) in this thread.
> 
> @science - why is their opinion given so much importance?!
> 
> More than all of the other people participating in this project?!


That's exactly what I've been asking.


----------



## tdc

science said:


> That's exactly what I've been asking.


Other than yourself, who do you feel is giving their opinions so much importance?

*edit *- For clarity I'm talking about nateb and SimonNZ etc now as that is who I was referring to in post #447


----------



## isorhythm

tdc said:


> Other than yourself, who do you feel is giving their opinions so much importance?


By "them" you mean the people pushing the "TalkClassical threatened by reactionary philistines" narrative, not the alleged philistines themselves, right? I think that's the source of the confusion here.


----------



## SimonNZ

I know we're not meant to name names in discussions like these, but if this doesn't become slightly less ambiguous then its going to go on forever, and the "offenders" will never be able to state their case or realize they should dial it down a bit.


----------



## tdc

isorhythm said:


> By "them" you mean the people pushing the "TalkClassical threatened by reactionary philistines" narrative, not the alleged philistines themselves, right? I think that's the source of the confusion here.


Yes, I'm pointing out the irony that science is accusing a few certain posters of placing too much importance on just a few opinions and over-exaggerating it. This is precisely what science has been doing towards just a few *other* posters (ie - NOT the reactionaries) in this thread.


----------



## Weston

So, about those post 1950s works . . .

Just as an observation, it has become a little more difficult for me to vote. I want to get Cage enshrined, but I'm not so fond of the current top Cage piece (Music of Changes). I'm a little reluctant to vote 4'33' up beyond the other Cage works, though I think its impact has been profound. I am also reluctant to vote for the same works too many times. For some reason I have an aversion to casting the enshrining vote, but that's probably the extreme introvert in control of my hands. 

I think it's time I start mining the lower ranks. I try to listen to two or three per night, but it's slow going. 

The great thing has been discovering so much great music I was unaware of and seeing those I already enjoy in the top ranks.


----------



## isorhythm

I'm having the same problem - I'm unfamiliar with most of the board now, and it will take me quite a lot of listening before I'm able to vote regularly again.

This project has introduced me to at least two new favorites already, Crumb's Black Angels and Ades's Concentric Paths. I look forward to discovering more, but I can't keep up at the moment.


----------



## KenOC

SimonNZ said:


> I know we're not meant to name names in discussions like these, but if this doesn't become slightly less ambiguous then its going to go on forever, and the "offenders" will never be able to state their case or realize they should dial it down a bit.


It's really quite simple. There are a few members here (and we all know who they are) who are pushing an agenda (and we all know what it is) that is deeply offensive to rational, thinking people (and we all know who we are). Hope that clarifies things.


----------



## SimonNZ

For easier reference:

001. Berio: Sinfonia (1968-70)
002. Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
003. Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1955)
004. Messiaen: Des canyons aux étoiles... (1971-4)
005. Rzewski: The People United Will Never be Defeated! (1975)
006. Ligeti: Études pour piano (1985-2001)
007. Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1974-6)
008. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10 in E minor, op. 93 (1953)
009. Górecki: Symphony No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (1976)
010. Crumb: Black Angels (1971)
011. Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-85)
012. Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990)
013. Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)
014. Penderecki: St. Luke Passion (1966)
015. Ligeti: Violin Concerto (1992)
016. Messiaen: Éclairs sur l'au-delà... (1991)
017. Lutoslawski: Symphony No. 3 (1983)
018. Britten: War Requiem (1962)
019. Varèse: Déserts (1950-54)
020. Stravinsky: Threni (1958)
021. Stockhausen: Gruppen (1955-57)
022. Shostakovich: Cello Concerto No. 1 (1959)
023. Stockhausen: LICHT (1977-2003)
024. Pärt: Te Deum (1985)
025. Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1976)
026. Schnittke: Piano Quintet (1972-76)
027. Boulez: Répons (1984)
028. Xenakis: Metastaseis (1953-54)
029. Glass: Einstein on the Beach (1976)
030. Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain (1970)
031. Harvey: Mortuos Plango, Vivos Voco (1980)
032. Feldman: Rothko Chapel (1971)
033. Penderecki: Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (1960)
034. Adams: Nixon in China (1987)
035. Boulez: Anthèmes II (1997)
036. Gubaidulina: Offertorium (1980)
037. Scelsi: Uaxuctum (1969)
038. Andriessen: De Staat (1976)
039. Haas: Limited Approximations (2010)
040. Saariaho: L' Amour de Loin (2000)
041. Shostakovich: Symphony No.15 (1971)
042. Barber: Piano Concerto (1962)
043. Reich: Different Trains (1988)
044. Adès: Concentric Paths (2005)
045. Messiaen: St. François d'Assise (1975-83)
046. Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra (1954)
047. Babbitt: All Set (1957)
048. Haas: String Quartet 3 "In iij. Noct" (2003)
049. Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995/2001)
050. Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 (1960)
051. Ligeti: Piano Concerto (1985-8)


----------



## Albert7

Thanks for the list update... would be ideal for one to two works/composer be in the final round to allow for the most representative and broadest view of post-1950's music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

.....................................Move along, nothing to see here.


----------



## mmsbls

Albert7 said:


> Thanks for the list update... would be ideal for one to two works/composer be in the final round to allow for the most representative and broadest view of post-1950's music.


I'm not sure what you mean by final round. This list doesn't really operate that way. We will continue with the current rules until people want to stop playing. As with the Classical Music Project, we could eventually change rules after a certain number of enshrinements, but presumably that would be a long time from now.

I can't speak for others, but I don't think the intent of this project is necessarily to have the most representative and broadest view of post-1950's music. I think people want to have a list of great post-1950's music, and if some composers have more works than others (or if some have none), so be it.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by final round. This list doesn't really operate that way. We will continue with the current rules until people want to stop playing. As with the Classical Music Project, we could eventually change rules after a certain number of enshrinements, but presumably that would be a long time from now.
> 
> I can't speak for others, but I don't think the intent of this project is necessarily to have the most representative and broadest view of post-1950's music. I think people want to have a list of great post-1950's music, and if some composers have more works than others (or if some have none), so be it.


And let's face it, Stockhausen had dozens of works that would bring Anna Clyne to her knees.


----------



## GreenMamba

I count 34 composers for the first 51 works. That's pretty spread out. Ligeti and Shosty have four each; Boulez and Messaien three each.

I agree with mmsbls. The general Top Symphonies list has something like 12 Beethoven symphonies out of the top 20 total (note: this could be an exaggeration). We're doing a good job spreading it out as is, although there are still plenty of good composers who aren't even seconded yet.


----------



## Albert7

Still wondering why no Cage pieces have risen to the top yet at all for him... need to work to enshrine something by him.


----------



## science

tdc said:


> Yes, I'm pointing out the irony that science is accusing a few certain posters of placing too much importance on just a few opinions and over-exaggerating it. This is precisely what science has been doing towards just a few *other* posters (ie - NOT the reactionaries) in this thread.


I'm not saying that the people who systematically discount everyone who likes modern music dominate the board. I'm not lamenting their existence, ignoring everyone else's, systematically discounting people who don't systematically discount us. In no way does the parallel hold.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> I know we're not meant to name names in discussions like these, but if this doesn't become slightly less ambiguous then its going to go on forever, and the "offenders" will never be able to state their case or realize they should dial it down a bit.


There's no offenders or need for anyone to dial anything down. It's just that I want us all to know exactly where we stand: all of us put together are not as significant in your personal estimation as ArtMusic. One poster, by himself, creating maybe a few threads a day, dominates the board, reduces all of our enthusiasm for modern music to effectively nothing at all. Those are your sentiments, and others', and they infuriate me. I'm glad to know exactly how little you think of us.

My point is that people like ArtMusic do not in fact dominate the board. All of us here, we all count too. If we don't count to you, that's your problem, but in reality, we are here too.

Edit for clarity: I do not intend to imply that SimonNZ, nathanb, or SeptimalTritone are alone in this POV. I think we could think of others, but they have spoken up for it in this thread, and SeptimalTritone has recanted.


----------



## Albert7

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by final round. This list doesn't really operate that way. We will continue with the current rules until people want to stop playing. As with the Classical Music Project, we could eventually change rules after a certain number of enshrinements, but presumably that would be a long time from now.
> 
> I can't speak for others, but I don't think the intent of this project is necessarily to have the most representative and broadest view of post-1950's music. I think people want to have a list of great post-1950's music, and if some composers have more works than others (or if some have none), so be it.


For me, greatness is in every single composer with the exceptions of perhaps Havergal Brian and Kenny G. So basically for me everyone is fair game to be enshrined.


----------



## GreenMamba

Albert7 said:


> Still wondering why no Cage pieces have risen to the top yet at all for him... need to work to enshrine something by him.


I agree with this, and he has two pieces close. I think if the Sonatas for Prepared Piano were eligible, they would have gone in already.


----------



## science

I guess some people are upset about Shostakovich getting so many enshrinements. It was the same with Beethoven at the beginning of the regular project. But once those things are out of the way, things diversify. The existence of 4 enshrinements by Shostakovich does not nullify the other dozens of enshrinements by more orthodox composers.


----------



## science

GreenMamba said:


> I agree with this, and he has two pieces close. I think if the Sonatas for Prepared Piano were eligible, they would have gone in already.


433 really ought to be the top of the list, IMO.


----------



## GreenMamba

science said:


> I guess some people are upset about Shostakovich getting so many enshrinements. It was the same with Beethoven at the beginning of the regular project. But once those things are out of the way, things diversify. The existence of 4 enshrinements by Shostakovich does not nullify the other dozens of enshrinements by more orthodox composers.


More orthodox, or less orthodox?


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> More orthodox, or less orthodox?


Actually I don't think that Shostabear is that orthodox always...

In fact I find Ginastera a lot more conservative than Shostabear.


----------



## science

GreenMamba said:


> More orthodox, or less orthodox?


I considered "licit" but figured the irony was too good to pass.

"Less," I'd say, because obviously the orthodoxy is that orthodoxy is bad, so the orthodox are the unorthodox, and the unorthodox are the orthodox, no matter which way you look at it.

I have an analogous paradox. My most unconventional idea is that I really should strive to be conventional. Not only despite but largely because of my efforts to be conventional, I remain very unconventional.


----------



## isorhythm

Surely "orthodox," in this context, means in keeping with the thinking of those who started the project and who _dominate_ the voting - not to mention that of all serious writers on classical music after 1950.

Context is important!


----------



## science

isorhythm said:


> Surely "orthodox," in this context, means in keeping with the thinking of those who started the project and who _dominate_ the voting - not to mention that of all serious writers on classical music after 1950.
> 
> Context is important!


Yes, I think it's pretty clear: Shosty lived in a world of Cage, Babbitt, Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen, prog rock, free jazz, noise music, and disco. By composing music almost as if 1935 were perpetual, he was the unorthodox one.


----------



## tdc

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


----------



## tdc

science said:


> I'm not saying that the people who systematically discount everyone who likes modern music dominate the board. I'm not lamenting their existence, ignoring everyone else's, systematically discounting people who don't systematically discount us. In no way does the parallel hold.


I think what you are doing to ONE poster by singling them out in this way is very much the same type of thing you are accusing them of doing to just ONE person. The ideologies might be different, but the actions are very much alike. The only reason you see it as different is because you agree with your own ideology therefore see your action as justified.


----------



## science

tdc said:


> I think what you are doing to ONE poster by singling them out in this way is very much the same type of thing you are accusing them of doing to just ONE person. The ideologies might be different, but the actions are very much alike. The only reason you see it as different is because you agree with your own ideology therefore see your action as justified.


I didn't intend to single out one poster.

And I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything to just one person.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> There's no offenders or need for anyone to dial anything down. It's just that I want us all to know exactly where we stand: *all of us put together are not as significant in your personal estimation as ArtMusic*. One poster, by himself, creating maybe a few threads a day, dominates the board, reduces all of our enthusiasm for modern music to effectively nothing at all. Those are your sentiments, and others', and they infuriate me. I'm glad to know exactly how little you think of us.


If this is what you think I think then you haven't been paying attention.

I'd like these few people to stop derailing and subverting conversations so that the people I can actually learn from and admire or enjoy - the people I think are "significant" if you must use that term, though I'd rather not - can continue their discussion, or will join the discussion or will stay on the discussion.

But somehow the few I care least about are allowed to continue to bring the tone down, through what I see as a loophole in the ToS. It may not seem that way, but a great amount of the time i actually bite my tongue, on certain issues or after a certain quantity though it becomes more difficult.

But I've actually said this many times, and even directly to you before. I don't know how it is that we're talking past each other, but it seems we are.


----------



## SimonNZ

Something else occurs to me which may help:

Why make so much fuss over one disruptive poster? Because I'm thinking of the next one and the one after that and the one after that.

And if we highlight the problem with this one then maybe *a precedent* can be set that makes it easier and quicker to deal with them in the future so we can get on with the more important business of each of us conversing with those posters that each of us actually wants to hear from.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> If this is what you think I think then you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> I'd like these few people to stop derailing and subverting conversations so that the people I can actually learn from and admire or enjoy - the people I think are "significant" if you must use that term, though I'd rather not - can continue their discussion, or will join the discussion or will stay on the discussion.
> 
> But somehow the few I care least about are allowed to continue to bring the tone down, through what I see as a loophole in the ToS. It may not seem that way, but a great amount of the time i actually bite my tongue, on certain issues or after a certain quantity though it becomes more difficult.
> 
> But I've actually said this many times, and even directly to you before. I don't know how it is that we're talking past each other, but it seems we are.


I've understood well enough.

It's too bad things haven't been better but there's no harm in honesty at this point. Anyway, you post great stuff in the current listening thread. I've learned a lot from you there, and in other threads of course, and I've sincerely appreciated that.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> 433 really ought to be the top of the list, IMO.


I don't want to start something, but...I actually feel it has no place on the list.

I mean: this is going to be a list of works you should hear first, a list of works we recommend to those who don't know contemporary, and a list of works we all love playing.

Are you really going to say "before you play Berio you must hear 4'33" "?

And I say this as someone who has no particular problem either way with the "is it music" bruhaha"

But now: does it make any sense at all if it ends up being number 83, in between, say, Unsuk Chin and Ginastera?

On the other hand...meh, whatever. I wont care that much.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> I don't want to start something, but...I actually feel it has no place on the list.
> 
> I mean: this is going to be a list of works you should hear first, a list of works we recommend to those who don't know contemporary, and a list of works we all love playing.
> 
> Are you really going to say "before you play Berio you must hear 4'33" "?
> 
> And I say this as someone who has no particular problem either way with the "is it music" bruhaha"
> 
> But now: does it make any sense at all if it ends up being number 83, in between, say, Unsuk Chin and Ginastera?
> 
> On the other hand...meh, whatever. I wont care that much.


I only mean to acknowledge the importance it seems to have culturally, perhaps nowhere more than on this board


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> I only mean to acknowledge the importance it seems to have culturally, perhaps nowhere more than on this board


Sure, I get that.

But "Top Recommended" means its a work you'd recommend someone listen to.

And _before_ they listen to a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## Nereffid

SimonNZ said:


> Are you really going to say "before you play Berio you must hear 4'33" "?


Forgive me, but seeing as this is a voting system that relies on individuals making up their own minds, then you have to allow for the possibility that people _will_ say that. And if it turns out that's a general view, you're just going to have to grin and bear it.


----------



## SimonNZ

It was a question not a statement.

And my "grin and bear it", as I said, will be "meh, whatever"


----------



## science

But maybe I actually _would_ recommend listening to 4'33"! Even perhaps as one's very first post-WWII work. There is a lot to say for it, from the POV of historical and cultural importance, as well as philosophically... and maybe even musically. Even _if_ it's not music (a question that I don't think is actually worth anyone's time).


----------



## GioCar

A short question (off the 4'33" topic)

Am I the only one who deliberately chose never to vote for his/her own nominated works?
I know the rules allow to do that, but I find there is much more fun and pleasure to see your own favorites climbing the the list without your own votes.


----------



## tdc

GioCar said:


> A short question (off the 4'33" topic)
> 
> Am I the only one who deliberately chose never to vote for his/her own nominated works?
> I know the rules allow to do that, but I find there is much more fun and pleasure to see your own favorites climbing the the list without your own votes.


After years of participating in the other CMP, I just became accustomed to the way of participants voting for their own (nominated) works. I think if a work is good enough for someone to second and if someone loves it enough to take time out of their day continually to keep voting for it - it deserves to make the list. I just prefer people being able to actually vote for the works they enjoy the most.

In answer to your question, no - I think there are several voters playing who don't vote for their own nominations. Personally I would love to see Weston giving his Gubaidulina nom some votes on occasion, and SimonNZ helping to enshrine Dillon's 9 Rivers - because our voting pool is rather small I see the not voting for ones own nomination thing as being maybe overly polite and a little unnecessary - however, I do respect one's opinion if they feel otherwise, I just think others voting choices should also be respected.


----------



## tdc

I think what can be problematic is _how_ people use their votes. I don't advocate pushing any work through - or only voting for 2 or 3 things regardless of whether it is a person's own nomination or someone else.


----------



## ptr

I say, use what ever vote strategy feels good to You! To me, the more variation of voters a work get the more legitimate it is in this context in the long run! 

/ptr


----------



## Guest

I think we discussed this on page 6,548.

I assumed not to vote for my own nominations. But then it was said it was OK to do this, but maybe not "power vote" it to enshrinement. So in an effort to please everyone and hence probably displease everyone, I vote for my nominations occasionally. (If no one else voted for them I wouldn't, I would withdraw it).

It's an etiquette minefield out there.


----------



## Weston

GioCar said:


> A short question (off the 4'33" topic)
> 
> Am I the only one who deliberately chose never to vote for his/her own nominated works?
> I know the rules allow to do that, but I find there is much more fun and pleasure to see your own favorites climbing the the list without your own votes.


I don't think I have voted for any of mine. Sometimes I wish I would, but there is so much other good stuff on the seconded list, I'm not that driven or passionate about my own (two) nominations that are receiving at least some desultory support.


----------



## Albert7

Reading more of this this morning makes me want to eat more of my Lucky Charms.

And again people are spending more arguing about the voting process rather than educating folks here about the pieces in question. It scares anyone off from wanting to hear the stuff.

This reminds me of the times that I watch the British Parliament or US Congress on TV. Too many people are interested in bickering because a bunch of frat guys want to make things here a p******* match.

*NOTE*: NOT A *SINGLE FEMALE* PARTICIPANT ON TALKCLASSICAL FORUM HAS VOTED WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE. AND WE GUYS TRYING TO SHOW OFF ARE SCARING AWAY LADIES FROM PARTICIPATING FROM THIS POLL. Think about this, guys.


----------



## Nereffid

Albert7 said:


> Reading more of this this morning makes me want to eat more of my Lucky Charms.
> 
> And again people are spending more arguing about the voting process rather than educating folks here about the pieces in question. It scares anyone off from wanting to hear the stuff.
> 
> This reminds me of the times that I watch the British Parliament or US Congress on TV. Too many people are interested in bickering because a bunch of frat guys want to make things here a p******* match.
> 
> *NOTE*: NOT A *SINGLE FEMALE* PARTICIPANT ON TALKCLASSICAL FORUM HAS VOTED WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE. AND WE GUYS TRYING TO SHOW OFF ARE SCARING AWAY LADIES FROM PARTICIPATING FROM THIS POLL. Think about this, guys.


Come on, do you really think the "ladies" are being _scared away_ by the d!ck-measuring or whatever you want to call these current antics?
IIRC there hasn't been much female participation in recent (friendlier) voting threads, and I'm fairly sure the gender balance on TC is skewed quite male-wards anyway. On a hunch I'd say that in "modern" music it's even more so, but I've no evidence for that.

On the gender balance of the current list, I think if you're looking back as far as 1951 it's inevitably going to be very heavily male-dominated. Some statistics I've seen online suggest that if we were looking at female representation _right now_ we might expect about 15% female to 85% male. Factor in several decades of worse representation, and that number will drop significantly - I reckon it's about 4.5% female to 95.5% male among all works nominated.
So if the thread were a discussion about the music of today, yes, one might expect far more female representation. But for a popularity contest covering 65 years it's not a surprising result.

Finally, as for people spending time arguing about the voting process, my own view is that that's because the voting process is very much _debatable_ (to be polite). If the voting process were sound there'd be no need for arguing.

P.S. Also, I'm not sure if an online signature that refers to judging the ugliness of girlfriends is necessarily very welcoming to the "ladies"?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Albert7 said:


> Reading more of this this morning makes me want to eat more of my Lucky Charms.
> 
> *And again people are spending more arguing about the voting process rather than educating folks here about the pieces in question. It scares anyone off from wanting to hear the stuff.*
> 
> *NOTE*: NOT A *SINGLE FEMALE* PARTICIPANT ON TALKCLASSICAL FORUM HAS VOTED WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE. AND WE GUYS TRYING TO SHOW OFF ARE SCARING AWAY LADIES FROM PARTICIPATING FROM THIS POLL. Think about this, guys.


SimonNZ repeatedly made that very point, explaining to you that this is what this voting project is all about. It's about educating, getting to know new works, etc. Yet you kept going on about "social constructs", "there is no best", "it isn't a boxing match", "voting for women just because they're women" (read: tokenism). The "scaring off" from this entire process has not been from other people, I'm afraid.

Here's one of the many posts SimonNZ made:



SimonNZ said:


> The whole of TC is to educate people, the point here is to suggest which works they might want to listen to _first_ - ie, which works are considered through consensus to be _better._. The list will serve as a gateway for those unfamiliar with contemporary - or would if you weren't constantly messing with he process, against widespread and very vocal criticism.


As for "scaring the ladies away", may I ask what you're talking about? Where is that coming from? Why is this even a thing? When and how did gender become entangled in voting for post-1950 classical pieces? How has _anyone_ scared off any ladies? I'm sincerely confused.

Please don't reply with a random quote, I don't think I can handle that right now.


----------



## Blancrocher

It's probably not a good time to be nominating new works (I, anyways, would like to see the list at about half the current length before we made more additions!), but I wondered if anyone felt there were serious deficiencies. 

Instruments? Electronics, organ, and harpsichord seem under-represented, for example. 

There are some composers I love listening to who haven't appeared (unless I've forgotten, which is easily possible), including Lou Harrison, Wuorinen, Magnus Lindberg, and George Benjamin. To say nothing of masters from an older generation like William Walton, some of whose best works appeared well after 1950. 

I notice dogen has started a spectralism thread. Maybe links to handy threads like that one would be useful here.


----------



## Guest

I think the list is pretty darned big too! I know very few composers but even with scant knowledge I'm not going to nominate while it's so humungous (Norgard, seeing as you ask). A bit of prior discussion by interested parties might indeed be beneficial (to weigh up which works to nom).


----------



## GreenMamba

Blancrocher,

I'm kind of surprised Tippett hasn't been nominated, although I'm not the guy to lead the charge for him. Generally, my perception is that more recent conservative composers are having a tough time. Shostakovich is well represented, Poulenc, Britten. I see them as 'carry overs' from early in the century (same could be said of Stravinsky and Varese, but they are very different). 

Henze isn't getting much traction. MacMillan and Davies, a number of American composers, etc. But I am not great at judging composer "importance" or even popularity.

I plan to throw Harry Partch into the mix. Someone mentioned Oliveras above. Lejaren Hiller? Luc Ferrari? Computer stuff. 

Opera is a difficulty, but we have a few enshrined. It's really hard for me to vote for an opera I wasn't already familiar with just due to the length.


----------



## GreenMamba

dogen said:


> I think the list is pretty darned big too! I know very few composers but even with scant knowledge *I'm not going to nominate while it's so humungous *(Norgard, seeing as you ask). A bit of prior discussion by interested parties might indeed be beneficial (to weigh up which works to nom).


I understand (I still have only ever nominated three works), but the problem is other people jump in with new noms. It might never shrink. And a new nomination today won't likely be near the top 100.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> I understand (I still have only ever nominated three works), but the problem is other people jump in with new noms. It might never shrink. And a new nomination today won't likely be near the top 100.


Oh OK. I personally wouldn't view the enshrined list as being one of descending significance or whatever.


----------



## Guest

For the record, I've been hearing a lot of "Is this even happening?" lately from every little thing I point out. The answer is, whether it's a problem or not, *yes*, I do point out things that are actually happening.

For instance, the lack of consensus and this idea of "power-voting". Using the handy search function, I have determined that *14 of 17 votes* for the work by Anna Clyne have come from one voter. I'm a lot of bad things, but in this particular case, a liar is not one of them. I could run a similar search on other works, if need be.


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Oh OK. I personally wouldn't view the enshrined list as being one of descending significance or whatever.


Go ahead with Norgard 

And fyi, we've already determined that nomination order is of no consequence. I quickly made my four nominations when this project started, and only afterwards did I nominate Saariaho's _L'Amour De Loin_, and that thing powered through quicker than any of my others...


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Albert7 said:


> Reading more of this this morning makes me want to eat more of my Lucky Charms.
> 
> And again people are spending more arguing about the voting process rather than educating folks here about the pieces in question. It scares anyone off from wanting to hear the stuff.
> 
> This reminds me of the times that I watch the British Parliament or US Congress on TV. Too many people are interested in bickering because a bunch of frat guys want to make things here a p******* match.
> 
> *NOTE*: NOT A *SINGLE FEMALE* PARTICIPANT ON TALKCLASSICAL FORUM HAS VOTED WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE. AND WE GUYS TRYING TO SHOW OFF ARE SCARING AWAY LADIES FROM PARTICIPATING FROM THIS POLL. Think about this, guys.


You say, "not a single".... as a matter of fact, at least one (Becca) has voted, though admittedly she voted only once.
Also, how do you know who is male and who is female? I have no doubt inadvertently hinted towards my gender, but I don't believe I ever specifically said. Most usernames are androgynous, so you can't tell that way.
And Albert, "we are scaring off the ladies"? What makes you think that this thread is so terrifying to women? If a grown woman is scared of it, how come I, a child with a highly nervous disposition, don't find it remotely threatening?


----------



## Blancrocher

GreenMamba said:


> Blancrocher,
> 
> I'm kind of surprised Tippett hasn't been nominated, although I'm not the guy to lead the charge for him. Generally, my perception is that more recent conservative composers are having a tough time. Shostakovich is well represented, Poulenc, Britten. I see them as 'carry overs' from early in the century (same could be said of Stravinsky and Varese, but they are very different).
> 
> Henze isn't getting much traction. MacMillan and Davies, a number of American composers, etc. But I am not great at judging composer "importance" or even popularity.
> 
> I plan to throw Harry Partch into the mix. Someone mentioned Oliveras above. Lejaren Hiller? Luc Ferrari? Computer stuff.
> 
> Opera is a difficulty, but we have a few enshrined. It's really hard for me to vote for an opera I wasn't already familiar with just due to the length.


Yeah, operas are tricky for length reasons--though it would be nice to get some exposure for them. I may nominate Eotvos' "Three Sisters" at some point, which is sufficiently bizarre to stand out from the tradition; I'd love to see it live at some point. Given all the chatter about Written on Skin, I'm surprised that's not in there already--or maybe it is? :lol:

A short clip from 3 Sisters: 




Agreed on Tippett, who I think is a master, though it's hard for me to come up with a single standout work. His piano sonatas are pretty hard-wired in me, though that's probably an idiosyncratic preference. I recently ordered a copy of the Concerto for Double Stringed Orchestra (on a recommendation from TalkingHead) that could be a good initial choice.

Curious to know if anyone else is into Dillon's "Book of Elements."


----------



## ptr

Blancrocher said:


> Yeah, operas are tricky for length reasons--though it would be nice to get some exposure for them. I may nominate Eotvos' "Three Sisters" at some point, which is sufficiently bizarre to stand out from the tradition; I'd love to see it live at some point. Given all the chatter about Written on Skin, I'm surprised that's not in there already--or maybe it is? :lol:
> 
> A short clip from 3 Sisters:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed on Tippett, who I think is a master, though it's hard for me to come up with a single standout work. His piano sonatas are pretty hard-wired in me, though that's probably an idiosyncratic preference. I recently ordered a copy of the Concerto for Double Stringed Orchestra (on a recommendation from TalkingHead) that could be a good initial choice.
> 
> Curious to know if anyone else is into Dillon's "Book of Elements."


My next nomination will probably be a work by Eötvös, I'm ambivalent about Tippett (Love his fourth symphony. a possible nom from me) and adore "Book of Elements.", but still feel that the seconded list is to long and unmanageable!

/ptr


----------



## tdc

I agree about the list being much too long right now, however I feel another composer that needs representation is Mauricio Kagel. I'm wondering what pieces of his would get the most support, perhaps one of the String Quartets? Music for Renaissance Instruments?


----------



## Albert7

By the way, not voting for works I haven't heard yet either in full or excerpt form. I'm trying hard to hear more and more everyday but hard to keep up!

Stress.


----------



## Weston

I'm finding chamber works underrepresented. I confess I haven't counted them. It just feels that way. I'd like to have joined dogen in voting up the Kurtag, but those 12 Microludes haven't done much for me yet. Maybe I need more than two listens. I haven't heard the No. 3 quartet yet.


----------



## Blancrocher

Weston said:


> I'm finding chamber works underrepresented. I confess I haven't counted them. It just feels that way. I'd like to have joined dogen in voting up the Kurtag, but those 12 Microludes haven't done much for me yet. Maybe I need more than two listens. I haven't heard the No. 3 quartet yet.


A quick count gives 9 enshrined chamber works, plus a few pieces for solo piano. So about a fifth of the total even if I missed one or two. I don't know all the pieces in the 2nded list, but the proportion seems similar, which I guess isn't really surprising since orchestral works always predominate on "greatest" lists.

Berio is one composer who should probably figure prominently for his chamber works. I'd recommend grouping his Sequenze and Chemins together as single "works," btw, though I'm willing to defer to the majority.

Could also be a convenient way to fit Kagel in, who has lots of nice chamber music.

p.s. Here are some other possibilities, though not all of them are post-1950:

http://www.talkclassical.com/21929-modern-chamber-music.html

Some especially convenient posts from PetrB.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Blancrocher said:


> A quick count gives 9 enshrined chamber works, plus a few pieces for solo piano. So about a fifth of the total even if I missed one or two. I don't know all the pieces in the 2nded list, but the proportion seems similar, which I guess isn't really surprising since orchestral works always predominate on "greatest" lists.
> 
> Berio is one composer who should probably figure prominently for his chamber works. I'd recommend grouping his Sequenze and Chemins together as single "works," btw, though I'm willing to defer to the majority.
> 
> Could also be a convenient way to fit Kagel in, who has lots of nice chamber music.
> 
> p.s. Here are some other possibilities, though not all of them are post-1950:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/21929-modern-chamber-music.html
> 
> Some especially convenient posts from PetrB.


Are the Sequenze not on the board yet?! I'll nominate it unless someone else does first.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

MoonlightSonata said:


> Are the Sequenze not on the board yet?! I'll nominate it unless someone else does first.


I will happily support your nomination!


----------



## Guest

Albert7
You voted 9 minutes early so now you are not allowed to listen to any hip-hop for 9 days.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

dogen said:


> Albert7
> You voted 9 minutes early so now you are not allowed to listen to any hip-hop for 9 days.


Ah, then you'll forgive me if I vote several hours early...


----------



## GreenMamba

tdc said:


> I agree about the list being much too long right now, however I feel another composer that needs representation is Mauricio Kagel. I'm wondering what pieces of his would get the most support, perhaps one of the String Quartets? Music for Renaissance Instruments?


Renaissance Instruments would be a very good choice, I think. I also like Anagrama.

He seems to be a tough one to encompass in one work.


----------



## tdc

GreenMamba said:


> Renaissance Instruments would be a very good choice, I think. I also like Anagrama.
> 
> He seems to be a tough one to encompass in one work.


Indeed. Good to know there are other supporters here, I've used up all my nominations at the moment, but when one opens up I'll nominate one of the mentioned works, or second if someone else nominates one.


----------



## GreenMamba

I have a nom I can do any time. I may preempt you. There are a couple more I really want to do, but Sciarrino is mine as well and he's in the hunt. I just don't want to get stuck with no noms fir a long stretch.


----------



## Mahlerian

How could I have forgotten that Stravinsky's Neoclassical opera The Rake's Progress was actually finished in 1951????


----------



## Albert7

I still have my 4 pieces in the queue and sadly enough I can't enter anymore nominations any time soon. 

On the positive side, I think that I heard the first 30 enshrined pieces already apart from LICHT. So proud.


----------



## Weston

Holy smokes! I've worked my way down to the Grisey _Quatre chants pour franchir le seuil_ (going roughly in descending vote order). At first I thought, "Oh great, more avant garde pretentious embarrassing vocal griping," but when I heard some of the unwavering tones of the soprano, Catherine Dubosc, and the way the other instruments come in and perform mini-duet harmonies with her, I was sold.


----------



## GreenMamba

Enshrined works by decade (using final year for those with ranges):

1950s *10*
1960s *7*
1970s *15*
1980s *12*
1990s *5*
2000s *6*
2010s *1*


----------



## ptr

^^Not a very surprising spread of decades IMHO, well, the 60's lagging behind somewhat is slightly worrying! 

/ptr


----------



## Becca

GreenMamba said:


> Blancrocher,
> 
> I'm kind of surprised Tippett hasn't been nominated, although I'm not the guy to lead the charge for him. Generally, my perception is that more recent conservative composers are having a tough time. Shostakovich is well represented, Poulenc, Britten. I see them as 'carry overs' from early in the century (same could be said of Stravinsky and Varese, but they are very different).


I corrected the Tippett oversight yesterday. As to conservative composers, I am making it my job to add some to the list - Theofanidas, Higdon and a few others yet to come


----------



## Becca

Regarding the comments about female participation, I can think of a lot of different things to say about that, both generally and specific to this thread, but there is no point in it (at least not here.) Rest assured that there is a LOT of interesting observations that can be deduced from usernames, avatars, posts, etc., etc.


----------



## SimonNZ

Becca said:


> Regarding the comments about female participation, I can think of a lot of different things to say about that, both generally and specific to this thread, but there is no point in it (at least not here.) Rest assured that there is a LOT of interesting observations that can be deduced from usernames, avatars, posts, etc., etc.


I'd be very interested in reading your thoughts on all that (and those of others) if there was a place for it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Do we have any Gubaidulina nominated yet? Just wonderin in case Offertorium or her Viola Concerto is yet to come...I would happily support any of those works.

and hey, what about Sculthorpe? I wonder if he would get a place on the list, I hope he does! If I nominate one of his works, which should it be and would people vote for it?


----------



## SimonNZ

Offertorium is enshrined at No.36

The Viola concerto is nominated and currently on 26 points


Probably a good time to post this here again:

001. Berio: Sinfonia (1968-70)
002. Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
003. Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1955)
004. Messiaen: Des canyons aux étoiles... (1971-4)
005. Rzewski: The People United Will Never be Defeated! (1975)
006. Ligeti: Études pour piano (1985-2001)
007. Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1974-6)
008. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10 in E minor, op. 93 (1953)
009. Górecki: Symphony No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (1976)
010. Crumb: Black Angels (1971)
011. Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-85)
012. Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990)
013. Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)
014. Penderecki: St. Luke Passion (1966)
015. Ligeti: Violin Concerto (1992)
016. Messiaen: Éclairs sur l'au-delà... (1991)
017. Lutoslawski: Symphony No. 3 (1983)
018. Britten: War Requiem (1962)
019. Varèse: Déserts (1950-54)
020. Stravinsky: Threni (1958)
021. Stockhausen: Gruppen (1955-57)
022. Shostakovich: Cello Concerto No. 1 (1959)
023. Stockhausen: LICHT (1977-2003)
024. Pärt: Te Deum (1985)
025. Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1976)
026. Schnittke: Piano Quintet (1972-76)
027. Boulez: Répons (1984)
028. Xenakis: Metastaseis (1953-54)
029. Glass: Einstein on the Beach (1976)
030. Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain (1970)
031. Harvey: Mortuos Plango, Vivos Voco (1980)
032. Feldman: Rothko Chapel (1971)
033. Penderecki: Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (1960)
034. Adams: Nixon in China (1987)
035. Boulez: Anthèmes II (1997)
036. Gubaidulina: Offertorium (1980)
037. Scelsi: Uaxuctum (1969)
038. Andriessen: De Staat (1976)
039. Haas: Limited Approximations (2010)
040. Saariaho: L' Amour de Loin (2000)
041. Shostakovich: Symphony No.15 (1971)
042. Barber: Piano Concerto (1962)
043. Reich: Different Trains (1988)
044. Adès: Concentric Paths (2005)
045. Messiaen: St. François d'Assise (1975-83)
046. Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra (1954)
047. Babbitt: All Set (1957)
048. Haas: String Quartet 3 "In iij. Noct" (2003)
049. Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995/2001)
050. Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 (1960)
051. Ligeti: Piano Concerto (1985-8)
052. Xenakis: Persepolis (1971)
053. Nono: La lontananza nostalgica utopica futura (1988)
054. Vasks: Violin Concert, 'Distant Light' (1997)
055. Cage: Music of Changes (1951)
056. Pärt: Tabula Rasa (1977)
057. Murail: Gondwana (1980)
058. Adams: The Dharma at Big Sur (2003)


----------



## GreenMamba

Sculthorpe was on my list of possible noms. Was thinking about Earth Cry or Kakadu. But I have no nominations now.


----------



## Becca

FWIW... There are currently 109 items in the seconded list. Given the limit of 4 per person, that implies 28 members active on the thread which seems a bit high to me. While I can see the reason for limiting the number of nominations to keep the list to a manageable length, I think that it limits the diversity of the list. Of more concern to me is how votes are inflated by repetitive voting for a given work by a small number of people.


----------



## GreenMamba

109 works is the reason we wanted the limit. The list becomes unwieldy, and the limit if four is supposed to get people thinking hard before nominating. We don't currently have 28 members, but we've lost some along the way.

I do agree about repetitive voting and insufficuent diversity. Raising the four piece limit probably would not fix either of these, however.


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> Regarding the comments about female participation, I can think of a lot of different things to say about that, both generally and specific to this thread, but there is no point in it (at least not here.) Rest assured that there is a LOT of interesting observations that can be deduced from usernames, avatars, posts, etc., etc.


On another forum several posters had decided incorrectly as to my gender, which sometimes was made apparent by their posts. I let it run awhile before correcting them!

I too would be interested in your comments. (In fact I'll start a thread in Community for just such an occasion) thusness:

http://www.talkclassical.com/38052-gender-member-blender.html


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> FWIW... There are currently 109 items in the seconded list. Given the limit of 4 per person, that implies 28 members active on the thread


Speaking as a straw poll of one; I only have 2 on the board and that is all I have had.

It's too big for my small brain !!!!


----------



## Weston

I only have three on the board and I'm considering withdrawing the Ginastera PC which is going nowhere. I thought there might be one or two Emerson, Lake and Palmer fans around, but I suppose that is irrelevant. *If there are no objections I can retract it.*

Maybe there ought to be a group way to way to cull the list. One negative vote every so often? I'm sure this has been tried and discussed at length elsewhere though.


----------



## Weston

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Do we have any Gubaidulina nominated yet? Just wonderin in case Offertorium or her Viola Concerto is yet to come...I would happily support any of those works.





SimonNZ said:


> Offertorium is enshrined at No.36
> 
> The Viola concerto is nominated and currently on 26 points


The Canticle of the Sun (Sonnengesang) is an "also ran" at currently 22.


----------



## Blancrocher

Weston said:


> I only have three on the board and I'm considering withdrawing the Ginastera PC which is going nowhere. I thought there might be one or two Emerson, Lake and Palmer fans around, but I suppose that is irrelevant. *If there are no objections I can retract it.*
> 
> Maybe there ought to be a group way to way to cull the list. One negative vote every so often? I'm sure this has been tried and discussed at length elsewhere though.


I've got 4 nominations that can be used. How many "likes" are they worth to you?


----------



## Guest

Weston said:


> I only have three on the board and I'm considering withdrawing the Ginastera PC which is going nowhere. I thought there might be one or two Emerson, Lake and Palmer fans around, but I suppose that is irrelevant. *If there are no objections I can retract it.*
> 
> Maybe there ought to be a group way to way to cull the list. One negative vote every so often? I'm sure this has been tried and discussed at length elsewhere though.


With such a large list stuff is bound to sit on the shelf. I think we need the go-ahead to self-cull! I'd remove my lesser kurtag.

(PS I'm an ELP fan, but that isn't enough!)


----------



## GreenMamba

Weston said:


> I only have three on the board and I'm considering withdrawing the Ginastera PC which is going nowhere. I thought there might be one or two Emerson, Lake and Palmer fans around, but I suppose that is irrelevant. *If there are no objections I can retract it.*
> 
> Maybe there ought to be a group way to way to cull the list. One negative vote every so often? I'm sure this has been tried and discussed at length elsewhere though.


I was pondering the idea of giving every work a -1 or -2 once every two weeks or so. No individual voting. This would weed out the lower ones, rising tide style. However, I'm not sure how it would work with pieces that were just seconded.

The individual -1 voting wouldn't cull the list, as most would target works that they think are getting too much love. And it could potentially cause hard feelings.

Ginastera PC: someone else must have voted for it. Would that person care? Anyway, I'm more worried about people who want to free up a nomination. Maybe there's some great work we're missing because of it.


----------



## GreenMamba

dogen said:


> With such a large list stuff is bound to sit on the shelf. I think we need the go-ahead to self-cull! I'd remove my lesser Kurtag.


No! To me, that's a perfect example of a work that I'd support once Greater Kurtag goes through. This is the way I vote.

I seconded the Sandstrom piece and would be OK if the nominator dropped that (it's stuck in two points). In sone instances, the nominator may no longer be involved.


----------



## Guest

OK no problem. I guess I'm unsure where the cull threshold is!

Really enjoying the Kagel piece; listened to it a lot. Totally not what the title suggests. Reminds me of This Heat out on a limb...


----------



## SimonNZ

Perhaps if a work has been below x number of points for more than x number of weeks...?

Say...less than ten points for more than four weeks?


But I have no strong feelings about this and will roll with the consensus.

I'm more concerned about the two or three inevitable enshrinements in the nearish future that are going to be almost exclusively the result of one voter. Prepare to sigh and roll your eyes as my gripeing becomes ever more tiresome and persistant when those happen.


----------



## mmsbls

SimonNZ said:


> I'm more concerned about the two or three inevitable enshrinements in the nearish future that are going to be almost exclusively the result of one voter. Prepare to sigh and roll your eyes as my gripeing becomes ever more tiresome and persistant when those happen.


Are there really 3 works that could be enshrined soon that a single person has voted > ~ 75% of the points? I haven't kept track of the personal voting, but that surprises me. The -1 feature in the first part of the Classical Music Project was quite helpful in ordering the works as a group effort.


----------



## tortkis

I voted for one or two works which seem being power-voted by one member, but honestly, I am very uncomfortable seeing them enshrined in such a way...


----------



## GreenMamba

mmsbls said:


> Are there really 3 works that could be enshrined soon that a single person has voted > ~ 75% of the points? I haven't kept track of the personal voting, but that surprises me. The -1 feature in the first part of the Classical Music Project was quite helpful in ordering the works as a group effort.


The -1 could also lead to tit-for-tat fights between various factions. My impression is that none of the works that are in the top 10 have been power voted, but that could change fast.

Maybe just a rule that you can't enshrine your own works would have helped. But would the work road block others?


----------



## Trout

Well so far only one work that I know of has been power-voted in: Babbitt's _All Set_ with 27 points out of 43 from one member alone. So far, that same member has put 20 out of 23 points into a work currently on the board (one which he nominated himself) which will place well within the top 100 if his pace continues. He also comprises 13 of 30 points in another work (also his nomination), but he has given that piece its last 10 points, voting for it in each of his last 5 votes which all occurred within the last 48 hours. So we will probably see it enshrined in the next few days at this pace.

Another interesting feature about his votes is that they are all almost _exactly_ 9 hours apart (many of his votes are to the precise minute), meaning he is able to fit in an extra third vote during the day in which most can only register two. So in this sense, his power-voting carries even more power than anyone else if they were to do the same.

Now I'm not a huge fan of ex post facto rules, but I do agree that these voting patterns and margins are getting a bit ridiculous. My previously suggested idea was to ensure that every enshrined work had no more than X% of its votes come from only one member. If a work does not meet this quota, then maybe just ignore it from the rest of the list so it will not block enshrinements until it receives enough votes from others. I still rather like this suggestion, but I admit that it would be easier just for people to police themselves.


----------



## GreenMamba

Trout, I'm impressed by your stat keeping! I never would have guessed All Set was power voted in. I think it was a Mahlerian nom, and I voted for it several times. The Violin piece is the most worrisome to me. There's just no other support for it. 

I'm no sure how many pieces you've looked at. Possibly others were powered in by others earlier (I had some suspicions). Still, most have played by the unwritten rules.


----------



## Albert7

Within two weeks of this month, I have heard the first 34 enshrined pieces minus the complete LICHT (heard 3 sections already), Einstein on the Beach, and Nixon in China. Not too bad on progress.

And the list is growing by the day and it's getting hard to keep up. Blocking LICHT time alone is hard enough.


----------



## Trout

GreenMamba said:


> Trout, I'm impressed by your stat keeping! I never would have guessed All Set was power voted in. I think it was a Mahlerian nom, and I voted for it several times. The Violin piece is the most worrisome to me. There's just no other support for it.
> 
> I'm no sure how many pieces you've looked at. Possibly others were powered in by others earlier (I had some suspicions). Still, most have played by the unwritten rules.


Thanks, but most of the credit should go to the TC Advanced Search function. Simply type in a suspect poster's name and it will show their entire posting history in that thread making it fairly easy to track anyone's voting.

I have only looked at the top 25 in real detail and a few select others out of curiosity and/or suspicion. Babbitt's _All Set_ was the only one with that high of a margin, though a few others had margins around 50%.


----------



## mmsbls

Trout said:


> Now I'm not a huge fan of ex post facto rules, but I do agree that these voting patterns and margins are getting a bit ridiculous. My previously suggested idea was to ensure that every enshrined work had no more than X% of its votes come from only one member. If a work does not meet this quota, then maybe just ignore it from the rest of the list so it will not block enshrinements until it receives enough votes from others. I still rather like this suggestion, but I admit that it would be easier just for people to police themselves.


I'm not so happy with ex post facto rules either, although sometimes changes are sensible because something unforeseen occurs. Assuming the majority of participants agree that no work should be enshrined if a high percentage of votes come from a single voter, it would be reasonable to modify the rules. There are 2 problems. First, we must ensure that the majority agree to such a change. Second, we'd have to keep track of the voting to a level that could be beyond what anyone is willing to do.

I agree that having participants police themselves is vastly preferable, but apparently there is not complete agreement on the principle of distributing one's votes. Those "power" voting (and some could be partially guilty without realizing it) would have to see an explicit rule put in place.

So unless someone wants to suggest we vote for some rule and carry through on the vote, I think we'll continue with our present system.


----------



## GreenMamba

SimonNZ said:


> Perhaps if a work has been below x number of points for more than x number of weeks...?
> 
> Say...less than ten points for more than four weeks?


Something for me to do while watching the hockey game.

I went back to April 18th, EOD (EST). Unless I'm mistaken, these works were already seconded then, but are still have <10 points. Push the date a few days later, and Kernis and Holt are on it too.
If we do a cull, I'd suggest giving a warning in the voting thread first, allowing for some last minute salvages.

03 Cage: Roaratorio (1979)
03 Rouse: Iscariot (1989)
04 Riley: The Harp of New Albion (1985)
05 Hartmann: Symphony No. 8 (1962)
06 Feldman: String Quartet No. 2 (1983)
08 Cage: Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music (1962)
08 Maxwell Davies: An Orkney Wedding, with Sunrise (1984)
09 Birtwistle: Secret Theatre (1984)
09 Feldman: Crippled Symmetry (1983)
09 Lachenmann: Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern (1996)

(8 American or British works?)


----------



## tortkis

^^^
Personal thoughts: if these are removed, probably they will never be in the seconded list in the future. Obtaining 9 points again will be difficult, since we would think that most likely the votes would be wasted again. And, I think a work with 9 points given by 9 members is more worthwhile (for the purpose of the poll) than a work with 20 points given by one member. (I am not telling this because most of my nominations are at risk. )

I may be wrong, and I will not object the consensus once it is made.


----------



## mmsbls

I went back and looked at our rules. There is nothing specific to spreading one's votes around. There was some discussion where people suggested that one should not vote too often for one work or for the work one nominated, but nothing definitive was decided.

MoonlightSonata did post rules from the updated Classical Music Project as a suggestion. Those rules include:



> TIPS
> 
> 3. If you vote often, we encourage you to spread your votes around different works that you like, rather than repeatedly voting for one.


There is nothing explicit in the rules for this project.


----------



## KenOC

I think these things work best when there is an active and involved gamemeister, one willing to watch over things, clarify issues, and even change the rules if called for. I left this game some time ago, irritated at constant carping over the votes of other players, even though they were seemingly in accord with the game's ToS. Well, others keep playing, so maybe it's just me.


----------



## Nereffid

This is off the top of my head. I also don't like to change the rules, because I always felt the system was flawed to begin with; and I agree with Ken's point about having someone in charge. 
But the length of the list is something a lot of people have commented on, as is the power-voting by He Who Cannot Be Named.

So how about we tackle both together, and have a once-off cull of the list, done by popular vote?
Everyone suggests maybe 3-5 works they think should be dropped, and then those that get most votes get dropped - maybe the (say) 10 highest, or maybe those that get picked by (say) 6 or more people.


----------



## Blancrocher

Trout said:


> Well so far only one work that I know of has been power-voted in: Babbitt's _All Set_ with 27 points out of 43 from one member alone. So far, that same member has put 20 out of 23 points into a work currently on the board (one which he nominated himself) which will place well within the top 100 if his pace continues. He also comprises 13 of 30 points in another work (also his nomination), but he has given that piece its last 10 points, voting for it in each of his last 5 votes which all occurred within the last 48 hours. So we will probably see it enshrined in the next few days at this pace.
> 
> Another interesting feature about his votes is that they are all almost _exactly_ 9 hours apart (many of his votes are to the precise minute), meaning he is able to fit in an extra third vote during the day in which most can only register two. So in this sense, his power-voting carries even more power than anyone else if they were to do the same.


:lol: OK, please tell me I'm not the only one who finds this the _slightest_ bit amusing.

Anyways, I personally think that the "post-1950" list is going fine. A little long, of course, but I'm getting used to it. I wouldn't like to see works disappear, since I intend to start voting for works like "Die Soldaten" as soon as a few favorite masterpieces are enshrined. It seems to me that we're still early in this process, given the magnitude of the ground being covered.

As regards the "power-voting" issue, maybe at the end somebody could just add an indication of how many people voted for an enshrined work in parentheses or something (since it seems like it's not hard to find out). That way somebody looking at the list would get a sense of works that had one or two die-hard fans as opposed to more general support.

*p.s.* Get back in the ring, KenOC!!


----------



## KenOC

Suggestion: Vote +2 +1 as is the case now, and a third required vote -1. What is Darwin without culling? The species needs to have vigor.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Suggestion: Vote +2 +1 as is the case now, and a third required vote -1. What is Darwin without culling? The species needs to have vigor.


I'm afraid my unhelpful comment is I don't think I'd do -1 voting. That sounds like a recipe for acrimony and a work could be going up and down like a ******'* **********.

Although it goes against my political leanings I think the best thing might be (if a change is needed) a firmer hand on the tiller.

Bottom line is:
If people are playing by the rules, that's it.

The only alternative is post hoc change/s to the rules; guidance / advice / suggestions won't cut the mustard (and anyway, you spread mustard, not cut it).


----------



## SimonNZ

dogen said:


> (and anyway, you spread mustard, not cut it).


Cutting the mustard:


----------



## Guest

Let's bring it to a vote. Before more damage is done. I am down to play investigator, if necessary. 50% sounds like a reasonable number.

And yes, self policing *did* cut the mustard before he/she/they who must not be named came along with their attitudes of blatant disregard and disrespect for the rest of this forum. And no, this is not the only thread where this truth is self-evident.


----------



## GreenMamba

1. As far as culling the list: my main concern is about people who wanted to remove their nomination so as to free one up. I think we agree that can be done, but what if it has a fair number of points, and others want it to stay? (This is differetn from 'list is too big").

2. The 50% rule sounds nice, but I don't think we can track all points given for all pieces. We could just *say* it's a rule and expect people to "roughly" self-police.

3. Nefferid is right about the system being flawed. E.g., Did you know Berio's Sinfonia got in at #1 with 19 points? Not sure if that counts as "wide support." Of course, it would have gotten more if it hung around. But still....

4. My guess is some people think the reason we're adjusting these rules isn't because of processes, but b/c "we" think they aren't voting for the right works. This is very unfortunate. 

5. Last, we should vote on "cut the muster" vs. "cut the mustard."


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> 2. The 50% rule sounds nice, but I don't think we can track all points given for all pieces. We could just *say* it's a rule and expect people to "roughly" self-police.


It wouldn't be too difficult to just do periodic tracking on ~5 pieces considering the highest ranking pieces are being frequently posted already to help voters.

Not to mention abuse is easier to spot when only a few people do it in the first place


----------



## mmsbls

nathanb said:


> Let's bring it to a vote. Before more damage is done. I am down to play investigator, if necessary. 50% sounds like a reasonable number.


While the rule may be reasonable, it's certainly possible for someone to play by the unwritten rules and still be responsible for > 50% of a high ranking work. If a participant votes for a work every 4 turns and continues voting, eventually the work will have many points even if few others vote for it. I don't really know if others are voting for every work I have supported. I realize this is not an argument against the proposed rule, but I just wanted to point out that someone could be "guilty" of dominating a work's support without in any way voting against the unwritten rules.

I also think the discussion in this thread may not be known to many participants. Any rule change should be OK's by a significant number of participants.


----------



## GreenMamba

Do you mean, someone goes back and recounts all the votes? If someone wants to volunteer...

I actually wonder whether keeping track wouldn't encourage some people to vote up to just under 50%. It might legitimize everything less than that. In truth, I'd find ~25% to be a better rule of thumb, but probably too low for a rule.


----------



## Guest

I would volunteer to count things in the future (unless this thing is going over 200 works or something...). As unlikeable a job as voting police sounds...

And yes, mmsbls, they may do it unintentionally, but it would still work out because, once the work gets close to enshrinement, I would do a quick count and let everyone know if there's any issue (which there should *rarely* be). At that point, it would be in the main voter's best interest to stop voting for the work as he'd only be upping the percentage....

Example: In the case of Anna Clyne: one poster has put down 20 of 23 votes here. Let's say it gets to 25 of 28. I would then have to inform him/her that even if he stops voting there and then, it would need 50 points [without additional votes from the poster, which would only add to the required votes...] to be eligible for enshrinement regardless of position over others. If he/she does not heed this, and bumps it to 27 of 30, well...shame, because now it needs 54.

I honestly don't believe that this would be a difficult thing to enforce, simply because *most* people are already spreading their votes around as is. It's not like I'd have to lay down some law every single time a work is about to be enshrined...


----------



## ptr

I been thinking of suggesting that we should keep the date a work was seconded at the end of its line. And I'm also in favour of culling the list suggestion, having a "seconded date" would make it easy to cut stuff that have not received say 10% of the current top scorer of the day. Maybe a 14 day period before the work get axed?

I think that it is important for the list that members show voting restraint (in a typical British-Scandinavian way!), if it can be shown that a work has more then like 33% votes from a single person (nominator or not) at the time of enshrinement, the piece should be stripped of the single person "over votes" and sent back to the seconded list. If Nathan is prepared to randomly "police" our voting habits, I think that we will conform in due time! 

A simple rule change that members/voters are disallowed (encouraged not) to cast more then 33% of the total amount of votes of an enshrined works should be a simple amendment to the current "rules!"

And remember guy's and doll's, this is not Government but a fun game for all involved to enjoy and the future to revel in! 

/ptr


----------



## ptr

Maybe we should start an new poll thread to ask the "collective" to cast a vote on amending the rules or not and what percentage votes one person should be allowed?

/ptr


----------



## Mahlerian

Is retroactive removal of works really a good idea? If we set rules, they should be clearly announced and applicable going forward rather than overall.

Plus, if the threshold is set much lower than 50%, a good number of works will be taken off.


----------



## GreenMamba

No, we shouldn't retroactively remove anything. Even having to check a work's past after it is enshrined is likely too much. What if I want to vote next? _Was that work in, or not? If it needs more points, I'd like to give it some._

I'm not sure any of this would come up but for one poster and (mostly) one work. So I think we have to be concerned about over-policing for the sake of one guy.


----------



## Blancrocher

GreenMamba said:


> I'm not sure any of this would come up but for one poster and (mostly) one work. So I think we have to be concerned about over-policing for the sake of one guy.


Probably--but I'm enjoying this now :lol:

Maybe we should leave who nominated and seconded a work, and require it to be "thirded" by another member to get it past a certain number value: like 20, say.


----------



## Albert7

Doing further tweaks on my computer program that helps me do votes later on tonight. Modifying the script slightly...


----------



## Nereffid

Albert7 said:


> Doing further tweaks on my computer program that helps me do votes later on tonight. Modifying the script slightly...


Unless it tells you to _stop voting for Anna Clyne_, I don't think anyone will be impressed.


----------



## Guest

Another possible tweak, this time less concerned with "power-voting" and more concerned with all the board size concerns, is to amend the rule of 4 down to a rule of 3 (nothing removed forcibly, only enforced after everything naturally shifts down to 3).


----------



## Albert7

Nereffid said:


> Unless it tells you to _stop voting for Anna Clyne_, I don't think anyone will be impressed.


The computer doesn't tell me who not to vote for but only composers to vote for. The computer votes with less bias than what I could do without it.


----------



## ptr

Albert7 said:


> The computer doesn't tell me who not to vote for but only composers to vote for. The computer votes with less bias than what I could do without it.


Isn't it rather pointless to participate in a project like this if You don't listen to all the works and vote with Your heart. Can't remember that Your computer is a member of this forum, I'm not sure if I would consider its votes eligible. There's nothing in the rules about voting by proxy is allowed (and just because it is not mentioned in the rulebook does does mean that it is permissible!)

Just my 0.02$ thoughts!

/ptr


----------



## Blancrocher

*Post has been deleted*


----------



## Albert7

ptr said:


> Isn't it rather pointless to participate in a project like this if You don't listen to all the works and vote with Your heart. Can't remember that Your computer is a member of this forum, I'm not sure if I would consider its votes eligible. There's nothing in the rules about voting by proxy is allowed (and just because it is not mentioned in the rulebook does does mean that it is permissible!)
> 
> Just my 0.02$ thoughts!
> 
> /ptr


Sorry but I don't know what voting by the heart means. I love all pieces equally so I can't decide which ones to choose. The computer is the tie breaker for me.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Sorry but I don't know what voting by the heart means. I love all pieces equally so I can't decide which ones to choose. The computer is the tie breaker for me.


If you love all pieces equally, then all should receive equal scores. That is only guaranteed by not voting. Otherwise you are being contradictory and hypocritical in your posting. Same goes for the jazz list. Social construct nonsense.


----------



## GreenMamba

I am surprised the computer didn't nominate Lejaren Hiller's Illiac Suite.


----------



## Mahlerian

GreenMamba said:


> I am surprised the computer didn't nominate Lejaren Hiller's Illiac Suite.


It's not chauvinistic in its tastes, apparently.


----------



## SimonNZ

I don't think we should jump through any hoops or have members take on time-consuming vote-counting statistics just to deal with - and accommodate! - what is really one belligerent prankster.

How about we stop fighting the symptom and focus on the disease?


----------



## tdc

SimonNZ said:


> I don't think we should jump through any hoops or have members take on time-consuming vote-counting statistics just to deal with - and accommodate! - what is really one belligerent prankster.
> 
> How about we stop fighting the symptom and focus on the disease?


While I don't want to make it out like we are ganging up on the member in question, and for the record personally I have found his presence on the site much more tolerable since his first banning - I am in agreement with SimonNZ here. Since it is primarily one member we are having issues with (and he seems to be willfully ignoring the issues raised in this thread) the most logical conclusion is to simply deal with that one member and disregard his votes and remove the work in question. (I don't think we should remove any works that are already enshrined though).


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> While I don't want to make it out like we are ganging up on the member in question, and for the record personally I have found his presence on the site much more tolerable since his first banning - I am in agreement with SimonNZ here. Since it is primarily one member we are having issues with (and he seems to be willfully ignoring the issues raised in this thread) the most logical conclusion is to simply deal with that one member and disregard his votes and remove the work in question. (I don't think we should remove any works that are already enshrined though).


Honestly I secretly hoped we could arrive at a solution more along the lines of "everybody agree to just ignore his votes".


----------



## Albert7

Okay, I got a chance to pursue or skim over the past 39 pages of all of the comments. What started out as a Wittgensteinian game for voting has ended up more like a social experiment from the pages of Ortega y Gasset instead. What is interesting is that an inordinate amount of attention in this thread has been spent on discussing the voting process rather than either the composers or the works themselves. (Not to suggest that this is completely bad since being a postmodernist, the reflection on the process can be just as fascinating as the undergoing itself.) However, my focus (and hopefully others) here has been trying to learn more composers that I haven't heard of and share what I do know (which may not be all that much honestly) with others here.

Some people think that I'm a prankster. Perhaps it comes off as that since I really take no sober approach in life or rather not exhibit a stodgy attitude. In fact, I am trying to be a nice guy and chill out here and learn something from others and vice versa.

And there are those who are trying to tell me how I should vote. To be honest, I have taken a laissez-faire approach to everyone else's voting and not inquired into how others vote. It's not my business how you guys arrived at your results. Honestly you could elect your pet to stamp a paw print along a list and I wouldn't mind. So in the interest of disclosure because people are just that curious I have decided to explain a little more about how I vote in a semi-scientific manner.

And no I'm going to explain the coding here because it's technical so I don't need to bore anyone here with that.

Albert7 + computer's guidelines to voting:

1) Before the voting process started, there are equal weighted averages assigned to each piece as each one is either in nominated or seconded status.

2) As pieces enter from seconded status into enshrined status, any work by that composer which are nominated or seconded will have a reduced weighted average. This is in order to ensure that other composers will have a fair chance to being able to enter into the enshrined list.

3) Based on personal preference, I have decided (and this is where the computer results could be slightly more biased) to weigh slightly more favorably works by female composers over male composers. The enshrined list at the moment currently has a percentage of male-composed works that don't reflect the overall percentage of male composers who are working the field IMHO.

4) Each participant's votes per round have to be entered manually into the system to update the computer algorithm so that it gets the latest results. In fact, I have decided to have the computer not take into consideration who the voter is (by username) because that would be biased.

5) One arbitrary rule from me is that the script does not vote for any Shostakovich piece by default. This is due to the prediction that there will be about 8-10 works at least during the accumulation from other voters so my focus will be looking at composers who are under-represented.

6) The actual randomness of the selection occurs in the final step when there are the outputs for the +2 piece and +1 piece for a given round. The previous steps are committed through calculation.

7) I have modified the program since last week to make sure that the weighted averages are more balanced in the decision matrix so that more pieces are incorporated. Originally I limited the voting to pieces/composers that I have heard but now I have expanded to include pieces/composers I haven't heard yet as to allow a small weighted average that is manually increased upon my hearing that composer or piece. If I hear the composer then the weighted average is increased a certain amount and if I heard that nominated/seconded piece then the weighted average is increased a lot more.

8) The program does not select pieces to be nominated in the process. I have to select the composer and piece which is being nominated. The nomination to seconding process is randomly judged by the program in question.

9) Finally, because the program is manually updated as each person votes, this ensures that my personal bias against any votes does not enter into the picture. Then again, I don't harbor any dislike of anyone here so that isn't really an issue. 

10) The script is ran on a home-built desktop using an AMD Phenom II X4 processor with 16Gb of RAM and 2 x 2 Tb of hard drive. Not that it really matters for the final results but if anyone wants to know the tech specs accordingly there you have it.

Why do the voting more scientifically or mathematically? Well, a lot of it is due to my interest in being less biased and a way of solving my personal indecision of using gut feelings to vote. Logic has its own form of poetry here. Also there is an inspiration in the 12-tone method of serial composition, particularly in the austere works of Webern.

It's ironic that some people lodge that using the aid of computer isn't an emotional activity. So should that accusation be levied against computer programmers or math nerds who do group theory? Or the music of Webern which is sparse and composed in a strict nature?

Rocks may be thrown against the black sheep of voters but there is no point to tossing rocks back. What is puzzling is that voting has turned into some becoming hostile as if this were a political battleground (which isn't). What is pretty awesome is that there is an awesome list of really cool pieces that I get to engage and learn about, many of which I haven't experienced before.

And I would like to thank everyone who participates here, even those who harbor dissent or potentially ill intent. There wouldn't be much interest in post-1950's works without the passionate debate (although wishing it geared more towards the works rather than process itself all the time). I see indifference to MoonlightSonata's project as the worst possible outcome that could happen honestly.

Anyways, enough of me as I probably have bored everyone here to tears/ears with my rather protracted explanation of my voting process to be more transparent.  Enjoy the voting and see you guys out in the field.

Shantih shantih shantih.

P.S. Some people have suggested disenfranchisement as a solution but for me that indicates more about the personality of the people clamoring for that path. Perhaps he or she are the ones who would support banning voters he or she feels abrasive.

As the book says, Do not judge lest you be judged.


----------



## GreenMamba

> Okay, I got a chance to pursue or skim over the past 39 pages of all of the comments. What started out as a Wittgensteinian game for voting has ended up more like a social experiment from the pages of Ortega y Gasset instead.


Well, that goes without saying.

I still don't understand how your procedure leads to power voting for Anna Clyne.


----------



## SimonNZ

> Okay, I got a chance to pursue or skim over the past 39 pages of all of the comments...


What an utter load of rubbish.

You know, you have _contributed_ to these 39 pages - and if you are only just reading them now it means you've shown no previous interest in the context of your comments or the opinions of others (which have concerned yourself on many occasions).

But that's not true either, because we've had conversations (of a sort) and you've replied (after a fashion) many times to others, if unfortunately without really listening.

If it were just me saying this I'd shut up, but its many if not most. Including a 28 page thread in Area 51 I encourage you to go read.

But this all comes back to an exchange we had earlier: you don't really care if you're diminishing the enjoyment of others, do you?


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> Well, that goes without saying.
> 
> I still don't understand how your procedure leads to power voting for Anna Clyne.


Or 6 back to back votes for a Ferneyhough quartet.

Explanation: The procedure is not actually being used. Some people just like to hear themselves talk about social constructs and aleatory and whatnot to make this stuff up...


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> Well, that goes without saying.
> 
> I still don't understand how your procedure leads to power voting for Anna Clyne.


Originally I set the weighed average too high for the female composers so I had to adjust the factor down because of that. Since Gubaidulina was already enshrined then, her factor plunged down for her nominated pieces. That left Saariaho and Clyne left in the mix.

Originally Higdon was supposed to jump in but due to external factors, the nomination got withdrawn.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Originally I set the weighed average too high for the female composers so I had to adjust the factor down because of that. Since Gubaidulina was already enshrined then, her factor plunged down for her nominated pieces. That left Saariaho and Clyne left in the mix.
> 
> Originally Higdon was supposed to jump in but due to external factors, the nomination got withdrawn.


You haven't voted once for Saariaho, and you've voted 10 times for a Clyne piece that nobody cares about at this point in the list. Drop. The. Act.


----------



## GreenMamba

What about Ustvolskaya?


----------



## Mahlerian

nathanb said:


> You haven't voted once for Saariaho, and you've voted 10 times for a Clyne piece that nobody cares about at this point in the list. Drop. The. Act.


That's not true. My tally says he gave three points to Saariaho's Six Japanese Gardens.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> That's not true. My tally says he gave three points to Saariaho.


Doh...I did my thread search...in *this* thread. More buggy than the earliest beta version of the AccuRank!

Three points to twenty points. The intent of my post stands.


----------



## Albert7

Okay guys, until this thread becomes non-derailed towards an ACTUAL discussion of composers and the works in question, I feel that I don't need to be engaged in in-house fighting.

I will return back when people are less contentious. I am going use my time to be productive in other threads. Au revoir.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> I am going use my time to be *productive* in other threads. Au revoir.


Let me know when that happens


----------



## SimonNZ

Albert7 said:


> Okay guys, until this thread becomes non-derailed towards an ACTUAL discussion of composers and the works in question, I feel that I don't need to be engaged in in-house fighting.
> 
> I will return back when people are less contentious. I am going use my time to be productive in other threads. Au revoir.


This thread was never for discussing the works. Its for gauging interest, first in the idea of a vote then in which works might get support

AND...to discuss matters or problems pertaining to the process...which is what we're trying to do, if only you'd listen


----------



## Weston

I'm a bit embarrassed to have given the enshrining vote to 4'33". It had received some opposition at first, but also a lot support from several of the group. I think it's an iconic work (or gimmick) at least, one every listener should be familiar with. In retrospect I think it may be more a work of performance art than of music. It must be seen or experienced live to get the full effect, but I still like it. I hope there are no bitter feelings regarding its enshrinement.


----------



## Guest

Weston said:


> I'm a bit embarrassed to have given the enshrining vote to 4'33". It had received some opposition at first, but also a lot support from several of the group. I think it's an iconic work (or gimmick) at least, one every listener should be familiar with. In retrospect I think it may be more a work of performance art than of music. It must be seen or experienced live to get the full effect, but I still like it. I hope there are no bitter feelings regarding its enshrinement.


I have less of a problem with 4'33" getting credit and more of a problem with how many people criticize Cage as if 4'33" is his only work. Therefore, the only reason I couldn't bring myself to support it was because, for a period of time (before I personally helped Music Of Changes up a bit), it looked to be doing well at the expense of all other Cage...

I'm still of the opinion that Cage and Stockhausen deserve more attention here. They're doing well relative to most composers. But these being two of the greatest radicals in music history and all...


----------



## Weston

Stockhausen will likely get my vote eventually, but I really like Kontra-Punkte. I admit it's not as radical as many of his other works.


----------



## tortkis

I was deeply disappointed. Just one thing.



Albert7 said:


> Originally I limited the voting to pieces/composers that I have heard but now I have expanded to include pieces/composers I haven't heard yet [...]


This is really a disrespectful manner to the other participants who are trying to make a good list of recommended works. How anyone can recommend a piece of music which has not been listened to yet is beyond me.


----------



## Blancrocher

GreenMamba said:


> What about Ustvolskaya?


Sure. By the way, there's a recent album with Kopatchinskaja and Hinterhäuser that I've been meaning to hear:

http://www.amazon.com/Galina-Ustvol...F8&qid=1431410843&sr=8-1&keywords=ustvolskaya

A little excerpt: 




Hopefully a new recording of the Gran Duo is just around the corner as well.

Other works may fare better for enshrinement, though, as has been the case in the other project: this is just by the way.


----------



## Nereffid

Albert7 said:


> In fact, I am trying to be a nice guy


Look, I'm against banning you or even telling you how to vote, and I don't like the way some posters treat you sometimes, but the brutal fact of the matter is that the way you're voting is causing bother to a lot of participants who share your passion for modern music. They've made it clear that the way you're voting is removing some of their enjoyment and goes against what they see as the spirit of the list.
*If you're trying to be a nice guy, why can't you take this into account and act accordingly?*


----------



## Guest

Ready for a vote on new rules or disenfranchisements whenever you guys are.


----------



## Guest

I hope I prefer the outcome to the UK General Election voting!


----------



## Guest

Personally, I don't see the point in further voting unless or until there's a decision on any rule changes. So I shall refrain. If there's a vote on changes I'll participate, and/or will abide by any changes.


----------



## Guest

> I don't think we should jump through any hoops or have members take on time-consuming vote-counting statistics just to deal with - and accommodate! - what is really one belligerent prankster.
> 
> How about we stop fighting the symptom and focus on the disease?





> Since it is primarily one member we are having issues with (and he seems to be willfully ignoring the issues raised in this thread) the most logical conclusion is to simply deal with that one member and disregard his votes and remove the work in question. (I don't think we should remove any works that are already enshrined though).


Quoted for Mahlerian, who called my actions arbitrary 

A shifty maneuver, devoid of "legality" (something that doesn't exist here in the first place, but ok)? Yeah. A bit of a low blow? Sure. Arbitrary? Never.


----------



## Mahlerian

nathanb said:


> Quoted for Mahlerian, who called my actions arbitrary
> 
> A shifty maneuver, devoid of "legality" (something that doesn't exist here in the first place, but ok)? Yeah. A bit of a low blow? Sure. Arbitrary? Never.


It was the fact that those particular votes were removed, despite not fitting into any pattern of power voting or abuse, that was arbitrary, not the targeting of a poster whom you and others deem a troll. I was also responding to the fact you did it without any notification or discussion.

For the record, I would be in favor of a rule that, going forward, a work must not have more than 50% of its votes from a single voter to be enshrined.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> It was the fact that those particular votes were removed, despite not fitting into any pattern of power voting or abuse, that was arbitrary, not the targeting of a poster whom you and others deem a troll. I was also responding to the fact you did it without any notification or discussion.
> 
> For the record, I would be in favor of a rule that, going forward, a work must not have more than 50% of its votes from a single voter to be enshrined.


Yeah, no need for us to start arguing, I suppose. I'm very aware it was an impulsive move. I was also fairly certain it would be undone quickly. More of a grouchy early-in-the-morning political maneuver than anything.


----------



## GreenMamba

I would probably vote for a 50% rule, but not a 33% one. Ideally, the mere existence of the rule prevents the necessity of its enforcement.

I think we need a rule clarifying that and how someone can remove his own dead nomination, wherein he wants to free a spot. Does anyone else have a say? If the piece is low and dead enough, then no (?) Or should the other person take over the nom if he ha capacity?

I do not think we need to shrink the list for its own sake, with extreme exceptions for dead works where the originator is long gone. Maybe this is merged with the above. But it may be only 2-3 works here.


----------



## Guest

I'd vote for 50%. I also think anything sitting on <5 after 2 weeks should go.


----------



## Guest

I say we vote for three measures with a simple "1. Yay 2. Nay 3. Yay" kinda thing. If no one has any objections, I'll simply open it here tonight for a couple days or so.

What I'd like to vote for:

1. Works may not be enshrined if 50% or more of the vote count has been added by one member.
2. Works will be removed from the list if they have not acquired 5 or more points from members other than the original nominator after two weeks on the board.
3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).

Thoughts??


----------



## GreenMamba

2. Not sure about "other than the original" as it makes it tough to track. I know this rule will kill works that have been power voted already (the reason for it), but those works aren't going anywhere due to #1. any idea how many current noms would die because of this?

3. for selfish reasons, I would like to hold off until Sciarrino goes through so I can get in a fourth nom before the new rule . Again I understand the point, but I also feel like there are a lot of great composers and works that aren't even on the list. I suspect a lot of others really look forward to making new noms. 

In both cases, I'd probably play along.


----------



## SimonNZ

nathanb said:


> 3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).
> 
> Thoughts??


I feel like whats making the list unweildy isn't the 4 noms rule, but the people who are seemingly having nothing more to do with the project than make nominations but then have no part in the voting(or listening). Seems like there would be more enshrinements and turnover if they were also playing. But I don't want to make any rules about that - I'm just saying.

As for most everything else: we shouldn't need more rules, though some form of cleaning out of unmoving low point works might be useful - if only to suggest trying something else by that composer.

But I'll roll with the consensus.


----------



## GreenMamba

SimonNZ said:


> As for most everything else: we shouldn't need more rules, though some form of cleaning out of unmoving low point works might be useful - if* only to suggest trying something else by that composer.*


Yes, I agree with this.

Possibly we can see what list cleanup does, and then see if we need to change the number of nominations. Also, it looks like "random" computer voting may be over.

And we have been averaging 1-2 enshrinements a day. I think that's a good pace.


----------



## senza sordino

nathanb said:


> I say we vote for three measures with a simple "1. Yay 2. Nay 3. Yay" kinda thing. If no one has any objections, I'll simply open it here tonight for a couple days or so.
> 
> What I'd like to vote for:
> 
> 1. Works may not be enshrined if 50% or more of the vote count has been added by one member.
> 2. Works will be removed from the list if they have not acquired 5 or more points from members other than the original nominator after two weeks on the board.
> 3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).
> 
> Thoughts??


I've been keeping quiet on matters here, but not because I have no opinion. I don't like changing rules half way through the game, but it seems like we need to do this because of the poster / voter in question.

I generally like these new rules.

1. I like it, but I'm not sure how rule #1 can be enforced mathematically. I guess it means some diligence watching people's votes and self monitoring. It might mean a piece requires more than a seven point lead to be enshrined. Since most pieces now require 40 points of more, it still means someone can vote for a piece 10 times at two points each vote. Maybe it would be easier to monitor if no piece can be voted for by an individual more than ten times.

2. Great, cull the list to something interesting and manageable

3. Great, keep the list shorter by having no more than three works on both the nomination and seconded list.

The list is too long for me, I don't know most of the works, and I'm not going to listen to them all. But at least I'm only going to vote for pieces I've actually listened to and liked!


----------



## Guest

So let's just go ahead and make these "votes" official and get a general consensus from the more involved members over the next couple of days. I'll call senza sordino's a triple yes, for instance. 

MoonlightSonata, if you have any issues here, I believe you still have the veto power.

I'm a triple yes too, I guess. Seems that the 3rd amendment may be an issue for some people, but for the record, I haven't been at my cap of 4 in a long time and I've been pretty content, given how many other things there are to vote for... Initially I saw the notion of "My Nominations" as more important than I see them now that the list is so full of goodies...

I will also say again that I have essentially volunteered to watch suspicious mathematics and whatnot for #1 and #2.

One more thing to note, a smaller board with more limitations may seem frightening to some, but it can actually increase the rate of enshrinements per day. I, for one, have probably spread votes to a significant fraction of the board, and some of those works aren't looking so viable for the time being.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> 2. Not sure about "other than the original" as it makes it tough to track. I know this rule will kill works that have been power voted already (the reason for it), but those works aren't going anywhere due to #1. any idea how many current noms would die because of this?


The reason for that particular part of the rule was less concerned with the "power-vote" and more concerned with closing an easy loophole. Without differentiating between original nominator votes and others, a voter could easily toss a few measly points in the way of every work he nominates if he doesn't feel like succumbing to consensus, whether or not that work does well later under amendment #1.


----------



## Mahlerian

nathanb said:


> I say we vote for three measures with a simple "1. Yay 2. Nay 3. Yay" kinda thing. If no one has any objections, I'll simply open it here tonight for a couple days or so.
> 
> What I'd like to vote for:
> 
> 1. Works may not be enshrined if 50% or more of the vote count has been added by one member.
> 2. Works will be removed from the list if they have not acquired 5 or more points from members other than the original nominator after two weeks on the board.
> 3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).
> 
> Thoughts??


1. Yea
2. Nay (it seems mostly like a duplication of rules we already have elsewhere, and some works take time to gain traction)
3. Nay (I always have more things ready to nominate)


----------



## GreenMamba

If these are the ideas, you may want to post something in the voting thread directing them here. I think it's only a small number of us that hang out here. 

I guess my big concern is we get a situation where all nominations ultimately go through. That was my issue with the SQ exercise. Then it's really just a list of personal recommendations. I'm not really sure whether these rules lead to that or not. And as I wrote above, I don't think our current problem is too few enshrinements.

Add:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No


----------



## tdc

I'm of the opinion the board will eventually thin out anyway, and I don't really like the idea of having to keep track of what percentage of total votes I've given to specific pieces. Rather than make the rules more complicated I'd prefer just dealing with a longer board for a while and the fact that occasionally a work or two might get power voted through.

I'm open to other suggestions, but nothing proposed so far really works for me. Most people are following the general guidelines of voting etiquette, and for the most part I think we have a pretty good list going. Its probably as good as one could expect for such a project.


----------



## Weston

Abstaining. I am ambivalent regarding these voting matters as I have nearly run out of pieces I am really passionate about (save for the chance I get passionate about pieces I hear for the first time). But I am lurking around on the chance I am needed to help cull the list.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I agree that a vote on rule changes is a good idea, unless anyone has any major objections, we'll go ahead with that.

My vote:
1. Yes, definitely agree.
2. Agree.
3. Abstain.


----------



## Guest

My vote:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes


----------



## 20centrfuge

nathanb said:


> 1. Works may not be enshrined if 50% or more of the vote count has been added by one member.
> 2. Works will be removed from the list if they have not acquired 5 or more points from members other than the original nominator after two weeks on the board.
> 3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).
> 
> Thoughts??


No (I'd like to vote freely without worrying about percentages)
Yes
Yes

And these are only going FORWARD! let's not go back and un-enshrine!


----------



## Nereffid

nathanb said:


> I say we vote for three measures with a simple "1. Yay 2. Nay 3. Yay" kinda thing. If no one has any objections, I'll simply open it here tonight for a couple days or so.
> 
> What I'd like to vote for:
> 
> 1. Works may not be enshrined if 50% or more of the vote count has been added by one member.
> 2. Works will be removed from the list if they have not acquired 5 or more points from members other than the original nominator after two weeks on the board.
> 3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).
> 
> Thoughts??


My votes:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.

My suggestion for solving the apparent problems raised by 2 and 3 is to change the nomination process: require that a nominated work be seconded by 3 or 4 other participants before it gets to the seconded board. Thus, only works that have already demonstrated they can garner support will go forward. I would support a 2-week time limit on nominations under those circumstances.

Also, on point 1, while I don't wish to overburden the Vote Police Chief, will it be possible for us to get a look at which works currently have more than 50%, and those that are close? Others who do actually support those works would have an oppportunity to help with a fair enshrinement.


----------



## Guest

I think a note on the Voting thread re possible changes would be in order?


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> My votes:
> 
> 1. Yes.
> 2. No.
> 3. No.
> 
> My suggestion for solving the apparent problems raised by 2 and 3 is to change the nomination process: require that a nominated work be seconded by 3 or 4 other participants before it gets to the seconded board. Thus, only works that have already demonstrated they can garner support will go forward. I would support a 2-week time limit on nominations under those circumstances.
> 
> Also, on point 1, while I don't wish to overburden the Vote Police Chief, will it be possible for us to get a look at which works currently have more than 50%, and those that are close? Others who do actually support those works would have an oppportunity to help with a fair enshrinement.


"Be careful what you wish for!" - I bet my nominations fall foul of a 50% rule!


----------



## ptr

#1: Yes
#2: Ambivalent, leaning towards Yes
#3: Ambivalent, leaning towards No

#4: I'm slightly positive to Nerefid's suggestion adding seconded votes to say three before moving nominations...

/ptr


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Nereffid said:


> My suggestion for solving the apparent problems raised by 2 and 3 is to change the nomination process: require that a nominated work be seconded by 3 or 4 other participants before it gets to the seconded board. Thus, only works that have already demonstrated they can garner support will go forward. I would support a 2-week time limit on nominations under those circumstances.


I think this is a very good idea.


----------



## KenOC

I think these sorts of games are better played as on another forum. A longish voting list is first established by a nomination process, and the voting takes place in a separate round. The list is winnowed by one-up two-down voting. But there are technical difficulties on this forum (which is otherwise far superior technically).


----------



## Nereffid

By the way, the current leaderboard is:

45 Sciarrino: Allegoria della Notte (1985)
40 Stockhausen: Kontakte (1958)
40 Berio: Laborintus II (1965)
39 Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985)
38 Poulenc: Gloria (1961)
33 Takemitsu: November Steps (1967)
and 3 other works on 33

Obviously Sciarrino is close to being enshrined, but notice there's a 5-point gap between Poulenc and Takemitsu. A Poulenc/Schnittke vote would make it a 7-point gap between 5th and 6th places. Would it make sense, if such a thing were to happen, that _all_ the works in the "breakaway pack" would be enshrined instantly? Of course I'm talking about rare circumstances, though it nearly happened a couple of days ago too with Riley/Cage both breaking away; but it would free up some votes for everyone and speed things along.


----------



## GioCar

1. yes
2. abstain
3. abstain

4. I second Nereffid's idea (post #620)


----------



## Guest

More backers per nom sounds a good idea.


----------



## Guest

I like Nereffid's idea. Say three "seconds" required in two weeks.

I also think it's safe to say that, if this idea is popular, it nullifies the need for #2.


----------



## Guest

Would a second second be a second, or would it be a third?


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> I like Nereffid's idea. Say three "seconds" required in two weeks.
> 
> I also think it's safe to say that, if this idea is popular, it nullifies the need for #2.


Good point. Yes.


----------



## GreenMamba

Nereffid said:


> By the way, the current leaderboard is:
> 
> 45 Sciarrino: Allegoria della Notte (1985)
> 40 Stockhausen: Kontakte (1958)
> 40 Berio: Laborintus II (1965)
> 39 Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985)
> 38 Poulenc: Gloria (1961)
> 33 Takemitsu: November Steps (1967)
> and 3 other works on 33
> 
> Obviously Sciarrino is close to being enshrined, but notice there's a 5-point gap between Poulenc and Takemitsu. A Poulenc/Schnittke vote would make it a 7-point gap between 5th and 6th places. Would it make sense, if such a thing were to happen, that _all_ the works in the "breakaway pack" would be enshrined instantly? Of course I'm talking about rare circumstances, though it nearly happened a couple of days ago too with Riley/Cage both breaking away; but it would free up some votes for everyone and speed things along.


I understand your idea, but I think it's more fun to focus at the top rather than play games with gaps underneath (with weird voting dynamics). And I still stay we don't have too few enshrinements. More than 1/day as is. I want to savor them a bit.

Also, the "freeing up votes" could just create a logjam at a different spot.

The reason this happens, BTW, is people are always fighting to be next in line. Right now, I'm guessing more will just let Sciarrino go through, but they want to be in the next pack.


----------



## PaulieGatto

nathanb said:


> I say we vote for three measures with a simple "1. Yay 2. Nay 3. Yay" kinda thing. If no one has any objections, I'll simply open it here tonight for a couple days or so.
> 
> What I'd like to vote for:
> 
> 1. Works may not be enshrined if 50% or more of the vote count has been added by one member.
> 2. Works will be removed from the list if they have not acquired 5 or more points from members other than the original nominator after two weeks on the board.
> 3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).
> 
> Thoughts??


1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No

I agree with the nomination idea of having to secure more backers.

I think all this could reduce the number of works on display, thus we don't need to worry about the Rule of Four.


----------



## GreenMamba

nathanb said:


> I like Nereffid's idea. Say three "seconds" required in two weeks.
> 
> I also think it's safe to say that, if this idea is popular, it nullifies the need for #2.


Would it remove dead pieces currently on the list? We still have to do that, IMO.

And I still think we need clarification on if/how a user can remove his own seconded work. If we reduce noms to three, there might be more demand for this.


----------



## Trout

nathanb said:


> I say we vote for three measures with a simple "1. Yay 2. Nay 3. Yay" kinda thing. If no one has any objections, I'll simply open it here tonight for a couple days or so.
> 
> What I'd like to vote for:
> 
> 1. Works may not be enshrined if 50% or more of the vote count has been added by one member.
> 2. Works will be removed from the list if they have not acquired 5 or more points from members other than the original nominator after two weeks on the board.
> 3. The rule of four nominated works on the board at a time for every poster should be reduced to three at a time (not enforced retroactively, only going forward).
> 
> Thoughts??


1. Yes.
2. Maybe. How about an interest check among the voting participants for such works that do not meet this quota? Sometimes we may get our hands full with other pieces and we may not realize when pieces are about to be removed.
3. No. I am not really fond of the current nomination cap either since, as GreenMamba pointed out, it could be stifling some wonderful pieces.


----------



## GreenMamba

What if the dead/low vote pieces reverted back to the nominated section (keeping whatever points they have now)? If not seconded again, they die. We would have to go back to find the original nominator, I suppose. I have a list a few pages ago of dead-ish works.


----------



## Guest

I think idea #1 seems to be a good idea by general consensus. Nobody has expressed issue with Nereffid's idea either as opposed to my ideas of removal, so I think that may be a keeper. 

I'll give it a little more time to hear a few more opinions, but then I'd like to get Maestro MS's signature on these amendments. I can get a rough count on some voting percentages that seem troublesome later tonight, if need be...

But for now, I have my last final of the semester in 4 hours!


----------



## mmsbls

It's a bit interesting that the Classical Music Project never had a problem with large boards. I'm not sure what the most number of works at one was, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were less than 40. In the beginning I assume the -1 vote was integral in keeping the total number down (works without support were quickly removed). We've removed that rule a long time ago, and the board has never grown very large. Probably the smaller number of participants has a lot to do with that.

I would vote:

1) Yes
2) Yes (but only after an appropriate heads up that a work will be deleted, say, in a day)
3) Abstain (I don't care)

I would say that no action should be taken without posting the proposed changes in the other thread and giving a day for responses. I know nathanb posted that we were voting, but it was only once (I think) and I'm not sure everyone always checks and the pages.


----------



## SimonNZ

Did the -1 vote thing ever cause friction or resentment on the other project?


----------



## mmsbls

At times people were somewhat annoyed. I don't think there was a feeling that one person was aiming their -1 votes at another. I don't remember any friction or resentment. There was just frustration that a work that was "obviously superior" to many other works on the board received more -1 votes than "it should have". Since people had to give some work a -1 vote, we all knew the vote had to go somewhere. 

Sometimes people who supported competing works would agree to let one work through as long as the "victors" helped with the other work. There was a sort of camaraderie between participants that way.

Maybe others who participated from the beginning remember things differently.


----------



## GreenMamba

That project has been going on forever, I'm sure it's different than it was at first. Does every nominated work end up getting enshrined?


----------



## PaulieGatto

mmsbls said:


> It's a bit interesting that the Classical Music Project never had a problem with large boards. I'm not sure what the most number of works at one was, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were less than 40. In the beginning I assume the -1 vote was integral in keeping the total number down (works without support were quickly removed). We've removed that rule a long time ago, and the board has never grown very large. Probably the smaller number of participants has a lot to do with that.
> 
> I would vote:
> 
> 1) Yes
> 2) Yes (but only after an appropriate heads up that a work will be deleted, say, in a day)
> 3) Abstain (I don't care)
> 
> I would say that no action should be taken without posting the proposed changes in the other thread and giving a day for responses. I know nathanb posted that we were voting, but it was only once (I think) and I'm not sure everyone always checks and the pages.


Well, there was almost a problem when some newer members started nominating more and more works - we kinda had a short discussion about self-imposed limits to keep the board manageable (I think we were over 40) and everyone is still there and voting fine. The negative vote, I admit, I used it to promote more modern or contemporary works when I was on it. I simply assumed I could throw my vote at any Beethoven or Mozart work since they would go through eventually, and in 99% of cases that happened. I think we dispensed with it since the rankings are not so much a concern. Most nominated works end up getting enshrined at some point, but with our self-imposed limit it's not so bad a wait I feel, and I think everyone gets along fine. I know I've had to push one opera which was receiving no votes after being seconded though (surprisingly so in my opinion).


----------



## mmsbls

I can't imagine any work that is seconded will not eventually be enshrined. The "game" is rather different than it was before. It's now more a listening project than a ordered list of great works.


----------



## GreenMamba

It's interesting to see how the lists play out. The Sciarrino work that we just enshrined isn't even in the top 2000+ over there. I don't think it's the only one.

I'd have thought every composer I've ever heard of was represented over there, but I don't see Roger Sessions, Franco Donatoni, Alexander Goehr, and some others.


----------



## Cygnenoir

After catching up on the discussion over here... 

Some new rules wouldn't hurt. I see the point of restricting one self of voting too often for his/her own nominations.

1. Yes
2. Yes (if the "dead" work would og back to the nomination board)
3. No


----------



## Guest

I would like to go ahead and send Amendment #1, "The Law Of 50%", to the president's (MoonlightSonata's) desk to be signed into law or to be vetoed.

I also move to turn discussion to Amendment #2 vs. Nereffid's Law Of Extra Secondings (Say, 3 instead of 1). People have been voting yes for some measure along these lines, but I actually think Nereffid's idea may be more effective.

I am dropping Amendment #3 due to significant opposition.

I am aware of mmsbls' concern of needing more input, but we have already received input from the majority of regular voters, so considering only one of them has said no to Amendment #1 (due to not wanting to track his own votes, which he would never have to do in the first place), I think it is fair to call the vote on this one.


----------



## GreenMamba

I'm ok with moving forward. We have dragged this out long enough.

That being said, is there anything here that can clear the list of dead works? That was one of my original concerns to shrink the list. I think rule #2 dealt with that, but Nefferid's Law doesn't, does it? If not, then we're giving squatter's rights to old noms at the expense of new ones.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Well, it seems everyone is in favour of the "Law of 50%", so, unless there are any particular objections, we'll add that to the list of rules. Could a kindly mod please add this rule to the OP of the voting thread?

Nereffid's proposition also seems popular, but we should agree on details. How many seconds, and in how long?


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> Well, it seems everyone is in favour of the "Law of 50%", so, unless there are any particular objections, we'll add that to the list of rules. Could a kindly mod please add this rule to the OP of the voting thread?
> 
> Nereffid's proposition also seems popular, but we should agree on details. How many seconds, and in how long?


I think three seconds, with two weeks given (we currently have only one week given, but only one second needed) would work.


----------



## Guest

Yeah, three seconds in two weeks. Putting date of nom with nom for ease?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

dogen said:


> Yeah, three seconds in two weeks. Putting date of nom with nom for ease?


Good idea - what about time zones, though?


----------



## ptr

MoonlightSonata said:


> Good idea - what about time zones, though?


To take Time Zones in to account, just make it date +1 day ie. the two week period starts the following day @ GMT -11H (Midday MS local time!)

I love me a difficult construct! 

/ptr


----------



## Guest

Neat.

(And some more random characters)


----------



## MoonlightSonata

It doesn't look like there are any objections, so we might as well make the rule of three seconds in two weeks official. I think we should write the date seconded (in GMT, perhaps) to make this easier, and write seconds like this:
06 Beethoven: Grosse Fuge (1825) - Nominator, Seconder 1, Seconder 2
And then when it is seconded for the third time the names are removed as per usual. Points added during seconding still count.


----------



## Cygnenoir

I would be satisfied if we could make that monstrous board of ours shrink a little. What's the general opinion about moving works that hasn't been voted for in the last 2 or 3 weeks back to the nomination board (or simply removing them altogether)? I suggest we could do this with works below 10 points. That would clear up some space. 

It won't be necessary to do this more than once, as new works now need three secondings to get in. That will ensure a surtain range of support.


----------



## GreenMamba

Cygnenoir said:


> I would be satisfied if we could make that monstrous board of ours shrink a little. What's the general opinion about moving works that hasn't been voted for in the last 2 or 3 weeks back to the nomination board (or simply removing them altogether)? I suggest we could do this with works below 10 points. That would clear up some space.
> 
> It won't be necessary to do this more than once, as new works now need three secondings to get in. That will ensure a surtain range of support.


I have been in favor of this. The only issue is where to define it: under 10 and no votes in two weeks? 5 or fewer and have been on the board for 4 weeks?

By shifting them up to the nomination section, people can still save them if they want.


----------



## SimonNZ

Under 10 over x weeks would make more of a difference.

Rather than put them back on the nomination board, offer the original nominators the option of those works again or another work of their choosing.

And if the nominations came from someone who nominated and was never heard from again, just let them go.


----------



## SimonNZ

I hope all these new rules and fussiness aren't turning some people off the project.


----------



## 20centrfuge

I would like to put in a plug for Ginastera's masterful Harp Cto. There are moments of ethereal beauty, that are as powerful as those type of moments in Debussy's music. If you haven't given it a listen, I encourage you to put it at the top of your "to-listen-to" list.


----------



## Trout

In my opinion, the new three seconds required rule is a bit steep and kind of arbitrary since it can be considered too much or too little "approval" based on the total number of voters. Plus, it can also be redundant since most all of the works being enshrined have votes from at least 4 members anyway, and the new 50% rules will effectively require at least three people to vote for a work (yes only 2 if they happen to split exactly, which seems _very_ unlikely unless people start tracking voting history). I didn't realize this new rule would be implemented without an actual vote otherwise I would have voiced these concerns earlier.

I feel that these new rules may be a bit too late since we have already gone through the "major" works and ranks, unless we want the rankings past, say, 100 to still be meaningful in some way. The other project was like this too early on, with some self-conscious concern of rank, but its rules have always had a nice simplicity (I suppose the -1 vote eschewed many of these issues). If this is meant to be a long-term project, which is what MS said at one point if I recall correctly, then maybe we should not worry much about enshrining individual pieces that do not acquire enough of a consensus vote.

I suppose it just depends on how serious we want this project to be.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> I hope all these new rules and fussiness aren't turning some people off the project.


Well I blithely said I'd refrain from voting in light of pending rule changes. I didn't realise I'd be taking a six month sabbatical!


----------



## brotagonist

How many votes does a piece require to be enshrined? I could swear that some have disappeared in their 30s and others have climbed into their 40s and 50s and are still there.


----------



## GreenMamba

brotagonist said:


> How many votes does a piece require to be enshrined? I could swear that some have disappeared in their 30s and others have climbed into their 40s and 50s and are still there.


7 more than the second place work.


----------



## Nereffid

brotagonist said:


> How many votes does a piece require to be enshrined? I could swear that some have disappeared in their 30s and others have climbed into their 40s and 50s and are still there.


A shorter board means votes will be concentrated; as the board gets longer, voting options increase, and any given work has many more other works to climb past. IIRC Berio's Sinfonia got in on 18 votes?


----------



## brotagonist

OK. I sort of get it, without actually doing so  It explains why, at the start, pieces were enshrined in a jiffy and, now, they sit on the list forever.


----------



## Nereffid

Correction: Berio was enshrined with 19 votes. Seven people voted for it, but only 2 of them voted for it more than once. Certainly no one could argue that it was a fair winner.
But the current leader board has 42 works with more than 19 votes! And the Gerhard piece that's leading will need at least 57 votes to be enshrined - three times as much as Berio did. So each vote counts for much less.


----------



## Guest

Do we have a deadline or date for any new rules folks?


----------



## GreenMamba

Nereffid said:


> Correction: Berio was enshrined with 19 votes. Seven people voted for it, but only 2 of them voted for it more than once. Certainly no one could argue that it was a fair winner.
> But the current leader board has 42 works with more than 19 votes! And the Gerhard piece that's leading will need at least 57 votes to be enshrined - three times as much as Berio did. So each vote counts for much less.


No doubt this is a weakness of this system. Of course, Berio would have gotten many more points if forced to hang on longer. But this project favors the early-nominated works. God save the participant who joins now and wants to nominate.

Just having a minimum # of points to go through (rather than +7) would take away the "game" and make it a bit dreary. So it would have needed to be a wholly different system.

Personally, I still think we need a bit more hive mind. I don't expect people to "push through" works they don't like, but would be happy if they didn't vote "gap close" the first and second works.


----------



## senza sordino

I'm running out of pieces to vote for, and I haven't been doing my homework. I didn't want to keep voting for pieces near the top and I don't know the pieces at the top. If I had voted it would have slowed down the rate of enshrining because the pieces at the top would need even more votes. 

And I nearly voted for two pieces yesterday that both had the same number of points. They wouldn't after I voted but it did seem weird. 

I simply don't know enough of the music on the list to make an informed vote, and to be frank, I'm not sure I'm going to listen to enough music to make an informed vote. Therefore, I will be voting even less often than I do now. I'm generally a somewhat conservative listener.


----------



## mmsbls

GreenMamba said:


> Personally, I still think we need a bit more hive mind. I don't expect people to "push through" works they don't like, but would be happy if they didn't vote "gap close" the first and second works.


In the Classical Music Project there would be times when the top 2 works battled it out each increasing their point total to high numbers. Sometimes voters would "call for a truce" and decide to help each other's work. Maybe both voters would vote for the top work, and once that was enshrined, they would both vote for the next work. That way participants would not need to continually vote for one particular work and could move on to others they liked. Generally the "truce" was called when 2 works were clear leaders but couldn't neither one could pull away.

I'm not sure how often people voting for top works in this project strongly like other works that are close. If so, this plan could occasionally help works get enshrined with somewhat lower point totals. We'd have to experiment a bit to see when such a plan made sense.


----------



## GreenMamba

senza, just to clarify, I don't think people should be forced to push through the top works, or refrain from voting at all for strategic reasons. I'd hate for that to happen.

And we have enshrined ~1.5 works a day, which is a decent rate. I wouldn't want to have it 3-4 per day, where they'd zip by so fast you don't have time to sample them.

I do think the voting contingent is much less conservative know than it was earlier. So maybe that means you don't think the works you like will ever make it.


----------



## senza sordino

GreenMamba, thanks for replying. I understand what you say, and also I can add that the more people who participate, the more representative the project will be.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

dogen said:


> Do we have a deadline or date for any new rules folks?


Yes, the 50% rule and the three-seconds rule are in place.
Details are on the last couple of pages.


----------



## Guest

Marv. Cheers.....


----------



## Trout

Here's an idea I proposed in the voting thread about works that do not meet the 50% quota but are at the top of the board:

For such works that do not meet the 50% rule, we can make an "effective total" of their points such that they do not block enshrinements at the top of the list. For example, since 21 points of Ferneyhough's 45 were contributed by other members and since Albert can only contribute half, it has an effective total of 38 points. Albert's other 5 points would not be lost, rather will be added on when Ferneyhough receives points from other members. If I were to add 2 points to Ferneyhough, then its effective total would be 42 as Albert can contribute 2 more of his points, etc.

(My example is referring to the fact that Albert contributed 24 of Ferneyhough's (then) 43 points.)

How does this sound to everyone?


----------



## SimonNZ

I still feel we're spending a lot of time and effort jumping through hoops to accommodate the unheeding mischief of just one member.


----------



## Trout

SimonNZ said:


> I still feel we're spending a lot of time and effort jumping through hoops to accommodate the unheeding mischief of just one member.


I would be surprised if we do not encounter this problem in which a different member unknowingly contributed more than the allowed number of votes. I don't really consider this idea any more time and effort than vote tracking, which some are already doing.


----------



## mmsbls

I agree with Trout that the current rule could potentially disqualify a work that had enough "effective" points for enshrinement. If work A had 30 points from voter X and 25 from all others and the next closest work had 43 votes, work A would be ignored with the present rules. With the "effective" points rule, work A would get in. In that case the other voters would be penalized due to the voting of voter X. 

Of course, in such a situation the other voters could simply give work A 5 more votes to enshrine it. That's not such a bad situation. It's also possible that from now on no one will vote heavily for one work unless others are voting as well because of the rule changes. So maybe the "effective point" rule would only come into play for one or 2 present nominated works.

I'm happy to utilize the effective point total or to let things play out as is.


----------



## GreenMamba

I think nathanb's comment on the board makes sense. Just ignore the work until it evens out. No need to calculate effective points. It can't block anything.

It probably amounts to the same thing. In mmsbls's example, it would. The 50 point work would be ignored for now, and the 43 point work would be compared to whatever else is out there.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I agree with Trout that the current rule could potentially disqualify a work that had enough "effective" points for enshrinement. If work A had 30 points from voter X and 25 from all others and the next closest work had 43 votes, work A would be ignored with the present rules. With the "effective" points rule, work A would get in. In that case the other voters would be penalized due to the voting of voter X.
> 
> Of course, in such a situation the other voters could simply give work A 5 more votes to enshrine it. That's not such a bad situation. It's also possible that from now on no one will vote heavily for one work unless others are voting as well because of the rule changes. So maybe the "effective point" rule would only come into play for one or 2 present nominated works.
> 
> I'm happy to utilize the effective point total or to let things play out as is.


I don't think that example will happen unless someone is truly in capable of reading posts as much as they write posts.

Everyone aware of the rule will spread their votes around reasonably, because why screw over your own favorite work by power-voting it?

Under less extreme circumstances, our ideas are essentially the same in practice, with both ideas simply requiring additional votes to bring the work in for enshrinement...


----------



## Trout

GreenMamba said:


> I think nathanb's comment on the board makes sense. Just ignore the work until it evens out. No need to calculate effective points. It can't block anything.
> 
> *It probably amounts to the same thing.* In mmsbls's example, it would. The 50 point work would be ignored for now, and the 43 point work would be compared to whatever else is out there.


Well, for the instance of Ferneyhough, yes both methods would practically result in the same thing. But not necessarily for much more skewed margins as I wrote in my reply to nathanb in the other thread.


----------



## ptr

I'm not sure that I like a "balancing out power voting system", I think that it would be much more self regulating if every one know that any votes above 50% are lost, wasted and not counted! (The fact that some voter has power voted a work in to a stand off at the moment are not in my view a reason for amending the rules! Also, the chance that this will happened again is slim IMHO..)

/ptr


----------



## Guest

(From the numerically-challenged) is there an easy way to work out how much I've voted for something? I don't want to accidentally / in ignorance screw a work up. (eg I voted quite a bit for Atmospheres).


----------



## Guest

If Microludes is enshrined today I'll have to get my Van Halen 1 out!!!!


----------



## SimonNZ

In celebration, or to offset your sorrow?


----------



## Guest

Why sorrow? (There'll only be sorrow if it turns out I broke the 50% rule!)


----------



## SimonNZ

well...that's all right then


also: someone, I think it was nathan, mentioned the possibility of interest in Harry Partch's Delusion Of The Fury - I forgot to speak up at the time, but: hell yes!


----------



## GreenMamba

dogen said:


> (From the numerically-challenged) is there an easy way to work out how much I've voted for something? I don't want to accidentally / in ignorance screw a work up. (eg I voted quite a bit for Atmospheres).


I'm curious about this as well. once when bored at work, I used the search my posts in the voting thread and tallied my votes and have kept up. But when vetting an individual piece, are people searching for each voter individually?



> also: someone, I think it was nathan, mentioned the possibility of interest in Harry Partch's Delusion Of The Fury - I forgot to speak up at the time, but: hell yes!


I also really like Petals/Petaluma.


----------



## ptr

I will honk for Harry Partch!

/ptr


----------



## 20centrfuge

Might I suggest one slight rule change: rather than having three "seconds" for a nomination to make it to the board, how bout we just say that it must have at least 7 points (from 4 different members) to make it to the board. That way we will have a two tiered list that will thin out the main board considerably.

It would look like this:

*Nominated (need 7 points):*
02 Barraqué: Piano Sonata (1950-52) - PaulieGatto; ptr (two more seconds needed)
04 Sessions: String Quartet No. 2 (1951) - Mahlerian, Albert7, GreenMamba (one more second needed)
06 Adams: Doctor Atomic (2005)
04 Arnold: Sixth Symphony (1967)
03 Ginastera: Piano Concerto No. 1 (1961)
04 Riley: The Harp of New Albion (1985)
04 Rouse: Iscariot (1989)
02 Theofanidas: Rainbow Body (2000)
06 Tippett: Symphony No. 3 (1972)

*Seconded:*
18 Abrahamsen: Schnee (2008)
11 Adams: Gnarly Buttons (1996)
21 Adams: Harmonium (1981)
19 Babbitt: Philomel (1964)
36 Berio: Sequenze (2002)
08 Berio: Rendering (1989)
11 Birtwistle: Secret Theatre (1984)
12 Birtwistle: The Triumph of Time (1972)
22 Boulez: Pli selon pli (1989)
20 Britten: Cello Symphony (1963)
15 Britten: The Turn of the Screw (1954)
10 Cage: Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music (1962)
10 Cage: Roaratorio (1979)
38 Carter: Symphonia: Sum fluxae pretium spei (1996)
39 Chin: Violin Concerto (2001)
25 Clyne: The Violin (2009)
17 Corigliano: Symphony No. 1 (1988-89)
15 Crumb: Vox Balaenae (1971)
18 Dallapiccola: Piccola Musica Notturna (1954)
16 Dillon: Nine Rivers (1982-2000)
07 Donatoni: Hot (1989)
15 Duckworth: Time Curve Preludes (1978)
09 Feldman: Crippled Symmetry (1983)
18 Feldman: For Philip Guston (1984)
08 Feldman: String Quartet No. 2 (1983)
45 Ferneyhough: String Quartet No. 6 (2010)
22 Ferneyhough: Terrain (1992)
35 Furrer: Piano Concerto (2007)
15 Ginastera: Harp Concerto (1965)
21 Glass: Akhnaten (1983)
16 Glass: Satyagraha (1979)
10 Grime: Three Whistler Miniatures (2011)
37 Grisey: Quatre chants pour franchir le seuil (1998)
29 Gubaidulina: Canticle of the Sun (Sonnengesang) (1997)
25 Hartmann: Symphony No. 6 (1953)
07 Hartmann: Symphony No. 8 (1962)
12 Henze: Symphony No. 5 (1962)
14 Holt, Simeon ten: Canto Ostinato (1976)
28 Kagel: Music for Renaissance Instruments (1966)
08 Kernis: Cello Concerto "Colored Field" (2002)
14 Kurtag: 3rd String Quartet (Officium breve) (1989)
14 Lachenmann: Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern (1996)
16 Lieberson: Neruda Songs (2005)
37 Ligeti: Chamber Concerto, for 13 instrumentalists (1970)
17 Ligeti: Double Concerto, for flute, oboe and orchestra (1972)
21 López: La Selva (1998)
12 Lutoslawski: Cello Concerto (1969-70)
12 MacMillan: The Confession of Isobel Gowdie (1990)
26 Maderna: Quadrivium (1969)
08 Maxwell Davies: An Orkney Wedding, with Sunrise (1984)
24 Messiaen: Chronochromie (1960)
19 Messiaen: Méditations sur le Mystère de la Sainte-Trinité (1969)
14 Nancarrow: Studies for Player Piano (1948-1992)
27 Nono: Como Una Ola De Fuerza Y Luz (1972)
27 Nono: Prometeo (1981-85)
26 Nørgård: Symphony No.3 (1975)
05 Partch: Delusion Of The Fury (1965-1966)
42 Pärt: Fratres (1977)
24 Penderecki: Symphony No. 7 "Seven Gates of Jerusalem" (1996)
05 Petrassi: Concerto for Orchestra No.5 (1955)
30 Pintscher: Five Pieces for Orchestra (1997)
33 Prokofiev: Symphony No. 7 in C-sharp minor (1952)
20 Rautavaara: Symphony No. 7 'Angel of Light' (1994)
17 Reich: The Desert Music (1983)
14 Rihm: Tutuguri (1980-82)
10 Saariaho: 'Nymphéa' (Jardin Secret III) (1987)
30 Saariaho: Six Japanese Gardens (1994)
23 Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004)
02 Sandström: Flute Concerto (1980)
07 Schaeffer/Henry: Orphee 53 (1953)
24 Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 1 (1977)
04 Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 2 (1982)
03 Schnittke: Septet (1982)
23 Schnittke: Symphony No. 1 (1969-74)
24 Schnittke: Symphony No. 5 (Concerto Grosso No. 4) (1988)
14 Shostakovich: 24 Preludes & Fugues Op.87 (1951)
16 Shostakovich: Piano Concerto No. 2 (1957)
08 Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 15 (1974)
12 Shostakovich: Viola Sonata (1975)
13 Silvestrov: Symphony No. 5 (1982)
12 Stockhausen: KLANG (2004-2007)
12 Stockhausen: Momente (1969)
34 Stravinsky: Agon (1957)
11 Stravinsky: The Rake's Progress (1951)
48 Stravinsky: Requiem Canticles (1966)
14 Stravinsky: Septet (1953)
30 Takemitsu: Requiem for Strings (1957)
22 Tavener: Song for Athene (1993)
25 Ustvolskaya: Symphony No. 3 "Jesus Messiah, Save Us" (1983)
24 Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 7 (1952)
09 Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 8 (1956)
18 Xenakis: Nomos Alpha (1965-66)
12 Xenakis: Tetras (1983)
11 Yoshimatsu: Symphony No. 5 (2001)
13 Young: The Well-Tuned Piano (1964-present)
11 Zimmermann: Die Soldaten (1957-64)


----------



## Guest

Got to love Partch and his invented instruments...


----------



## Cygnenoir

Here's some excerpts of my future nominations. If someone would use their spare nominations on one of these, you bet you got my support 

Ligeti: Lux Aeterna, Clocks and Clouds
Schnittke: Peer Gynt, Choir Concerto
Crumb: Makrokosmos
Penderecki: Symphony #1, Utrenja
Glass: Aguas da Amazonia
Reich: Eight Lines
Higdon: Concerto for Orchestra
Cage: Souvenir, Organ2/ASLSP


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Cygnenoir said:


> Here's some excerpts of my future nominations. If someone would use their spare nominations on one of these, you bet you got my support
> 
> Ligeti: Lux Aeterna, Clocks and Clouds
> Schnittke: Peer Gynt, Choir Concerto
> Crumb: Makrokosmos
> Penderecki: Symphony #1, Utrenja
> Glass: Aguas da Amazonia
> Reich: Eight Lines
> Higdon: Concerto for Orchestra
> Cage: Souvenir, Organ2/ASLSP


I'll definitely nominate Lux Aeterna and the Choir Concerto. I think I'm still allowed four noms.


----------



## SimonNZ

Choir Concerto would get my support ahead of almost all the current Schnittkes (though I quite like the septet).

Aguas da Amazonia is an interesting choice which I'd also support, though I wonder if it isn't a good work that's elevated by a superb recorded performance - but then on second thoughts that's going to make me question everything


----------



## GreenMamba

Cygnenoir said:


> Here's some excerpts of my future nominations. If someone would use their spare nominations on one of these, you bet you got my support
> 
> Ligeti: Lux Aeterna, Clocks and Clouds
> Schnittke: Peer Gynt, Choir Concerto
> Crumb: Makrokosmos
> Penderecki: Symphony #1, Utrenja
> Glass: Aguas da Amazonia
> Reich: Eight Lines
> Higdon: Concerto for Orchestra
> Cage: Souvenir, Organ2/ASLSP


Lux Aeterna, yep. 
Schnittke has a bunch on already, so it might not move.
Glass: I have been wishing for something other than an opera, but I don't know that piece.
Reich: I'm a fan.
I like some Higdon I've heard but not the Concerto so much.


----------



## mmsbls

I would eagerly support Aguas da Amazonia or Eight Lines. I have not nominated anything because the board is so large, but perhaps I'll nominate one of those.


----------



## tdc

Personally, the Schnittke piece I would most like to vote in at this point is the Concerto for Piano and Strings.


----------



## Albert7

Alas poor Duckworth and Young, two rather underrated composers who deserve a lot more attention than what they already have.


----------



## Guest

What about John Luther Adams? Is he a Marmite choice?


----------



## SimonNZ

Heh. I don't know a too many of his works, but I'd vote for Songbirdsongs...if that doesn't get us into "what is Classical?" territory.


----------



## SimonNZ

Also: for your amusement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite#New_Zealand_Marmite_shortage


----------



## Skilmarilion

GreenMamba said:


> Glass: I have been wishing for something other than an opera, but I don't know that piece.





mmsbls said:


> I would eagerly support Aguas da Amazonia ... I have not nominated anything because the board is so large, but perhaps I'll nominate one of those.


I was thinking of the 1st Violin Concerto, but Aguas would work.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Also: for your amusement:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite#New_Zealand_Marmite_shortage


Heh! It says it has a different taste in NZ, trivia fans.

I only know Become Ocean so I'll listen to Songbirdsongs...


----------



## Albert7

I am hoping that someone else can help with the Sessions' nomination. He is deserving of very strong support considering that his legacy is paramount.

He bridges the two worlds of the serial and neoclassical in a fashion that was uniquely his own.


----------



## GreenMamba

dogen said:


> What about John Luther Adams? Is he a Marmite choice?


No idea what that means. I know what marmite is, but still.
I think there are a few JLA fans at TC, but they are not necessarily participating.

Hovhaness might be in the same boat.


----------



## Nereffid

FWIW, "Become Ocean" is high on my own list of post-1950 works, but I don't appear to be participating any more so you can't really count on my vote.


----------



## Guest

You're not??? Is that even allowed?

Get back in there, man.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Personally, the Schnittke piece I would most like to vote in at this point is the Concerto for Piano and Strings.


Am I allowed to say I just listened to Septet and was very underwhelmed?

Now back in the impressive grip of Corigliano's Symphony no.1.


----------



## ptr

A question on format/protocol! We are nearing the first 100, will we let the whole thing run in one thread or do as done on the general project, move the first 100 to a "results" thread of its own and start a new voting thread for the next stage? (Or has this been dealt with?)

/ptr


----------



## Guest

ptr said:


> A question on format/protocol! We are nearing the first 100, will we let the whole thing run in one thread or do as done on the general project, move the first 100 to a "results" thread of its own and start a new voting thread for the next stage? (Or has this been dealt with?)
> 
> /ptr


You mean start with a blank slate? (I've not got involved in the other beast).

Do you know how long it took me to set up my random coefficient selector algorhythymicalcal matrix?


----------



## ptr

^^ My guess, is that it took You way too long at expense of more important things like listening! 

No, not a blank slate, the nominations and seconds in running is carried over!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

In that case, and with a bit of a cull, I've gone and nominated String Quartet No.8 (Night Descending Like Smoke) by Per Nørgård.

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

ptr said:


> A question on format/protocol! We are nearing the first 100, will we let the whole thing run in one thread or do as done on the general project, move the first 100 to a "results" thread of its own and start a new voting thread for the next stage? (Or has this been dealt with?)
> 
> /ptr


I hope we're only doing 200-300 works, and not a never-ending project with no final product, so in THAT case, I would say no? (It IS a member of the "TC Top Recommended" Series after all)


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> I hope we're only doing 200-300 works, and not a never-ending project with no final product, so in THAT case, I would say no? (It IS a member of the "TC Top Recommended" Series after all)


I think that we are going to have around 1000 works by the time this is done.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> I think that we are going to have around 1000 works by the time this is done.


I think you should read some threads.


----------



## SimonNZ

nathanb said:


> I hope we're only doing 200-300 works, and not a never-ending project with no final product, so in THAT case, I would say no? (It IS a member of the "TC Top Recommended" Series after all)


My vote is for a tentative specific number, also - which we can reconsider as we approach it, judging continuing interest and remaining participants. Maybe as we approach the 200 mark?

That would also be useful as a specific list for Contemporary newbies to consider and explore.


----------



## 20centrfuge

ptr said:


> A question on format/protocol! We are nearing the first 100, will we let the whole thing run in one thread or do as done on the general project, move the first 100 to a "results" thread of its own and start a new voting thread for the next stage? (Or has this been dealt with?)
> 
> /ptr


Starting with a blank slate would be fantastic!


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> My vote is for a tentative specific number, also - which we can reconsider as we approach it, judging continuing interest and remaining participants. Maybe as we approach the 200 mark?
> 
> That would also be useful as a specific list for Contemporary newbies to consider and explore.


Personally a finite list of "reasonable" length would be good.


----------



## musicrom

I've been (very) slowly going through and listening to each piece enshrined in this list, and I was just looking ahead and noticed that I'm having trouble finding a full version of Saariaho's _L'amour de loin_. Does anybody have any idea if it's possible to listen to it online, preferably through Youtube?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Anyone else willing to support Schnittke's Choir Concerto?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

musicrom said:


> I've been (very) slowly going through and listening to each piece enshrined in this list, and I was just looking ahead and noticed that I'm having trouble finding a full version of Saariaho's _L'amour de loin_. Does anybody have any idea if it's possible to listen to it online, preferably through Youtube?


I just had a look on YouTube, and the full opera didn't seem to be there.


----------



## ptr

What Lachenmann to nominate? I was thinking "*Kontrakadenz*" (Part One / Part Two) or "*Ausklang*"? ) Or both!?

What Heiner Goebbels to nominate? Nathan suggested "*Stifter's Dinge*", a very good choice, I was pondering "*Surrogate Cities*" (#1 / #2 / #3 / #4 / #5 / #6 / #7, part seven seems to be unavailable)?

What say You?

/ptr


----------



## Guest

ptr said:


> What Lachenmann to nominate? I was thinking "*Kontrakadenz*" (Part One / Part Two) or "*Ausklang*"? ) Or both!?
> 
> What Heiner Goebbels to nominate? Nathan suggested "*Stifter's Dinge*", a very good choice, I was pondering "*Surrogate Cities*" (#1 / #2 / #3 / #4 / #5 / #6 / #7, part seven seems to be unavailable)?
> 
> What say You?
> 
> /ptr


All fine choices! Only adding in a few extra mentions for: _Schwankungen Am Rand_, _Harmonica_, and either _Grido_ or _Gran Torso_.


----------



## ptr

^^ Lets nominate all of them! :cheers:

/ptr


----------



## Albert7

Man o man for the next five years post 1950s works are the going to the only stuff I will hear.


----------



## Guest

Lachenmann is a world class "sound painter" and possibly manages ridiculously large forces more often than any of his contemporaries (only Rihm comes to mind as a possible challenger).


----------



## Albert7

ooooo, can't wait to check out Lachenmann. Sounds very interesting.


----------



## Albert7

2/3 of the way of hearing all those Stockhausen LICHT clips... evidently this is taking forever.

But so worth it. I even notice the Mahlerian influences on the section called "Jahreslauf."


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> 2/3 of the way of hearing all those Stockhausen LICHT clips... evidently this is taking forever.
> 
> But so worth it. I even notice the Mahlerian influences on the section called "Jahreslauf."


Hurry up, so you can start KLANG.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Hurry up, so you can start KLANG.


Sadly enough, the most I can find of that piece is this:






and






It is unfinished for those who don't know about the piece and would have rivaled LICHT in terms of scope and sheer brilliance.

Any other directions where to find more of KLANG? I at least found 21 volumes of those on the official Stockhausen website but very pricey. http://www.stockhausencds.com/


----------



## Guest

I would have thought you would've been able to find Cosmic Pulses at least. I have mp3s, so I wouldn't know.


----------



## musicrom

Has anything by Magnus Lindberg been nominated yet? I really like his Violin Concerto, Clarinet Concerto, and Gran Duo.


----------



## GreenMamba

musicrom said:


> Has anything by Magnus Lindberg been nominated yet? I really like his Violin Concerto, Clarinet Concerto, and Gran Duo.


I'd throw Kraft into the mix. I haven't heard a lot by him, but from I've heard, he definitely is worthy.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> I'd throw Kraft into the mix. I haven't heard a lot by him, but from I've heard, he definitely is worthy.


Kraft would definitely be the one I would support the most.


----------



## musicrom

nathanb said:


> Kraft would definitely be the one I would support the most.


Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with that work, so I'll need to find some time to check it out later.

EDIT: And also find a recording of it, because it doesn't seem to be on Youtube.


----------



## GioCar

From what I sampled on YT, I think I'm going to buy


----------



## Guest

Murail: Winter Fragments seems a bit thin on the ground (Amazon, Spotify, Youtube). Anyone got any recommended links??


----------



## ptr

dogen said:


> Murail: Winter Fragments seems a bit thin on the ground (Amazon, Spotify, Youtube). Anyone got any recommended links??


I only have it on CD, with Argento Chamber Ensemble on Aeon, have a faint memory that I bought it from French Amazon..

/ptr


----------



## Albert7

dogen said:


> Murail: Winter Fragments seems a bit thin on the ground (Amazon, Spotify, Youtube). Anyone got any recommended links??


I found mine on iTunes so that is how it went there.


----------



## Albert7

ptr said:


> I only have it on CD, with Argento Chamber Ensemble on Aeon, have a faint memory that I bought it from French Amazon..
> 
> /ptr


If you are with the United States version of iTunes, this is the album.






Honestly it puzzles that Murail isn't all that popular here in the United States. I never heard him live at any orchestral performance (or chamber either).

And he is one of the unsung heroes of our time. I rank Winter Fragments as probably one of my top 5 favs of the spectralist movement easily. (and I'm a huge fan of winter too because of Game of Thrones too)


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> If you are with the United States version of iTunes, this is the album.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it puzzles that Murail isn't all that popular here in the United States. I never heard him live at any orchestral performance (or chamber either).
> 
> And he is one of the unsung heroes of our time. I rank Winter Fragments as probably one of my top 5 favs of the spectralist movement easily. (and I'm a huge fan of winter too because of Game of Thrones too)


Not sure why it puzzles you. Spectralism has never been "popular". Murail is about as popular as he could possibly be.


----------



## Albert7

New nomination from my camp. This is a landmark work. So enjoy:


----------



## GreenMamba

So is the new Grime out? Removed for the new nom?


----------



## Albert7

dogen said:


> Murail: Winter Fragments seems a bit thin on the ground (Amazon, Spotify, Youtube). Anyone got any recommended links??









GreenMamba said:


> So is the new Grime out? Removed for the new nom?


yep, due to apparent lack of interest sadly enough.


----------



## GreenMamba

dogen said:


> Murail: Winter Fragments seems a bit thin on the ground (Amazon, Spotify, Youtube). Anyone got any recommended links??


Rdio has it (a Spotify competitor). Argento Chamber Ensemble.

I think you can sign up for free to hear it, maybe endure an ad. It's browser based.


----------



## GreenMamba

Albert7 said:


> yep, due to apparent lack of interest sadly enough.


Well, I like Grime's stuff, although not as much as a lot of the others. You did give her some advertising.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> yep, due to apparent lack of interest sadly enough.


A 9-hour gap is not lack of interest. Except perhaps lack of interest on your part.

Anyway, as expressed in the other thread, I wish you'd go for one of the MANY recorded works of Avram, and even then, I think Dumitrescu should be listed perhaps slightly before Avram anyway. Not sure what makes that random work a "landmark" amongst her huge oeuvre.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> A 9-hour gap is not lack of interest. Except perhaps lack of interest on your part.
> 
> Anyway, as expressed in the other thread, I wish you'd go for one of the MANY recorded works of Avram, and even then, I think Dumitrescu should be listed perhaps slightly before Avram anyway. Not sure what makes that random work a "landmark" amongst her huge oeuvre.


Not a lack of interest on my part honestly. Just changing things up and seeing what sticks on the wall. I will renom Grime later this summer.


----------



## ptr

nathanb said:


> Anyway, as expressed in the other thread, I wish you'd go for one of the MANY recorded works of Avram, and even then, I think Dumitrescu should be listed perhaps slightly before Avram anyway. Not sure what makes that random work a "landmark" amongst her huge oeuvre.


I agree, I have a "Avoid to vote" policy for nominated works that are "only" available on the tube. I need a CD or at least a download (not iTunes) for me to take notice of it! (Old geek squeek! ut

/ptr


----------



## GreenMamba

ptr said:


> I agree, I have a "Avoid to vote" policy for nominated works that are "only" available on the tube. I need a CD or at least a download (not iTunes) for me to take notice of it! (Old geek squeek! ut
> 
> /ptr


So are you actually paying money for all these listens? If so, this sounds like an expensive project for you.


----------



## Proms Fanatic

Because I haven't heard the majority of the works talked about on this forum before, I have to try and find the works on YouTube before I vote, otherwise I'd have to take out a very sizeable loan!


----------



## Guest

Proms Fanatic said:


> Because I haven't heard the majority of the works talked about on this forum before, I have to try and find the works on YouTube before I vote, otherwise I'd have to take out a very sizeable loan!


You and me both! I use free Spotify too.


----------



## Guest

ptr said:


> I agree, I have a "Avoid to vote" policy for nominated works that are "only" available on the tube. I need a CD or at least a download (not iTunes) for me to take notice of it! (Old geek squeek! ut
> 
> /ptr


With rare exceptions I think... or is Haas' 3rd quartet actually available on some obscure CD?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I tend to use YouTube as well.


----------



## Albert7

I hate Spotify so I use only iTunes or YouTube to find all this shebang.


----------



## GreenMamba

I believe the Oliveros piece I nominated was only recorded on LP, which means no streaming. It is on YouTube (better version on Vimeo, I think). 

I couldn't do this without online listening.


----------



## ptr

GreenMamba said:


> So are you actually paying money for all these listens? If so, this sounds like an expensive project for you.


Yes, for the few that I don't already own. (I think that there have been three or four works on the complete list that I had not heard before (and was not present in my CD collection). To me the list is still quite conventional and mainstream!)
Still (a slight elaboration), to me its not about what media "I" am listening to, but the possibilities for someone who comes fresh to the list to have as many easy ways to get to the music as possible, if one has to rely on something that is in a constant state of flux like Youtube as the sole provider chances are that one gives up after a few hits and misses!
I'm just an old geek that likes my recommendations to have a solid easy to access base!

/ptr


----------



## ptr

nathanb said:


> With rare exceptions I think... or is Haas' 3rd quartet actually available on some obscure CD?


Might just be the blatant example that crucifies me as the great liar of all things TC! :angel:
But then, Georg Friedrich is a saint that transcends all rules I am committed to!

/ptr


----------



## Albert7

ptr said:


> Might just be the blatant example that crucifies me as the great liar of all things TC! :angel:
> But then, Georg Friedrich is a saint that transcends all rules I am committed to!
> 
> /ptr


No iTunes release for that Haas string quartet. Ugh... at least YouTube works for it .


----------



## MoonlightSonata

ptr said:


> Might just be the blatant example that crucifies me as the great liar of all things TC! :angel:
> But then, Georg Friedrich is a saint that transcends all rules I am committed to!
> 
> /ptr


That reminds me - I must listen to more Haas!


----------



## Guest

ptr said:


> Might just be the blatant example that crucifies me as the great liar of all things TC! :angel:
> But then, Georg Friedrich is a saint that transcends all rules I am committed to!
> 
> /ptr


Two key examples where the total output just outweighs the officially recorded output by way too much: Georg Friedrich Haas and *Philippe Manoury*. Those are my two exceptions, anyway  Wouldn't mind if someone hurried up with the rest of Dillon's orchestral works either...


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Two key examples where the total output just outweighs the officially recorded output by way too much: Georg Friedrich Haas and *Philippe Manoury*. Those are my two exceptions, anyway  Wouldn't mind if someone hurried up with the rest of Dillon's orchestral works either...


Although we are lacking in official LaMonte Young recordings too. We need that piano piece in full more available.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Although we are lacking in official LaMonte Young recordings too. We need that piano piece in full more available.


Not sure which piece you're talking about? The Well-Tuned Piano is available on official recordings, unlike the various Haas/Manoury/etc works in question.


----------



## GreenMamba

nathanb said:


> Not sure which piece you're talking about? The Well-Tuned Piano is available on official recordings, unlike the various Haas/Manoury/etc works in question.


Is it? I've only seen an old LP set that sells for like $1000.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Not sure which piece you're talking about? The Well-Tuned Piano is available on official recordings, unlike the various Haas/Manoury/etc works in question.


The Well-Tuned Piano isn't on iTunes. 

and this is http://www.amazon.com/LaMonte-Young-The-Well-Tuned-Piano/dp/B000009HZ9 a no go for me.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> The Well-Tuned Piano isn't on iTunes.
> 
> and this is http://www.amazon.com/LaMonte-Young-The-Well-Tuned-Piano/dp/B000009HZ9 a no go for me.


I have that album on my iPod, but yeah, the price does seem a bit high.


----------



## tortkis

You can listen to podcast of the 1987 performance. Just search "well tuned piano no such program". (I found the info on another forum posted by a kind guy.)


----------



## Guest

I'd never thought of podcasts as a way of digging up recorded music. I wonder if there's any Bowyer/Sorabji podcasts...


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I can't remember if I've posted this before, but it's very good:


----------



## Albert7

By the way, I haven't kept track but I'm wondering whether I am the top guy who gives the final vote to enshrine a lot of these pieces.


----------



## GreenMamba

I've always thought I end up giving the enshrining vote for a lot of works. 

I think you vote for than the rest of us, Albert (3x a day vs. 2x), which increases the chances of casting the tap in vote.


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> I've always thought I end up giving the enshrining vote for a lot of works.
> 
> I think you vote for than the rest of us, Albert (3x a day vs. 2x), which increases the chances of casting the tap in vote.


Yes that is a good point. And now that I have a LTE-enabled iPad voting is a lot easier now on the public transit.


----------



## Brouken Air




----------



## Brouken Air




----------



## Brouken Air




----------



## MoonlightSonata

Looks like some good recordings, Brouken Air, but Brahms and Mozart are hardly Post-1950...


----------



## Albert7

MoonlightSonata said:


> Looks like some good recordings, Brouken Air, but Brahms and Mozart are hardly Post-1950...


He thought we are talking about post 1950s recordings not compositions.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> He thought we are talking about post 1950s recordings not compositions.


Well that would be quite the open question wouldn't it.


----------



## Albert7

I am thinking about withdrawing the Avram nomination and subbing it. Any suggestions? I have ideas but so far I've been zeroed out lately.


----------



## Guest

I love a lot of Avram works, but I'm not sure which would be THE standout at this point in the game. But then, even Dumitrescu isn't terribly popular on this board. For that branch of spectralism, Radulescu is probably the most widely accepted starting point. Probably Clepsydra or the Piano Concerto or String Quartet No. 4?

Some various other things I'm thinking about where you can perhaps find common ground:

Nono: Il Canto Sospeso (I was hoping I wouldn't have to nominate this guy since I already did Como Y Luz... but I may)
Ferneyhough: Shadowtime
Benjamin: Written On Skin
Birtwistle: The Mask Of Orpheus
Reimann: Lear
Pintscher: Sonic Eclipse
Cerha: Spiegel
Chin: Cello Concerto

Something of Finnissy's? (Perhaps give it an interest check. The History Of Photography In Sound is a big boy, but the English Country Tunes or Red Earth would probably be more viable)
Something of Nordheim's? (Epitaffio? Tenebrae? Fonos? The Tempest?)
Something of Barrett's (Richard, in this case. Dark Matter is my first inclination, but I don't know what, if anything, is well liked here)

I know you like the ladies, but I can't see many of the pieces I like by Avram, let alone Mochizuki, Mundry, Saunders, etc going terribly far at this point in time.


----------



## Albert7

I agree here. I may be the only dude here who thinks that Clyne is pretty revolutionary with her blending of visual arts and classical music composition but she is already on the other classical music list.

And spectralism is going to be now tough to get more works on the board. They aren't recorded all that frequently and YouTube isn't always the best quality to appreciate the works either.

I am trying to nominate composers (and my program votes for) who didn't appear yet on the list. I am going to give Reimann and Cerha a spin then. Also Chin is awesome too but she has two works already. 

Finnissy would be a great idea if I can find some recordings for him. Nordheim I don't know and Barrett I don't know either.

This project is killing my butt in trying to find stuff off iTunes.



nathanb said:


> I love a lot of Avram works, but I'm not sure which would be THE standout at this point in the game. But then, even Dumitrescu isn't terribly popular on this board. For that branch of spectralism, Radulescu is probably the most widely accepted starting point. Probably Clepsydra or the Piano Concerto or String Quartet No. 4?
> 
> Some various other things I'm thinking about where you can perhaps find common ground:
> 
> Nono: Il Canto Sospeso (I was hoping I wouldn't have to nominate this guy since I already did Como Y Luz... but I may)
> Ferneyhough: Shadowtime
> Benjamin: Written On Skin
> Birtwistle: The Mask Of Orpheus
> Reimann: Lear
> Pintscher: Sonic Eclipse
> Cerha: Spiegel
> Chin: Cello Concerto
> 
> Something of Finnissy's? (Perhaps give it an interest check. The History Of Photography In Sound is a big boy, but the English Country Tunes or Red Earth would probably be more viable)
> Something of Nordheim's? (Epitaffio? Tenebrae? Fonos? The Tempest?)
> Something of Barrett's (Richard, in this case. Dark Matter is my first inclination, but I don't know what, if anything, is well liked here)
> 
> I know you like the ladies, but I can't see many of the pieces I like by Avram, let alone Mochizuki, Mundry, Saunders, etc going terribly far at this point in time.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> I agree here. I may be the only dude here who thinks that Clyne is pretty revolutionary with her blending of visual arts and classical music composition but she is already on the other classical music list.
> 
> And spectralism is going to be now tough to get more works on the board. They aren't recorded all that frequently and YouTube isn't always the best quality to appreciate the works either.
> 
> I am trying to nominate composers (and my program votes for) who didn't appear yet on the list. I am going to give Reimann and Cerha a spin then. Also Chin is awesome too but she has two works already.
> 
> Finnissy would be a great idea if I can find some recordings for him. Nordheim I don't know and Barrett I don't know either.
> 
> This project is killing my butt in trying to find stuff off iTunes.


I don't know about iTunes, but for my mp3 purchases, I use Amazon MP3, and I'm quite sure you can find just about everything I mentioned on there. They tend to have most NMC, Metier, Aurora, KAIROS, etc. stuff on there (These being relevant labels to what I mentioned).

Only thing that's frustrating me on Amazon MP3 lately is that they haven't updated their NEOS catalogue in a long time, so there's a whole host of more recent NEOS releases that I can't get my paws on. Basically everything from the last 1.5-2 years, including a juicy Pintscher disc, and more discs from excellent series on Peter Ruzicka, Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf, and Rene Wohlhauser.

EDIT: And just as I look at the NEOS catalogue to verify dates and whatnot, I realize they're releasing the complete piano works of Ferneyhough soon... Exciting if I can just get it!


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> I don't know about iTunes, but for my mp3 purchases, I use Amazon MP3, and I'm quite sure you can find just about everything I mentioned on there. They tend to have most NMC, Metier, Aurora, KAIROS, etc. stuff on there (These being relevant labels to what I mentioned).
> 
> Only thing that's frustrating me on Amazon MP3 lately is that they haven't updated their NEOS catalogue in a long time, so there's a whole host of more recent NEOS releases that I can't get my paws on. Basically everything from the last 1.5-2 years, including a juicy Pintscher disc, and more discs from excellent series on Peter Ruzicka, Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf, and Rene Wohlhauser.
> 
> EDIT: And just as I look at the NEOS catalogue to verify dates and whatnot, I realize they're releasing the complete piano works of Ferneyhough soon... Exciting if I can just get it!


Nathan thanks for your help. By the way, my goal is after this project is over is that I will have bought and owned an album or three at least by each composer on this board. I plan to have a good extensive of a period that I feel means a lot to my heart and intellectual pursuits.


----------



## Guest

Would it be OK to vote for Hot / Screw or would a mod step in??


----------



## GreenMamba

dogen said:


> Would it be OK to vote for Hot / Screw or would a mod step in??


I'm surprised nathanb hasn't done Screw / Shostakovich yet.


----------



## Albert7

If anyone cares the iTunes version of Lieberson's Neruda Songs sung by his wife is only five bucks now.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> I'm surprised nathanb hasn't done Screw / Shostakovich yet.


Why don't you have a look through my last.fm artists and plays before making any such implications


----------



## GreenMamba

nathanb said:


> Why don't you have a look through my last.fm artists and plays before making any such implications


Those lists are all for a former member named arcaneholocaust. I was talking about the guy who seemed less than thrilled about all those votes for Shosty.


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> Those lists are all for a former member named arcaneholocaust. I was talking about the guy who seemed less than thrilled about all those votes for Shosty.


My computer and I have never voted for Shostakovich actually.


----------



## GreenMamba

Albert7 said:


> My computer and I have never voted for Shostakovich actually.


I wasn't saying you did. Most of the heavy Shostakovich voters have departed.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> Those lists are all for a former member named arcaneholocaust. I was talking about the guy who seemed less than thrilled about all those votes for Shosty.


And why do you think you can't find said former member any more?


----------



## GreenMamba

nathanb said:


> And why do you think you can't find said former member any more?


He changed his name to nathanb.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> He changed his name to nathanb.


I would post that exploding head gif, but it would probably slow down my own computer.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> I would post that exploding head gif, but it would probably slow down my own computer.


Wow, I kinda want to see this right now.


----------



## mmsbls

Maybe it's a good time to decide what the goal of this game is. We have enshrined 114 works, have 83 seconded, and nominated 1 for a total of 198. I think most felt we did did not want this to be an ongoing project similar to the Classical Music Project where there is no fixed ending. If not, what should we shoot for? 

For any fixed total, there will come a time when people no longer wish to nominate since those new works will start too far behind to have a chance for enshrinement. If the total is 150, we're probably close now. If we go to 200, we still require more nominations but not many more. People will have to think a bit more carefully about which works to nominate. 

Over the past 3 days or so we had 18 people participating (although not everyone contributing everyday). That's more than participated toward the end of most of the other lists. 

So what does everyone think?


----------



## Guest

200 seems reasonable. My first thought is "but I have so many more works yet to vote for!" but then I realize that such a thought is futile because contemporary music is pretty endlessly good in my book right now.

Of course we'll need some sort of vote, so a few options would be good. Thanks for bringing this up again, mmsbls.


----------



## Guest

I think...

This is a great thread but I think creating a finite list is better than an open-ended eternal one. Wouldn't the latter likely result in a tailing off of participation? Personally I think I'm starting with the early signs of fatigue! I imagine those who know more works than me feel they've hardly started though?


----------



## Albert7

We need to end this sometime. I plan to buy all these on iTunes someday and if we have too many I will be broke.


----------



## ptr

I was about to suggest that 666 would be a sweet number, but I really don't have any set feelings for a definitive number! (200 might well be a reasonable amount of choice for a beginner!)

/ptr


----------



## GreenMamba

I'd say 200 or even 150. Or we could go to 175 but then say the last 25 spots go to the highest scorers still on the list. Might make for a crazy finish. 

I have a new nom freeing up now and am not sure if it is worth making.


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> I'd say 200 or even 150. Or we could go to 175 but then say the last 25 spots go to the highest scorers still on the list. Might make for a crazy finish.
> 
> I have a new nom freeing up now and am not sure if it is worth making.


Let's do 250 works total. So that it is mathematically logical here. 1/4 of 1000 is good to handle.


----------



## GreenMamba

If 250, then we are barely half way done and are looking at 2+ months more. For me, that would be a bit much. We could have an accelerated finish of some sort to get all the top nominees enshrined.


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> If 250, then we are barely half way done and are looking at 2+ months more. For me, that would be a bit much. We could have an accelerated finish of some sort to get all the top nominees enshrined.


Accelerated finish meaning that we can vote every 4-6 hours then?


----------



## tdc

I think seeing as the other project has enshrined thousands of works and still going strong, a mere 200 seems a little skimpy for post 1950. The current (very large) size of the board is an indicator that there are still a lot of works individuals want to see enshrined, and participation hasn't really slowed down too much. I don't really see any convincing reasons to stop anytime too soon. No one needs to feel compelled to participate all the way until the end. 

Initially there was supposed to be an end number on the other project too by the way, (believe it or not at one point we were planning on possibly stopping with 500) but it just kept on going. I only rarely participate in that other one at this point, but I don't have a problem with it continuing.


----------



## GreenMamba

Albert7 said:


> Accelerated finish meaning that we can vote every 4-6 hours then?


I meant something like we take the works currently nominated and enshrine them. Maybe we are all given a week to vote to sort out the order. SO the last 25 or so are done that way.


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> I meant something like we take the works currently nominated and enshrine them. Maybe we are all given a week to vote to sort out the order. SO the last 25 or so are done that way.


I would be impressed if we did 500 works. Maybe better to do a part two?


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> I think seeing as the other project has enshrined thousands of works and still going strong, a mere 200 seems a little skimpy for post 1950. The current (very large) size of the board is an indicator that there are still a lot of works individuals want to see enshrined, and participation hasn't really slowed down too much. I don't really see any convincing reasons to stop anytime too soon. No one needs to feel compelled to participate all the way until the end.
> 
> Initially there was supposed to be an end number on the other project too by the way, (believe it or not at one point we were planning on possibly stopping with 500) but it just kept on going. I only rarely participate in that other one at this point, but I don't have a problem with it continuing.


This is a Top Recommended List to be posted with the other Top Recommended Lists. Unlike the Project, it has an end goal. I would be fine with up to 250 or MAYBE 300, but seeing as how the longest list on the current archive is the opera list with under 300, it would seem a little odd to go much higher than that.

I would simply rather see it as a finished project than a work in progress. I eventually discovered the TC Project, but as a non-member who first came to this site for recommendations, my own experience is that the finished lists appear more inviting to people seeking new music.


----------



## tdc

nathanb said:


> This is a Top Recommended List to be posted with the other Top Recommended Lists. Unlike the Project, it has an end goal. I would be fine with up to 250 or MAYBE 300, but seeing as how the longest list on the current archive is the opera list with under 300, it would seem a little odd to go much higher than that.
> 
> I would simply rather see it as a finished project than a work in progress. I eventually discovered the TC Project, but as a non-member who first came to this site for recommendations, my own experience is that the finished lists appear more inviting to people seeking new music.


Well, whatever is decided is fine with me, but seeing as the format is pretty much the same as the other CMP, I'm not sure why the project is considered similar to all the other lists where very different voting procedures were used. I also wouldn't be surprised if eventually at some point the CMP would actually conclude and then also be added in some way or another as a TC "Top Recommended List".

Trout and you have pointed out already you feel this list is not the same as the others in that it shouldn't be looked at as a specific ranking as much as a more generalized list, in which case its usefulness is perhaps more in the interactive discovering of new works and sharing those with others. If this is the case (and that is largely how the list is of use to me) it would be a very useful resource as long as there continue to be new post-1950 works members are enthusiastic in nominating and voting for, and as I said judging by the size of the board the process is by no means at the point of petering out.

This is all just my opinion. If the general consensus is to put a finite number on this thing in the near future than so be it.


----------



## mmsbls

I agree with nathanb. I think the list should have 200 or possibly 250 works. Honestly, a much longer list probably should not be placed with the other recommended lists. This list already is a bit differnet in that the voting procedure is distinctly different from the other recommended lists. I think that's OK, but a very long list would not really belong with the others.


----------



## Guest

By the way, I'll take a moment to expound a bit on why I'm such a listomaniac here. First of all, my brain just works that way. Order from chaos. Cold, calculated grand design. 

But perhaps equally important, is the fact that my whirlwind of a classical journey took some of its first crucial steps through the lists I first found on this site in the winter of 2012-2013. Yes, some ~30 months ago, in between my Slayer and Darkthrone CDs, I had opted to put a little more energy into liking some new things, like Beethoven's 5th symphony. And I realized very quickly how very vast this world might turn out to be, and until I did some googling and came across the TC archive of top recommended lists, I feared that I'd be completely lost. So perhaps that's why I take these things so seriously. Because I know that little Nathans might still be out there.


----------



## SimonNZ

mmsbls said:


> Maybe it's a good time to decide what the goal of this game is. We have enshrined 114 works, have 83 seconded, and nominated 1 for a total of 198. I think most felt we did did not want this to be an ongoing project similar to the Classical Music Project where there is no fixed ending. If not, what should we shoot for?
> 
> For any fixed total, there will come a time when people no longer wish to nominate since those new works will start too far behind to have a chance for enshrinement. If the total is 150, we're probably close now. If we go to 200, we still require more nominations but not many more. People will have to think a bit more carefully about which works to nominate.
> 
> Over the past 3 days or so we had 18 people participating (although not everyone contributing everyday). That's more than participated toward the end of most of the other lists.
> 
> So what does everyone think?


I'd prefer a fixed number, maybe 250 give or take a 50 - but I don't think it should be assumed that many of the works currently on the board would necessarily be enshrined by the time we reach that figure. It might be better to ask more frequently now if other works by the same composers would be getting more support, particulaly those by well-loved composers who have yet to have an enshrinement. There are also some nominations that have been standing still for quite some time.

I will be rejoining the fray in the very near future, and will want to add some new nominations after gauging interest in specific works by specific composers.


----------



## Guest

Bee tee dubyu:

Looking at the list and the nominations in waiting, I would have to say that, of the composers not present in any way whatsoever, the one that would be most sorely missed at this point would have to be *Michael Finnissy*.

Any thoughts on what TC deems his best stuff? Ptr deemed _Red Earth_ a solid choice in the TalkClassical Project; the _English Country Tunes_ CD has , by a small margin, the most attention on a couple of different sites; and _The History Of Photography In Sound_ is his most ambitious work, if not too long to be initially viable. But there's just so much more! The _Verdi Transcriptions_ highlight some of his most interesting thoughts, thoughts which would surely be of use to Peter Ablinger in his _Voices And Piano_ cycle, and his work with the string quartet medium is formidable, to say the least.


----------



## ptr

So lets get executive and decide that 250 is the limit. I call on all more or less active voters to cast a Nay or Yea on this here (cuz I don want to set up a poll!)..

Nathan, thanks for reminding me, I'll nominate Ablinger in my next vote and leave Finnissy up to you! (Ok?)

/ptr


----------



## SimonNZ

Which other Henze and Rautavaara works do people here like most?


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> Which other Henze and Rautavaara works do people here like most?


I am a huge Henze fan but I fear that his political stance has been offputting to others here.

Favorite works include:

The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum (1975; film score) this one is hard to find but I love the score!






Royal Winter Music, Sonata No. 1, for guitar (1975-6)
Royal Winter Music, Sonata No. 2, for guitar (1979)
Das Floß der Medusa (1971, oratorio)

I need to hear more. I plan to order this someday:


----------



## Guest

Yea to 250..........


----------



## Guest

Yea to 250.

I like Henze's _Requiem_ a lot, but I'm not the biggest Henze fan yet (simply haven't spent a lot of time with him). I know some people here definitely like _El Cimarron_. A string quartet would also be a reasonable choice.

Now, Rautavaara, on the other hand, I love almost everything he wrote so I'm a bit biased. I wish his operas would get more notice around here. However, it's pretty apparent to me that, on this forum, the other fan favorites consist mostly of _Cantus Arcticus_, either his 3rd, 6th, or 8th symphony, his 1st or 3rd piano concerto, or perhaps the violin concerto. These are perhaps the safest bets, and I would support any of them. But then, I also love _Kaivos_, _Annunciations_, _Lost Landscapes_, _Symphony No. 4_, _Angel Of Dusk_, _The Myth Of Sampo_, _On The Last Frontier_, _Aleksis Kivi_, and the like, so get the opinion of a non-crazy


----------



## mmsbls

I vote yes on 250.


----------



## Skilmarilion

nathanb said:


> Now, Rautavaara, on the other hand, I love almost everything he wrote so I'm a bit biased. I wish his operas would get more notice around here. However, it's pretty apparent to me that, on this forum, the other fan favorites consist mostly of _Cantus Arcticus_, either his 3rd, 6th, or 8th symphony, his 1st or 3rd piano concerto, or perhaps the violin concerto. These are perhaps the safest bets, and I would support any of them. But then, I also love _Kaivos_, _Annunciations_, _Lost Landscapes_, _Symphony No. 4_, _Angel Of Dusk_, _The Myth Of Sampo_, _On The Last Frontier_, _Aleksis Kivi_, and the like, so get the opinion of a non-crazy


The Harp concerto is very solid imo.


----------



## GreenMamba

I like Henze's Requiem or even a later symphony (5 wouldn't have been my first choice).
Finnissy's Red Earth is excellent, although I don't really know many of his other works.

Since we're test driving works and I have a free nomination:

Someone mentioned Lindberg some time ago, and I'm strongly considering Kraft. 
Nathanb mention Radelescu and Intimate Rituals is excellent.
Pascal Dusapin? I really like his Quatour 6 (Hinterland, Hapax) which is fairly recent and not really what he's known for. The operas would be tough noms.
More traditional choice: Rochberg 3.


----------



## GioCar

250 works is ok for me.

Will anyone be supporting a Romitelli's work as well?
I am thinking of _Dead City Radio - Audiodrome (2003)_ instead of the more iconic _Professor Bad Trip_ or _An Index of Metals._


----------



## ptr

GioCar said:


> 2Will anyone be supporting a Romitelli's work as well?
> I am thinking of _Dead City Radio - Audiodrome (2003)_ instead of the more iconic _Professor Bad Trip_ or _An Index of Metals._


I will support DCR-A! (Or anything Romitelli for that!)

/ptr


----------



## Guest

Skilmarilion said:


> The Harp concerto is very solid imo.


I was trying not to gush too much. Tempt me not! The guy wrote some 13+ concerti (I guess I don't really count the short _Ballad For Harp And Strings_), and I find each and every one of them to be fantastic. The harp one is a top 5, if not top 3, of those 13.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> I like Henze's Requiem or even a later symphony (5 wouldn't have been my first choice).
> *Finnissy's Red Earth* is excellent, although I don't really know many of his other works.
> 
> Since we're test driving works and I have a free nomination:
> 
> Someone mentioned *Lindberg* some time ago, and I'm strongly considering Kraft.
> Nathanb mention *Radelescu* and Intimate Rituals is excellent.
> *Pascal Dusapin*? I really like his Quatour 6 (Hinterland, Hapax) which is fairly recent and not really what he's known for. The operas would be tough noms.
> More traditional choice: Rochberg 3.


Finnissy: _Red Earth_ IS excellent, but I think of him as too much of a pianist/composer hybrid for Red Earth to be the first (and possibly only) thing on the list.
Lindberg: Do it.
Radulescu: Do eet.
Dusapin: A slightly safer choice might be the _Time Zones (String Quartet No. 2)_ which were split with Dutilleux's quartet before Aeon got around to a more complete set. But yeah, operas don't seem to be terribly successful here. Given how long Lachenmann's had to wait, I shudder to think of poor Dusapin. Great stuff though. He also has a few of his very nice concerti on record, and I've been liking the lengthy song cycle _O Mensch!_


----------



## Guest

Relevant But Pointless Musing: 

Sometimes I dream of a world where it might be possible to create a "nested poll" within a larger thread. I think it would be a bit frivolous on a largely uninterested forum to create a new thread to determine "Your Favorite Piano Work(s) By Michael Finnissy".


----------



## GreenMamba

I've seen forums which allow mid-thread polls. I guess this isn't one of them.

What I've heard of The History of Photography I like, but I haven't even listened to the whole thing. Because it isn't an opera, it may be that people will vote based on incomplete listening.

Are you thinking piano concerti as well, or just solo?


----------



## Guest

Probably solo. His 3rd piano concerto would be nice too. As far as I know, though, no other concertante works are really available. Nos. 4 & 6 are for solo piano. 

I'm probably just leaning towards the English Country Tunes as a safe option, or just going for the History Of Photography...


----------



## Albert7

Today I started to blast the Lachenmann Pandora radio station here at work and apparently there was not a single response from my co-workers. Apparently they must have thought I was playing ambient noise LOL...


----------



## SimonNZ

Or the response was "DNFTEC"

_...oh wait, damn_


----------



## ptr

*You can still have Your say in the numbers game! *

At the moment there's a resounding number of votes in favour of ending the list at 250, I will do a final count at mid day (CET) coming Sunday (5 July 2015).

Please make Your concerns heard, post Sunday these will be muscled and silenced by proxy! :tiphat:

/ptr


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I say we end the list at 253


----------



## Guest

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I say we end the list at 253


You always have to be difficult. What's wrong with 252.5?


----------



## Albert7

Why not do pi at 314 then?


----------



## GreenMamba

I'm OK with 250.


----------



## Mahlerian

I agree. 250 is a good place to stop.


----------



## Albert7

I vote that we do a 100 honorable mentioned works in addition to the 250 enshrined works.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> I vote that we do a 100 honorable mentioned works in addition to the 250 enshrined works.


Eh, I vote that we go ahead and don't, on this one.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> Eh, I vote that we go ahead and don't, on this one.


Actually that would be easy to do. Just take the leftovers and voila there you have a list when the melee is done.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Actually that would be easy to do. Just take the leftovers and voila there you have a list when the melee is done.


But that could include pieces that have garnered very little support.

I'm not in favour.


----------



## Albert7

dogen said:


> But that could include pieces that have garnered very little support.
> 
> I'm not in favour.


That is why we should dub those the losers edition. It would like the collection of dark horses here.


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> But that could include pieces that have garnered very little support.
> 
> I'm not in favour.


I'd say 250 recommendations is more than enough to be useful, in this instance, too


----------



## SimonNZ

I don't like the sound of that, either.

If there were to be some kind of addition on the end it might perhaps be one honorable mention / plea each from the participants, but I'd doubt even that's necessary, and its still to early to say if anyone will be concerned about anything important being left out.


----------



## Guest

I know Messiaen already is well represented and yes I know he's French, but what about Quatuor pour la fin du Temps?

I'm just asking...should I nom...


----------



## SimonNZ

dogen said:


> I know Messiaen already is well represented and yes I know he's French, but what about Quatuor pour la fin du Temps?
> 
> I'm just asking...should I nom...


Written 1941, so outside the Post '50 time frame, I'm afraid.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Written 1941, so outside the Post '50 time frame, I'm afraid.


Whoops. That was assumptious of me. God these French are sneaky, writing modern music before...er...modernity...


----------



## ptr

Just counted the votes in the 250 ballot and as far as I can see there are 8 yes votes, 3 seriously spoofy votes and none of the "no" category. Hence I declare that the assembly has decided that 250 it is! (If You feel left out of the voting process, sorry, but You should've been more active in this thread! )

/ptr


----------



## SimonNZ

Mini Poll:

Could I ask if there would be any interest in any of these as nominations?:

Radulescu - Byzantine Prayer
Vasks - Cor Anglais Concerto
Corigliano - Conjuror
Harvey - Towards A Pure Land
Saunders - Ire
Henze - Symphony 10
Larcher - My Illness Is The Medicine I Need
Feldman - Coptic Light
Lutoslawski - Chantefleurs et Chantefables
Stockhausen - Stimmung
Rautavaara - Cantus Arcticus


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> Mini Poll:
> 
> Could I ask if there would be any interest in any of these as nominations?:
> 
> Radulescu - Byzantine Prayer
> Vasks - Cor Anglais Concerto
> Corigliano - Conjuror
> Harvey - Towards A Pure Land
> Saunders - Ire
> Henze - Symphony 10
> Larcher - My Illness Is The Medicine I Need
> Feldman - Coptic Light
> Lutoslawski - Chantefleurs et Chantefables
> Stockhausen - Stimmung
> Rautavaara - Cantus Arcticus


Feldman and Stockhausen and Rautavaara and Vasks and Henze for me.


----------



## GreenMamba

Radulescu would be my choice. I considered Intimate Rituals, but went with another composer. I don't know Byzantine Prayer but chances are good I'd support it. Possibly a big yes from me.

Corigliano's symphony has taken forever to move. Same with Henze's, although I would rather we'd started with 10 than 5. I like both composers, so I'd probably toss a few points their way.

I might have thought Stimmung would have gone before some other Stockhausen works already enshrined. So yeah, some support from me.

Saunders and Larcher have nothing on the list so far, which is a mark in favor, but I'd have to listen to them first.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Mini Poll:
> 
> Could I ask if there would be any interest in any of these as nominations?:
> 
> Radulescu - Byzantine Prayer
> Vasks - Cor Anglais Concerto
> Corigliano - Conjuror
> Harvey - Towards A Pure Land
> Saunders - Ire
> Henze - Symphony 10
> Larcher - My Illness Is The Medicine I Need
> *Feldman - Coptic Light*
> Lutoslawski - Chantefleurs et Chantefables
> *Stockhausen - Stimmung
> Rautavaara - Cantus Arcticus*


Small print = don't know it
Regular print = know it, would support to some extent, possibly with more enthusiasm after a more recent listen
Bold print = would support with enthusiasm

Also, in addition to Finnissy, I think I'd like to rep Eotvos. I was thinking Jet Stream or Psychokosmos or Three Sisters?


----------



## Albert7

GreenMamba said:


> Radulescu would be my choice. I considered Intimate Rituals, but went with another composer. I don't know Byzantine Prayer but chances are good I'd support it. Possibly a big yes from me.
> 
> Corigliano's symphony has taken forever to move. Same with Henze's, although I would rather we'd started with 10 than 5. I like both composers, so I'd probably toss a few points their way.
> 
> I might have thought Stimmung would have gone before some other Stockhausen works already enshrined. So yeah, some support from me.
> 
> Saunders and Larcher have nothing on the list so far, which is a mark in favor, but I'd have to listen to them first.


Ironically Corigliano has been hit and miss for me. I enjoy his pieces but a few have stood out for me.

Still bothers me that Henze hasn't gotten anything finalized yet.

Honestly, I need to learn more about the other composers that I haven't heard before so I can't judge otherwise. SimonNZ knows more about this aspect than I do.

Kudos to nathanb also for being totally awesome and aiding me to find new composers too.


----------



## musicrom

I'm still way behind on my listening (around #50), but is there any reason the Google doc of enshrined works has stopped being updated?


----------



## GreenMamba

nathanb said:


> Also, in addition to Finnissy, I think I'd like to rep Eotvos. I was thinking Jet Stream or Psychokosmos or Three Sisters?


Jet Stream, the trumpet concerto. Don't know the others, but I like Jet Stream. And Seven.


----------



## Albert7

For reference, anyone who wants to check out Auerbach can find her suite here:


----------



## ptr

> Radulescu - Byzantine Prayer
> Harvey - Towards A Pure Land
> Saunders - Ire
> Henze - Symphony 10
> (Larcher - My Illness Is The Medicine I Need)
> Stockhausen - Stimmung


(don't care for Vasks or Corigliano, slightly hesitant towards "Chantefleurs et Chantefables" and believe that we've had enough Feldman  Have to re-listen to the Larcher work!)

I'd support these, for Eötvös I had in mind to nominate Psychokosmos in my next open slot! 

/ptr


----------



## Guest

ptr said:


> I'd support these, for Eötvös I had in mind to nominate Psychokosmos in my next open slot!
> 
> /ptr


I believe it was in a review of _Angels In America_ that someone once called Eötvös' music "kaleidoscopic". Especially in an orchestral setting, I couldn't find a better word!


----------



## Guest

RE: Saunders. How about something from a full release? _Miniata_ maybe? Don't know Ire.


----------



## Albert7

Just one more second for Auerbach needed.  deepest appreciation for the votes so far for the work.


----------



## Guest

Just a note:

I know we have a lot of Ligeti, but considering this is LIGETI we're talking about, it should perhaps be taken into consideration that we do not have a single chamber work (_String Quartet No. 2_ being the most likely choice, but they're all great...), nor do we have his masterpiece of an opera, _Le Grand Macabre_. _Volumina_ wouldn't hurt, either.

I'll get around to them eventually, if no one else does, but I've already promised Finnissy and another Nono (_Il Canto Sospeso_) my next noms :/

EDIT: Don't think I don't wish STOCKHAUSEN could be considered just the same! (But alas...)


----------



## Albert7

I am happy to see how many works have been blessed so far. Life is good and I wish that I could afford some beer and relax while voting.

Again thanks to the members who participate. I have learned a lot during their journey and humble regards to those who are great everyday teachers of contemporary works.


----------



## SimonNZ

Don't take this question the wrong way, but...

What would be the feeling about Koyanisqaatsi as a nomination?


----------



## ArtMusic

nathanb said:


> Just a note:
> 
> I know we have a lot of Ligeti, but considering this is LIGETI we're talking about, it should perhaps be taken into consideration that we do not have a single chamber work (_String Quartet No. 2_ being the most likely choice, but they're all great...), nor do we have his masterpiece of an opera, _Le Grand Macabre_. _Volumina_ wouldn't hurt, either.
> 
> I'll get around to them eventually, if no one else does, but I've already promised Finnissy and another Nono (_Il Canto Sospeso_) my next noms :/
> 
> EDIT: Don't think I don't wish STOCKHAUSEN could be considered just the same! (But alas...)


Can I nominate Liget's Atmospheres? Or is it too late?


----------



## GreenMamba

ArtMusic said:


> Can I nominate Liget's Atmospheres? Or is it too late?


It's already enshrined (#71).


----------



## Albert7

SimonNZ said:


> Don't take this question the wrong way, but...
> 
> What would be the feeling about Koyanisqaatsi as a nomination?


Do it! Me heartily.


----------



## Albert7

Enjoyed the Xenakis tonight:


----------



## Albert7

Too bad this can't be nommed:


----------



## ptr

Albert7 said:


> Too bad this can't be nommed:


Why cant You do tht? in my limited spot on earth eRikm is a valid contemporary (post 1950) composer-performer!
This list is not only about conservative well established traditionalists!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Don't take this question the wrong way, but...
> 
> What would be the feeling about Koyanisqaatsi as a nomination?


There are interviews on the DVD. Glass wrote the music as per the visuals sent to him by Reggio. Glass later discovered that Reggio then proceeded to completely swap the music and the shots around!


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> I am happy to see how many works have been blessed so far. Life is good and I wish that I could afford some beer and relax while voting.
> 
> Again thanks to the members who participate. I have learned a lot during their journey and humble regards to those who are great everyday teachers of contemporary works.


Don't mix voting with beer. I did once; that's why there were 2 votes for "Nominated."


----------



## ptr

I was mesmerised by Koyanisqaatsi when the film came out, remember buying that red and black LP thinking that this will be smashing but ended up frustrated and feeling Glasses music incoherent! (I've tried other Glass works but don't really see the point, much prefer some of his contemporary Americanos!)

/ptr


----------



## SimonNZ

dogen said:


> There are interviews on the DVD. Glass wrote the music as per the visuals sent to him by Reggio. Glass later discovered that Reggio then proceeded to completely swap the music and the shots around!


Interesting, but how do you feel about it as a nomination? I feel its a landmark work in both Glass' composition and in minimalism - and still exciting listening after hundreds of plays - even if, yes, its a film soundtrack.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Interesting, but how do you feel about it as a nomination? I feel its a landmark work in both Glass' composition and in minimalism - and still exciting listening after hundreds of plays - even if, yes, its a film soundtrack.


I love the film (and the sequel) and the music is part of why it is a great film but I'm not really a Glass fan. I'd support it, but others who are more into his oevre are better placed to judge.


----------



## Albert7

ptr said:


> Why cant You do tht? in my limited spot on earth eRikm is a valid contemporary (post 1950) composer-performer!
> This list is not only about conservative well established traditionalists!
> 
> /ptr


Okay I will try him once I get a spot open. I was worried that this may be more experimental than even Lachenmann.

And it may scare off the likes of a few here.

This would be the piece I would nom in the future:






Austral is the title of the work.


----------



## Guest

So...is there any chance that the only thing keeping a few more votes away from John Cage is that odd "With _Winter Music_" tag?

Granted, my favorite recording of the work is the one with _Winter Music_ played simultaneously, too, but considering that recording is an anomaly and not the norm, should the extra tag be dropped?


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> So...is there any chance that the only thing keeping a few more votes away from John Cage is that odd "With _Winter Music_" tag?
> 
> Granted, my favorite recording of the work is the one with _Winter Music_ played simultaneously, too, but considering that recording is an anomaly and not the norm, should the extra tag be dropped?


Cage's main competition for winter include two things: Murail's Winter Fragments and Game of Thrones.


----------



## ptr

^^ What keeps me away from Cage is the share size of the current smörgåsbord .. Somehow I choose forget him! :cheers:

/ptr


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Interesting, but how do you feel about it as a nomination? I feel its a landmark work in both Glass' composition and in minimalism - and still exciting listening after hundreds of plays - even if, yes, its a film soundtrack.


OK I've just listened/watched and wow. You want to nom?


----------



## Albert7

ptr said:


> I was mesmerised by Koyanisqaatsi when the film came out, remember buying that red and black LP thinking that this will be smashing but ended up frustrated and feeling Glasses music incoherent! (I've tried other Glass works but don't really see the point, much prefer some of his contemporary Americanos!)
> 
> /ptr


I hope that this is the right version for previewing:


----------



## tdc

nathanb said:


> So...is there any chance that the only thing keeping a few more votes away from John Cage is that odd "With _Winter Music_" tag?


No, actually I think the title of that particular work is the best thing about it. Cage is pretty hit and miss for me. He has a number of works I wouldn't want to be without, and a number of works I would be fine with never listening to again. I agree with his own idea that he was fundamentally a percussion composer. I really don't think he was very gifted musically in other areas, however he was able to think outside of the box a lot (which is great) and despite his shortcomings in terms of musical talent he made some really great artistic statements.


----------



## Trout

Albert7 said:


> I hope that this is the right version for previewing


That's the 1998 re-recording of the soundtrack, which is an expanded version of the original 1983 one ptr refers to that was cut to under an hour (also on Youtube). I personally enjoy both, though I find the newer more polished and better recorded than the original 1983 one, but I prefer the richer organ sound in the original.

(By the way, I would happily support the work if nominated.)


----------



## SimonNZ

Thanks for the feedback. I'll do that once one of the current Glass works goes off.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> No, actually I think the title of that particular work is the best thing about it. Cage is pretty hit and miss for me. He has a number of works I wouldn't want to be without, and a number of works I would be fine with never listening to again. I agree with his own idea that he was fundamentally a percussion composer. I really don't think he was very gifted musically in other areas, however he was able to think outside of the box a lot (which is great) and despite his shortcomings in terms of musical talent he made some really great artistic statements.


My point was that it's not actually the title of a work. It's the title of a recording of two Cage works played simultaneously (_Atlas Eclipticalis_ played simultaneously with _Winter Music_). Perhaps people would feel more comfortable voting for an actual work? I love the recording, so I'm fine either way, but just sayin'.


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> My point was that it's not actually the title of a work. It's the title of a recording of two Cage works played simultaneously (_Atlas Eclipticalis_ played simultaneously with _Winter Music_). Perhaps people would feel more comfortable voting for an actual work? I love the recording, so I'm fine either way, but just sayin'.


Okay I haven't heard the work yet but tonight I will make an effort to hear this:


----------



## Arsakes

I can only recommend mostly minimal and film music.
Alan Hovhaness, John Adams, John Williams etc.


----------



## Guest

Arsakes said:


> I can only recommend mostly minimal and film music.
> Alan Hovhaness, John Adams, John Williams etc.


We have lots of John Adams, I think. No John Williams in this list, please. Maybe we'll do a film music list some day. I wouldn't mind supporting one of the finer Hovhaness works, even if I think he is a bit overrated overall. I spent a good bit of time trying to explore him beyond the basics, last year. A bit too much of the same tricks for my tastes, but I still love a few works, like the 2nd symphony, the 50th symphony, a couple of the quartets, various works with guitar and/or harp (including concerti), etc.

Note: I'm not necessarily against ALL film music here, but lets face it, Glass composing film scores in an actual contemporary idiom is the outlier, not the norm.


----------



## KenOC

nathanb, just to mention that John Williams has written a fair amount of non-film music in more traditional genres, mostly concertante works. Fair dinkum, I would think. Not sure whether this stuff agrees with your tastes or mine, but that wouldn't seem relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Williams#Concerti


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I'll do that once one of the current Glass works goes off.


I'd love to help, but...operas...


----------



## Arsakes

Hovhaness has a dozen or two very good works to listen to indeed.

Well, not all John Williams music is good enough. Just his Star Wars works, Tin Tin, and the main themes from Superman, Indiana Jones and Schindler's list.

And I found Hans Zimmer works too boring or depressing to listen.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> nathanb, just to mention that John Williams has written a fair amount of non-film music in more traditional genres, mostly concertante works. Fair dinkum, I would think. Not sure whether this stuff agrees with your tastes or mine, but that wouldn't seem relevant.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Williams#Concerti


I'm aware. You'll have to excuse me for assuming he was referring to the Star Wars concert suite or something along those lines.


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> I'd love to help, but...operas...


Poor operas, indeed...


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> Poor operas, indeed...


I know it's my loss.


----------



## Albert7

Who needs John Williams? That guy wasn't innovative.

Only Herrmann I would second.

Okay perhaps if someone did Rota for "The Godfather" that may work but that's a huge stretch too.

Where is Murail when we need a good score?


----------



## GreenMamba

Arsakes said:


> Hovhaness has a dozen or two very good works to listen to indeed.


I think Hovhaness is a decent guy to nominate. I'm not a big film music guy though.


----------



## Albert7

Please support nathanb's nomination. I found these:






and






Along with Ferneyhough, his repping of the New Complexity movement is just as crucial.


----------



## Guest

Thanks for the links, Albert. I was thinking about posting links myself just a moment ago. There's a few different performances of the English Country Tunes on youtube. It's fascinating just to watch, alone...

Just fyi, I have a couple other things in mind first, but if I rep more New Complexity before time's up, this might be the next one:






A lengthy, multi-faceted work, with some magnificent electric guitar solos in the interludes 

(A sample of one of those solos)


----------



## Albert7

Looks like Finnissy has been doing well and thriving.


----------



## Albert7

Here is my newly nommed piece:


----------



## Guest

Youtube Partee Nite:

Erikm/Ferrari/Lehn: Les Protorhythmiques

Finnissy: English Country Tunes

Finnissy: Red Earth

Eötvös: Psychokosmos

Haas: limited approximations

Penderecki: Utrenja


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Here is my newly nommed piece:


Pieces such as this make me wonder if there really is a demarcation between classical and popular music (eg Keinzweiter, Robin Rimbaud). Perhaps there is just "music"?


----------



## GioCar

'_There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind._'

I still have to decide where to place this piece. I've just listened to it for the first time and I am a bit puzzled.


----------



## tdc

Was going to nominate Carter's Cello Sonata, but just found out it was composed in 1948 - doh!

I'll have to think of something else by Carter to nominate...


----------



## Albert7

GioCar said:


> '_There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind._'
> 
> I still have to decide where to place this piece. I've just listened to it for the first time and I am a bit puzzled.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musique_concr%C3%A8te

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turntablism

Some good reading background for where Erikm and his fellas are coming from.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Was going to nominate Carter's Cello Sonata, but just found out it was composed in 1948 - doh!
> 
> I'll have to think of something else by Carter to nominate...


_Double Concerto 
What Next?
Night Fantasies
String Quartet No. 2
Concerto For Orchestra
Luimen
String Quartet No. 3_

etc.... I love Carter!


----------



## Mahlerian

nathanb said:


> _Double Concerto
> What Next?
> Night Fantasies
> String Quartet No. 2
> Concerto For Orchestra
> Luimen
> String Quartet No. 3_
> 
> etc.... I love Carter!


I'd support many of those (haven't actually heard What's Next yet...), but the Double Concerto would be my choice.


----------



## Albert7

one... More... Feldman.... Vote... S'il vous plait.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> I'd support many of those (haven't actually heard What's Next yet...), but the Double Concerto would be my choice.


I'm inclined to agree, but I'd support nearly anything of Carter's.


----------



## Albert7

Next nomination will be a huge surprise... yeah a secret soundtrack methinks


----------



## tortkis

dogen said:


> Youtube Partee Nite:
> 
> [...]
> 
> Finnissy: English Country Tunes


I liked this atmospheric film very much, performed by Finnissy accompanied with Kris Donovan's dances.

Michael Finnissy plays English Country Tunes
(1 of 3) 



(2 of 3) 



(3 of 3)


----------



## Guest

I am currently listening to my first eRikm album.

I can't help but feel, however, that I generally prefer to vote for solo efforts (with the Schaeffer/Henry things being a big exception, I guess). We'll see. I *do* love Luc Ferrari...

Anyone else love _Et Si Tout Entiere Maintenant..._?


----------



## Albert7

nathanb said:


> I am currently listening to my first eRikm album.
> 
> I can't help but feel, however, that I generally prefer to vote for solo efforts (with the Schaeffer/Henry things being a big exception, I guess). We'll see. I *do* love Luc Ferrari...
> 
> Anyone else love _Et Si Tout Entiere Maintenant..._?


Definitely glad to be busy today and tomorrow helping out my roommate Ben (dantejones) move to Arizona. Packed up his van this morning.


----------



## tdc

I think another composer who is due for another appearance on this list is Dutilleux - anyone have any preferences/suggested pieces?

*edit* - I like this piece, but there are quite a few Dutilleux works I haven't listened to yet.


----------



## GreenMamba

tdc said:


> I think another composer who is due for another appearance on this list is Dutilleux - anyone have any preferences/suggested pieces?


Ainsi la Nuit is a possibility.


----------



## mmsbls

I'd vote for Ainsi la Nuit or Metaboles.


----------



## Albert7

tdc said:


> I think another composer who is due for another appearance on this list is Dutilleux - anyone have any preferences/suggested pieces?
> 
> *edit* - I like this piece, but there are quite a few Dutilleux works I haven't listened to yet.


----------



## ptr

Dutilleux : I much prefer "Corespondances", but would love Barbara Hannigan with a light sprinkle of cocoa puffs!

/ptr


----------



## Albert7

ptr said:


> Dutilleux : I much prefer "Corespondances", but would love Barbara Hannigan with a light sprinkle of cocoa puffs!
> 
> /ptr


Okay would you nom the piece then?  then you get your huge dosage of Hannigan puffs


----------



## ptr

Albert7 said:


> Okay would you nom the piece then?  then you get your huge dosage of Hannigan puffs


Sure, but I have a few works in the pipeline that I already have committed to that will come first!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

I know Penderecki is already represented in the List, but not so any chamber works and I'm here to right that wrong! I'm thinking of nomming his String Quartet No 3 "Leaves from an Unwritten Diary" (2008) which I hope y'all agree is worthy of support. It's here on Youtube, albeit in two parts. Enjoy!


----------



## tdc

dogen said:


> I know Penderecki is already represented in the List, but not so any chamber works and I'm here to right that wrong! I'm thinking of nomming his String Quartet No 3 "Leaves from an Unwritten Diary" (2008) which I hope y'all agree is worthy of support. It's here on Youtube, albeit in two parts. Enjoy!


I nominated that in the SQ's project and it got no other votes - though I would support it I would personally suggest nominating Penderecki's SQ No. 1 first.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> I nominated that in the SQ's project and it got no other votes - though I would support it I would personally suggest nominating Penderecki's SQ No. 1 first.


AAAGGHGHGGHGHGH that's a disgrace!!!!


----------



## tdc

dogen said:


> AAAGGHGHGGHGHGH that's a disgrace!!!!


Haha, yes, but do check out the 1st SQ (if you haven't already) it is an excellent work, and much as I like the 3rd I think the 1st is a titch better - although they are hard to compare due to the drastically different compositional approaches.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Haha, yes, but do check out the 1st SQ (if you haven't already) it is an excellent work, and much as I like the 3rd I think the 1st is a titch better - although they are hard to compare due to the drastically different compositional approaches.


OK I will (sorry if you couldn't read that.....said through grinding teeth!!!)


----------



## tdc

dogen said:


> OK I will (sorry if you couldn't read that.....said through grinding teeth!!!)


Ok but at least wait until you hear the SQ 1 first (and report back) before grinding teeth too much.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Ok but at least wait until you hear the SQ 1 first (and report back) before grinding teeth too much.


OK I've re-listened to all three and I like them all but 3 is definitely the stand-out work for me.

Sorry, I can't see to type now....through the veil of tears.....


----------



## Guest

I'm going to be optimistic and decide the 50s project is a different constituency.


----------



## GreenMamba

Tossing out some stats:

Most enshrinements
Ligeti 10 (+2 on the board now)
Schnittke 7 (+3)
Messiaen 7 (+0)
Boulez 6 (+0)
Adams (+2), Shostakovich (+3), Stravinsky (0), Xenakis (0) 5 each

68 composers have been enshrined, 37 with one work only. But there are 33 on the current board who have nothing enshrined yet.


----------



## SimonNZ

Which other Scelsi or Rihm works would people feel most strongly about?


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Which other Scelsi or Rihm works would people feel most strongly about?


Scelsi's _Quattro Pezzi_, _Natura Renovatur_, and maybe _String Quartet No. 4_ seem to be very safe bets. There are others I like, but either of the first two mentioned ought to be swift enshrinements.

Rihm is a fairly well-liked name around here, but I'm not sure many posters here go beyond knowing that he wrote Jagden Und Formen and a bunch of quartets. Me, I like Rihm in every genre, but I'm not sure any of his operas, for instance, would stand much of a chance with this crowd (power-voting duos notwithstanding). You'll probably just have to go with your gut, but I will say that _ET LUX_ seems to be getting tremendous reception from those that have heard it, and I would have to agree with them. Some other things I would really love to support would be _Morphonie_, _Klangbeschreibung_, _"CONCERTO"_, _Chiffre_, _Die Eroberung Von Mexico_, or just about any string quartet. I enjoy all of these more than _Tutuguri_, personally.

EDIT: Screw it, go with _ET LUX_.


----------



## SimonNZ

We need some helpful soul to upload some of these things to YT - even if it was agreed they'd be taken down again after some short period of assessment.


----------



## tdc

SimonNZ said:


> We need some helpful soul to upload some of these things to YT - even if it was agreed they'd be taken down again after some short period of assessment.


Yes, I noticed that Coates Symphony 14 (which I haven't heard) is also not on youtube.

On another note, once the current Takemitsu work on the board is a little farther along I was planning to nominate either _A Flock Descends into the Pentagonal Garden _or _Spirit Garden_. Anyone have any strong preferences between these two works?


----------



## SimonNZ

The Coates is on YT - they just made it difficult:






I have nothing against A Flock Descendes, but I've never understood why its Takemitsu's most famous work. But I'd still vote for either


----------



## GreenMamba

The Coates symphony is on Rdio and (I assume) the more popular Pandora.

Intriguingly, one of its movements is on this Naxos compilation:


----------



## SimonNZ

Just had a look at the tracklisting for that. Not what I thought a Zombie Apocalypse would sound like...it might not be so bad after all.

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Naxos/900117


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> On another note, once the current Takemitsu work on the board is a little farther along I was planning to nominate either _A Flock Descends into the Pentagonal Garden _or _Spirit Garden_. Anyone have any strong preferences between these two works?


I like both works. To answer SimonNZ's question, I think _Flock Descends_ is well-known in part because it is the first work of his late style and because it received a recording from a prominent conductor, orchestra, and label.


----------



## tdc

That Philippe Manoury piece is outstanding, I really enjoyed listening to that. Some very tasteful use of sound and space, beautiful sonorities, a hint of impressionism, but very exciting and fresh soundscapes. Thanks for the recommendation SimonNZ.

Manoury - _Fragments pour un portrait _


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> The Coates is on YT - they just made it difficult:


Mmmm schmokin' !!!!!


----------



## Guest

This is just a thought. Just...

What about making it a 200 list, rather than 250?

Hey, I'm just sayin!


----------



## GioCar

roughly 1/3 of the works now on the board would be out...

Could be a way to revitalize the process?


----------



## Guest

Well yes it might focus the mind!


----------



## GreenMamba

Right now, we don't seem to have the participation to make it to 250. I could see stopping at 200 and then just taking the top point-getters and appending them to get to 250. Maybe with a minimum of points requirement. Once a work reaches 40 points or so, it becomes just a ritual to vote for it over and over again to get it through.

No matter when we stop, we'll end up with some on the list that don't make it through. That's fine. Just making it to the list shouldn't guarantee enshrinement.


----------



## Guest

I agree.


---------------


----------



## MoonlightSonata

How many works do we have on the list now?


----------



## SimonNZ

Cool...as long as it doesn't mean one person and his sockpuppet second account aren't going to take this as a spur to bring the next level of sillyness.


----------



## SimonNZ

MoonlightSonata said:


> How many works do we have on the list now?


currently at 166

http://www.talkclassical.com/37569-tc-top-recommended-post-282.html#post926130


----------



## tdc

The problem is, it takes too many points to enshrine something at this point, so stopping at 200 is starting to seem sensible to me. Another option might be revitalizing the board by subtracting a bunch of points of each work, some works would go down to a low number, some might be scraped off the board (but could be immediately re-nommed) but the enshrining process would be sped up.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

In that case, then, we might as well finish at 200 and take the fifty highest-scoring works on the board, as GreenMamba suggested.


----------



## tdc

MoonlightSonata said:


> In that case, then, we might as well finish at 200 and take the fifty highest-scoring works on the board, as GreenMamba suggested.


The only issue I have with this is that the last 50 works on the list will be enshrined by a different process than the other 200, so the list would seem 'more legit' to me if we just left at 200.

But I'll leave it up to whatever the majority decides.


----------



## GreenMamba

tdc said:


> The only issue I have with this is that the last 50 works on the list will be enshrined by a different process than the other 200, so the list would seem 'more legit' to me if we just left at 200.
> 
> But I'll leave it up to whatever the majority decides.


I don't have a problem with just leaving it at 200 then.


----------



## SimonNZ

There is, if I've counted right, 56 works on the board now, so that would require at least a further 28 nominations tt get to 250, though I'd also argue that a few of those might not have made a top 300 if the project kept going.

Another suggestion for after the next 34 enshrinements bring us to 200 might be to have a final round in the manner of the other process: we each pick and rank, say, 20 from the board as it then stands (including newer nominations), and from that overall scoring we determine an additional group of winners bringing the final number of enshrinements to 220.


----------



## mmsbls

For other lists we had a fixed number of works on the list (say 100) and then an honorable mention list. We could stop at 200 and then include the rest as honorable mention. The top 200 would be placed along with the other TC lists and the honorable mention would stay here in this thread.


----------



## Guest

We could have

Enshrinements

Honourable Mentions

Sockpuppetry




I do think 200 is looking sensible. The mechanics I'm not fussed about, although I agree a major rule change would make the list a bit odd, to have been created by two sets of rules....but I'm no expert or experienced in this. I was just highlighting my perception that the project seemed to be running down somewhat. For me personally it's been quite stonking, I've heard loads of new stuff, made various purchases because of it and no doubt will use it as an ongoing resource. A beverage of your choice to all participants! Cheers.


----------



## GioCar

mmsbls said:


> For other lists we had a fixed number of works on the list (say 100) and then an honorable mention list. We could stop at 200 and then include the rest as honorable mention. The top 200 would be placed along with the other TC lists and the honorable mention would stay here in this thread.


I'd prefer that instead of mixing different voting procedures. For me it's ok.


----------



## Guest

love going down 


57 Auerbach: 24 Preludes for Piano (1999)
55 Carter: Double Concerto (1959-61)
52 Schnittke: Symphony No. 2 "St. Florian" (1979)
52 Cage: Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music (1962)
50 Shostakovich: Viola Sonata (1975)
49 Nono: Il Canto Sospeso (1955)
49 Adams, J.L.: Become Ocean (2013)
48 Lutosławski: Cello Concerto (1969-70)
47 Cerha: Spiegel (1960-1)
46 Ablinger: Voices and Piano (1998/2010)
44 Malec: Sonoris Causa (1997)
44 MacMillan: The Confession of Isobel Gowdie (1990)
44 Hartmann: Symphony No. 6 (1953)
43 Young: The Well-Tuned Piano (1964-present)
42 Finnissy: English Country Tunes (1977-1985)
42 Berio: Rendering (1989)
40 Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 7 (1952)
40 Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004)
39 Britten: Cello Symphony (1963)
38 Schnittke: Requiem (1975)
38 Ligeti: Le Grand Macabre (1974-7)
37 Lindberg: Kraft (1985)
36 Abrahamsen: Schnee (2008)
35 Rodrigo: Fantasia para un gentilhombre (1954)
35 Adams: Doctor Atomic (2005)
34 Shostakovich: 24 Preludes & Fugues Op.87 (1951)
34 Birtwistle: Secret Theatre (1984)
31 Romitelli: Dead City Radio, Audiodrome for orchestra (2003)
30 Zimmermann: Requiem für einen jungen Dichter (1969)
30 Finnissy: Red Earth (1988)
29 Reimann: Lear (1978)
29 Donatoni: Hot (1989)
29 Crumb: Makrokosmos (1972-1979)
27 Tippett: Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli (1953)
27 Henze: Requiem (1993)
27 eRikm/Ferrari/Lehn: Les Protorhythmiques (2007)
27 Dutilleux: Correspondances (2003)
26 Persichetti: Symphony for Band (Sym. no.6), op.69, (1956)
25 Schaeffer/Henry: Orphee 53 (1953)
25 Penderecki: Symphony No. 1 (1973)
24 Ginastera: Harp Concerto (1965)
22 Shostakovich: Symphony #14 (1969)
22 Penderecki: String Quartet No 3 (2008)
22 Manoury: Fragments pour un portrait (1998)
22 Hindemith: Symphony in Bb (1951)
21 Rihm: Tutuguri (1980-82)
21 Glass: Satyagraha (1979)
18 Takemitsu: Stanza II (1971)
18 Gould: Symphony No. 4 "West Point" (1952)
15 Coates: Symphony No.14 (2002)
14 Reich: The Cave (1993)
13 Radulescu: Byzantine Prayer (1988)
11 Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 2 (1981-1982)
10 Wolfe: Arsenal of Democracy (1993)
09 Sciarrino: Luci mie traditrici (1996-98)
06 Adams: The Death of Klinghoffer (1991)


----------



## SimonNZ

dogen said:


> love going down
> 
> 55 Carter: Double Concerto (1959-61)
> [...]
> 16 Auerbach: 24 Preludes for Piano (1999)


Fixed that for you.


----------



## Guest

Actually, now that I've had my second cup of coffee, I'm warming to the idea of us voting for our own Top 10 from the list and using that to make the Enshrinements up to 200.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I think that honourable mentions or using individual Top 10 votes would be good.


----------



## mmsbls

I realize that there has been some objections to the vote total for Auerbach's work. We seem to be completely ignoring it. Has there been an agreement that the work should not in fact have 59 points (actually 61) currently? I have seen nothing in this or the voting thread that indicates a consensus on how the issue should be handled.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I realize that there has been some objections to the vote total for Auerbach's work. We seem to be completely ignoring it. Has there been an agreement that the work should not in fact have 59 points (actually 61) currently? I have seen nothing in this or the voting thread that indicates a consensus on how the issue should be handled.


I think nathan did a tally not long ago? (I could be wrong).


----------



## SimonNZ

mmsbls said:


> I realize that there has been some objections to the vote total for Auerbach's work. We seem to be completely ignoring it. Has there been an agreement that the work should not in fact have 59 points (actually 61) currently? I have seen nothing in this or the voting thread that indicates a consensus on how the issue should be handled.


What would you like to see happen?


----------



## GreenMamba

Those extra two points aren't really the issue. The question is whether we should count those two voters as one person. Simon NZ is certain they are the same person. I'm guessing others among us have doubts, but aren't crazy about a work getting through with support from only two (although there's no rule against that). The voter(s) in question haven't said anything...do they not understand the issue?


----------



## mmsbls

SimonNZ said:


> What would you like to see happen?


The original rules for this list were altered when people realized that a single voter could eventually enshrine a work. Several ideas were floated and eventually one modification to the original rules was voted on. Once it was clear that the voters wished to modify the original rules, we began to operate with the modified rules.

Currently some votes by certain members are being ignored. There has been some objections to certain votes, but I have not seen an attempt to get consensus on how to deal with the issue. I think the voters should address that issue collectively in order to determine how to proceed.


----------



## GreenMamba

Let the record indicate that Auerbach would have gone through based on a straight point read. I don't want a situation where its points are deemed legit, but then it needs more due to recent votes. It was nominally +7 above all others.

Also, if we gave t officially decided on 200 as the new ending, we might want to at least warn others. I'm concerned that some new nominations may be made thinking we have a long way to go.


----------



## SimonNZ

mmsbls said:


> The original rules for this list were altered when people realized that a single voter could eventually enshrine a work. Several ideas were floated and eventually one modification to the original rules was voted on. Once it was clear that the voters wished to modify the original rules, we began to operate with the modified rules.
> 
> Currently some votes by certain members are being ignored. There has been some objections to certain votes, but I have not seen an attempt to get consensus on how to deal with the issue. I think the voters should address that issue collectively in order to determine how to proceed.


I meant what would you as one of the voters like to see happen.

I've said everything I'm going to on the subject, and if others want to let it go through the'll be no more whining from me. (_"promises, promises..."_)


----------



## mmsbls

SimonNZ said:


> I meant what would you as one of the voters like to see happen.
> 
> I've said everything I'm going to on the subject, and if others want to let it go through the'll be no more whining from me. (_"promises, promises..."_)


I would vote to allow Auerbach's work to be enshrined.

I think it's rather likely that, using the conventional method of voting for TC lists, the work would not make the top 200. I can easily understand how others might feel is doesn't "deserve" to make the final 200. I just feel that given our rules and given what we can really know about the situation the work appears to qualify for enshrinement.


----------



## tdc

I really don't know about the whole Auerbach issue - to me it does seem like some foul play is involved, but it is a hard thing to prove. It seems fair that the work is in quarantine for now while the issue is being resolved. Personally, I like the work and would like to see it enshrined at some point, but I can understand the concerns voiced by SimonNZ and nathanb.


----------



## GioCar

mmsbls said:


> I would vote to allow Auerbach's work to be enshrined.
> 
> I think it's rather likely that, using the conventional method of voting for TC lists, the work would not make the top 200. I can easily understand how others might feel is doesn't "deserve" to make the final 200. I just feel that given our rules and *given what we can really know about the situation* the work appears to qualify for enshrinement.


What we know? That the votes come from two members voting from different ip addresses? Is that enough to say that it is not a single user doing that? When I'm at home or in the office or travelling I always have different ip addresses associated with my pc.

But I agree we should find a solution. To me the only feasible solution is to legitimate that piece by voting for it.
Personally I don't think it deserves to be in the top TC recommended list for contemporary works (and it's not the only one already enshrined, or on the board now) but if someone else think differently, he/she is very welcome . I have been liking this game very much so far, hope it doesn't ruin toward the end...


----------



## Guest

This is only a suggestion. As the project instigator, should MS make the decision?


----------



## Guest

Regarding the piece, I've not voted for it based on my listening, not because of the Issue.

The Issue is of course another matter. I remain, on balance, dubious.


----------



## Guest

Personally I think if we complete the 200 based on individual Top 10 nominations from the current live list that would maintain popular legitimacy.


----------



## Polyphemus

here are some of my selections, in no particular order, I think the dates are right but E & O E.

Schnittke Symphony 2 (1979)
Schnittke Concerto Grosso 1 (1977) 
Penderecki Symphony 1 (1973)
Penderecki Utrenja (1970)
Glass Violin Concerto 1 (1987)
Pettersson Symphony 7 (1966)
Shostakovich Symphony 10 (1953)
Shostakovich String Quartet 8 (1960)
Simpson Symphony 9 (1987)
Simpson String Quartet 15 (1991)
Lutoslawski Concerto For Orchestra (1954)
Ligeti Atmospheres (1961)
Ligeti Requiem (1965)
Vaughan Williams Symphony 9 (1957)
Walton Cello Concerto (1956)

Alas, so many not mentioned.


----------



## GreenMamba

dogen said:


> Personally I think if we complete the 200 based on individual Top 10 nominations from the current live list that would maintain popular legitimacy.


I don't think we were going to complete the 200 with top 10 lists, I thought we might use those to go from 200 to 250.

I would be OK with letting Auerbach through at some point, but worry that there's another work that will be duo-powered through next.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> I don't think we were going to complete the 200 with top 10 lists, I thought we might use those to go from 200 to 250.


Oh OK. Now that Kurtag's safely put to bed I don't mind!!



GreenMamba said:


> I would be OK with letting Auerbach through at some point, but worry that there's another work that will be duo-powered through next.


I know...


----------



## Mahlerian

GreenMamba said:


> I would be OK with letting Auerbach through at some point, but worry that there's another work that will be duo-powered through next.


If voting patterns continue the way they have, there won't be.

Even if 3-4 works in total out of a list of 200 circumvent rules and decorum, *WHO CARES*? It's just a list, and a small part of one.


----------



## mmsbls

In order to address the issue in a timely manner I think participants need to be more specific in thier view. Reading the above posts, I'm still uncertain of several people's vote (i.e. allow Auerbach's work to be enshrined, or wait until it receives enough votes from members besides Albert and BelCanto). I don't really want to push people about this, but I do feel that we should not simply ignore the issue. And of course, the de facto result is to not allow the enshrinement.

One answer could be that enough people need to come forward to vote for enshrinement to change the current voting pattern. Currently there clearly are not enough people voting for enshrinement so we could conclude that the present sentiment is against enshrinement. I do feel that it ought to be the other way around (i.e. enough people need to vote to against enshrinement to keep the work out) simply because the present rules would enshrine the work. 

Anyway I'll just keep voting, enjoy the results, and thank everyone who participated.


----------



## Guest

I'm against enshrinement where I believe there are grounds to suspect account abuse.


----------



## Mahlerian

dogen said:


> I'm against enshrinement where I believe there are grounds to suspect account abuse.


I don't believe there are sufficient grounds, personally.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> I don't believe there are sufficient grounds, personally.


Fair enough. mmsbls asked for clear, succinct expression of views and that is mine. Power-voting AND possible sockpuppetry. It may only be one, or two works but I believe the principle is more important. I may be mistaken and it is not cut and dried but there are certainly grounds for suspicion. If this is allowed to pass it will lead to progressive abuse in time.


----------



## SimonNZ

Mahlerian said:


> If voting patterns continue the way they have, there won't be.
> 
> Even if 3-4 works in total out of a list of 200 circumvent rules and decorum, *WHO CARES*? It's just a list, and a small part of one.


I'm genuinely surprised to hear you say this. Sure it's "just a list" but its meant to be one that will introduce new listeners to music as recommended by consensus and genuine recommendation, not as an attention getting prank of one persons passing whims.

This list should also be, as the SQ project something that we could finish feeling proud of, feeling a sense of community through a kind of hive mind, and a better understanding of each other and our listening motivations and having explored the unfamiliar more intensely. Insted at the end of this I'm going to feel some of that heavily tempered by the relief that I don't have to endue one prankster doing his utmost to mess with the process every step of the way. I actually reread this thread right through recently and was deeply saddened that so much energy had to be devoted right from the beginning and constantly after to keeping this one person from turning the whole endeavor into a farce and a waste of everyone's time. So please don't talk about what's happening now as though its one isolated incident, or that it has no bearing on the suspicions of myself and others.

I also assume you're not wearing your moderator's hat when you ask"if they're circumventing rules and decorum, who cares".

I'm sorry to be such a pain about this Mahlerian, I respect you enormously, but who cares? if you reread this thread you'll see many do.


----------



## Mahlerian

Yes, and the vast majority of the list will be in line with what was established by the majority of the members who participated. The entire process has not been circumvented, all of the rules as established have been followed after they were established.

Earlier issues were dealt with.

We are not talking about dealing with something on the basis of proof, but rather of speculation and circumstantial evidence that I do not consider sufficient. If I or any of the other moderators did believe that there was evidence of sockpuppetry, we would take action, as I have told you before specifically.


----------



## SimonNZ

The vast majority? Why can't the whole thing be in line? When you say "the vast majority" aren't you then recognizing a problem with the remainder?

Earlier issues were dealt with but its like whack-a-mole where one outlet for pranksterism is then changed to another. The symptom was dealt with, not the disease.

What I should have added in my previous post was that the "who cares" issue is relevant to future lists. Will we have to go through all this sillyness again in the next one and the one after that?


----------



## Guest

I'd certainly think twice before participating in a future project.

If I was suspected of shenanigans I'd come out publicly and explain. Unless of course I was guilty as charged...


----------



## Nereffid

SimonNZ said:


> The vast majority? Why can't the whole thing be in line? When you say "the vast majority" aren't you then recognizing a problem with the remainder?
> 
> Earlier issues were dealt with but its like whack-a-mole where one outlet for pranksterism is then changed to another. The symptom was dealt with, not the disease.
> 
> What I should have added in my previous post was that the "who cares" issue is relevant to future lists. Will we have to go through all this sillyness again in the next one and the one after that?


I know I'm not involved in the list anymore, but I have been following this debate, so if you'll allow me to say this one thing:
I think the issue here is the nature of how the voting is being done: there are too many possibilities for shenanigans. The other recent lists, and the ongoing opera one, have a more rigid voting system that's much harder to abuse.

As for sock-puppetry, there is, I guess, a subtle difference between running two accounts yourself, and getting someone you know to vote the way you want.
Either one is unethical, though, and the fact that it's blithely continuing without any comment from the user(s) in question is itself quite suspicious.


----------



## Guest

It's worse than the Labour Party election!



(British politics knowledge required here)


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I know I'm not involved in the list anymore, but I have been following this debate, so if you'll allow me to say this one thing:
> I think the issue here is the nature of how the voting is being done: there are too many possibilities for shenanigans. The other recent lists, and the ongoing opera one, have a more rigid voting system that's much harder to abuse.
> 
> As for sock-puppetry, there is, I guess, a subtle difference between running two accounts yourself, and getting someone you know to vote the way you want.
> Either one is unethical, though, and the fact that it's blithely continuing without any comment from the user(s) in question is itself quite suspicious.


I'm going to get my mum to vote in all your polls, and she can't stand classical music. Look out for her! MWAHAHAHAHAAAAA


----------



## ptr

If the accusations are true, then I'm quite impressed with the importance this individual attests this project just for him to bend the rules to forward his own cause, don't make it right in any way. For me, it is obvious that is You participate in a collective "game" like this You follow the rules at hand!

Instead of bickering about this individual (as it seemingly only builds his ego!), why not discuss the format of creating these kinds of lists instead? I understand that Science put a lot of thought into the format when he created the original list. But might it be that time has shown it to be an unstable process when there may or may not be individuals who bends the rules in.
I personally liked the voting process we used with T-Vox's String Quartet project better, but that needs an active project manager who oversees the proceedings, Science method is more or less self regulating, question is, which is better for the peace of mind of majority of voters!

Having read this discussion of the past week, I've been mulling the issue a bit and might it be that this project was started prematurely and we should perhaps had discussed the format more intensely before staring the voting process?

Might, I be so bold as suggesting that we scrap the ongoing process in favour of discussing how it should be done! Not least, as I think that this discussion might be more interesting then the voting process it self (I say this half jesting, half with a deep black streak of seriousness! )

I honestly don't see how there could be an open system that someone will never try to manipulate, You just have to look at the history of politics to know that there might be good intentions, but for every good intention there's someone who sets out to manipulate the system for the most simplistic of reasons.

I don't have a strong view on what to do, but for the integrity of the project I do agree that we need some heavy handed spring cleaning! :scold:

/ptr


----------



## PaulieGatto

I feel that the original method, where a negative vote was casted, helped in regulation. I believe this idea was dropped due to a feeling that people feel that there is ill will directed towards them if they're work gets voted down. I feel though I wasn't part of it the original project Science set up worked well because of it, I would think.


----------



## PaulieGatto

I personally thought more thought should have gone into it - the whole thing was a bit unwieldy as it is. As for the allegations of the system being gamed, I do find it odd that the votes for the Auerbach piece keep going without a single comment regarding people's feelings about it (no question about its point effectiveness or why it's much lower than the votes, no attempts to contest other people's allegations) it just seems strange to participate in the voting but then not participate in the conversation.


----------



## Guest

I agree ptr. I think the project needs a reboot, overseen by MS? I'll chip in.

I reckon I'm done with voting unless or until a serious clean up is done.


----------



## GioCar

We have been running it for more than 4 months...honestly I'd feel a bit frustrated to re-start from scratch.
No other ways to save the goods and throw away the bads?
After all, we are speaking of the behaviour of just one (two?) member.


----------



## Guest

I don't mean start from scratch; a change / tightening of the procedure.


----------



## ptr

My point was that I advocate a discussion about the process rather then bickering about the symptom!
_If we want to change the process to avoid this kind of alleged behaviours we will have to have some kind of rule that prevents voters from voting for the same piece more often then once every five votes._
I'm open to other suggestions/constructions of such a prevention rule and/or suggestions on how to solve the imminent issue!

/ptr


----------



## GreenMamba

ptr said:


> If the accusations are true, then I'm quite impressed with the importance this individual attests this project just for him to bend the rules to forward his own cause, don't make it right in any way. For me, it is obvious that is You participate in a collective "game" like this You follow the rules at hand!


It's not clear any rules have been broken (certainly not provable that they have been).

As Nefferid says, this system invites shenanigans. We didn't want it to become legalistic. We wanted to maintain a friendly "spirit of the game." But that didn't work.

So now, what? We need a new rule about what % of votes can come from any two people? That's complex, and no one is going to check it. (Unless it's a one-off designed only to be used in this case. Heck, does anyone check the 50% rule for anyone but A7?)

Ban members of the same family? Then why admit you're from the same family? Another new guy could pop up. And the two in question have only voted the same w/r/t Auerbach.

I can understand Mahlerian's desire to just take a mulligan on this one. I personally wouldn't want to stop it and re-argue the process. Yawn. I'd rather just limp home with what we got.

Integrity? You could argue that the beginning of the list -- where works made it through with ~ 20 points -- is more vulnerable to eyebrow raising than what pops up as #168.


----------



## mmsbls

PaulieGatto said:


> I feel that the original method, where a negative vote was casted, helped in regulation. I believe this idea was dropped due to a feeling that people feel that there is ill will directed towards them if they're work gets voted down. I feel though I wasn't part of it the original project Science set up worked well because of it, I would think.


Having participated in the original project from the beginning, I believe that the negative vote was viewed as important. It's true that ocassionally people were somewhat bothered by having their favorite works voted against, but I think everyone fully understood the rationale. There was no sentiment to drop the vote until far into the project when it was considered unnecessary.

If another such project were started, I would advocate for the negative vote. I'm not sure how to modify the current rules here in a manner that would not make a huge change to the voting process but still is effective. Or rather I don't have a good suggestion.


----------



## GreenMamba

Maybe we do just bring back the -1 for the finish of this. Even if we ignore Auerbach, we now have two works tied at 58 on the top of the list. I'm tired of all the work necessary to push something through. this is more frustrating to me than voting shenanigans.

-1 should clean up the top of the list and (probably) knock Auerbach down to size (poor Lena...it's not her fault she's in the middle of this).


----------



## mmsbls

I think I might have mentioned this awhile ago, but in the old project we often dealt with works that competed with each other too long by making public suggestions (e.g. if you vote for work A, I will support work B later or some other agreement meant to push works through). Participants recognized that having their work listed at #110 rather than #111 or #113 meant little and efficiently enshrining works allowed everyone to vote for other desired works sooner. Especially with the -1 vote, this type of cooperation can smooth the way. These suggestions were often used when one person was voting for her own work and against another participant's work while the other participant was doing the same thing.


----------



## Guest

I'll defer to those with greater experience. The -1 sounds useful, as does informal agreements.


----------



## SimonNZ

I'm not pushing it and I only originally suggested the idea for post-200 honourables, but in light of the concerns above...we could just do 170-200 as three rounds in the other voting system.

It would solve the traffic jam issues, the power-voting issues and the fatigue issues.

But I'll vote for adding the -1 thing if that will move things around at the top of the board, and others are for it.


----------



## SimonNZ

Unless there's further comment I'm going to use the -1 thing in my next vote later tonight.


----------



## Guest

-1 sounds like an improvement to me.

I'll give it a go.


----------



## Polyphemus

dogen said:


> It's worse than the Labour Party election!
> 
> (British politics knowledge required here)


You mean a bloody shambles.

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest

Polyphemus said:


> You mean a bloody shambles.
> 
> :lol: :lol:


Possibly. Also possibly an assault on democracy by the entrenched right wing establishment!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

The -1 idea sounds fine to me, but I won't use it myself.


----------



## Polyphemus

dogen said:


> Possibly. Also possibly an assault on democracy by the entrenched right wing establishment!


Democracy !! that's a nice fairy tale.


----------



## mmsbls

In the original project all votes were required to include a -1 vote as well. It's more difficult to be upset with someone who gives a particular work a -1 vote if everyone knows that all votes must include a -1 vote. Since we're into the voting stage, in theory it might be better if we collectively decided to change the rule at a specific time (e.g. place a clear indication of the change in the thread) and everyone could then use the new rules to vote.


----------



## GreenMamba

Well, some of us have already employed it, and it gave us our first enshrinement in days.

As much as it looks like we're dumping on one work, the main purpose is to create a gap that sends the top work through. I can see myself -1ing a work, then +2ing it the next time.


----------



## SimonNZ

I fear all this is slowing down the actual voting even further.

If even the people who have agreed that they are happy with the -1 thing but don't necessarily want to use it, then can we all just agree that for the purposes here its optional, and get back to the more important matter of regular voting?



> I can see myself -1ing a work, then +2ing it the next time.


This would be my feeling also.


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> In the original project all votes were required to include a -1 vote as well. It's more difficult to be upset with someone who gives a particular work a -1 vote if everyone knows that all votes must include a -1 vote. Since we're into the voting stage, in theory it might be better if we collectively decided to change the rule at a specific time (e.g. place a clear indication of the change in the thread) and everyone could then use the new rules to vote.


Never did care much for the -1 vote, myself. What I noticed happening when its forced is when individuals don't know what to use it on, they just use it on a work that other voters have used it on - that way no one can be angry specifically at them - the strength in numbers idea. This way certain works end up getting "ganged up" on.

I'm fine with it being optional, but if its required I'm out.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Never did care much for the -1 vote, myself. What I noticed happening when its forced is when individuals don't know what to use it on, they just use it on a work that other voters have used it on - that way no one can be angry specifically at them - the strength in numbers idea. This way certain works end up getting "ganged up" on.
> 
> I'm fine with it being optional, but if its required I'm out.


I appreciate what you're saying, but use of it when it's optional might highlight its use.


----------



## tdc

dogen said:


> I appreciate what you're saying, but use of it when it's optional might highlight its use.


See - same problem, no one wants to be the "bad guy". But I've played the game before when it was used, and its use is still very much highlighted and it is guaranteed to create more tension and conflict in the game over time.

That said I will have no hard feelings whatsoever if you all decide to fully implement it. I will respectfully bow out, but the project is winding down now anyway.


----------



## SimonNZ

It is nearing the end, but even if we enshrine one a day that's still a month, and currently its not moving that quickly (and all participants are dearly wanted and needed).


----------



## Guest

I don't really want to be a partypooper (with the -1 thing) but I'm just fed up of the Bel7 issue not being tackled.


----------



## tdc

I understand what you guys are saying, but I believe there are other ways we could finish off this list - even if it is a big departure from the current system. Personally I would take any of the other ideas that have been thrown around over the negative vote.


----------



## SimonNZ

What would be your preference as the method for finishing the list?


----------



## tdc

SimonNZ said:


> What would be your preference as the method for finishing the list?


Ideally something that brings the numbers down - either taking a bunch of points off every work, or making a number threshold (40ish) that once a work gets that many votes it is enshrined - but the top two point givers cannot enshrine a work.

Do voting rounds on the works above 40 points right now.

Switch to another format all together? I'm sure there are quite a few other options, quite possibly a better one I haven't thought of.


----------



## GreenMamba

Anyone want to volunteer to count voting points from the top two? That's a hell of a chore.

I don't see what subtracting from every work will do. It doesn't change the relations between the top works. Why not just say a piece gets in when it hits 60?

You really think switching to another format altogether is preferable to just having a -1 rule? How disruptive would it be to change to something entirely different? Wouldn't it render all the votes for the current board moot?


----------



## tdc

GreenMamba said:


> Anyone want to volunteer to count voting points from the top two? That's a hell of a chore.


There might be a simpler way - what if (just like when works get nominated) they have to be seconded by the same amount of voters every time to be enshrined? No one would have to count any votes, we would keep track of it the same way.

Other than that your idea of 60 makes sense, but it will take newly nominated works a longer time to reach the required totals.


----------



## GreenMamba

tdc said:


> There might be a simpler way - what if (just like when works get nominated) they have to be seconded by the same amount of voters every time to be enshrined? No one would have to count any votes, we would keep track of it the same way.
> 
> Other than that your idea of 60 makes sense, but it will take newly nominated works a longer time to reach the required totals.


The second nominations thing might work, in addition to the rule saying that 60 automatically gets something in. I wouldn't want to keep +7 and then require even more votes on top. But it is annoying to have to go through such complexities just to prevent one or two power voters.

A long time ago, I suggested a "slow bleed" where works would lose a couple points every week or so. I'm not crazy about just giving everyone -25 at once. What about the work that now has 24? Seems unfair to it. But the slow bleed would have had to have started a long time ago.


----------



## tdc

GreenMamba said:


> The second nominations thing might work, in addition to the rule saying that 60 automatically gets something in. I wouldn't want to keep +7 and then require even more votes on top.


I agree with this.


----------



## GioCar

My personal opinion is that we are spending too many efforts to get things more and more complicated just in order to deal with one/two power voters (who anyway seem to have calmed down a bit)

To finish the list personally I'm happy with the (optional) -1 rule.


----------



## ptr

On the whole I quite agree with GioCat!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

OK my brain is quite full now. Short of MS declaring what **** is going down from now on I'm going to press on with voting, including a -1 each time.
That way there's no discrimination, you all can hate me!!! (and just for that touch of hypocrisy - if anyone demerits Penderecki's SQ you're straight off my xmas card list!)


----------



## ptr

^^ I will give all of my negative points to that incontinent spoof of Polish music hence forth!

/ptr


----------



## GreenMamba

If you don't want to tick people off with the -1, then don't target the same work every time. That's probably where tempers would start to flare.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> If you don't want to tick people off with the -1, then don't target the same work every time. That's probably where tempers would start to flare.


yeah, I'll spread it around so I'm despised equally!!


----------



## Selby

I have been following this thread although I did not participate in the project. There has been talk of members adding lists of Honorable Mentions; any chance non-participants in the project could offer up a list of works that never entered into the discourse/enshrinement?


----------



## GreenMamba

Selby said:


> I have been following this thread although I did not participate in the project. There has been talk of members adding lists of Honorable Mentions; any chance non-participants in the project could offer up a list of works that never entered into the discourse/enshrinement?


You could just make nominations now or before we finish. Our rule is four at a time until enshrined. But if it weren't "seconded" it would be removed within a week.

I don't think any of us knows how honorable mention will work, other than maybe using what's left of our list. Maybe you could stayed tuned and remined us then.


----------



## Guest

Yeah Selby it's incomprehensible now, don't add to it!

However, if you transfer some money to my paypal account, me and my sockpuppet pals will fast-track a work of your choice through to Eternal Enshrinement.


----------



## Prodromides

Selby said:


> I have been following this thread although I did not participate in the project. There has been talk of members adding lists of Honorable Mentions; any chance non-participants in the project could offer up a list of works that never entered into the discourse/enshrinement?


Here's a thread I deposited months ago on my faves from post-1950

http://www.talkclassical.com/37589-subset-my-post-1950-a.html?highlight=Gagneux


----------



## mmsbls

Prodromides said:


> Here's a thread I deposited months ago on my faves from post-1950
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/37589-subset-my-post-1950-a.html?highlight=Gagneux


I have been somewhat slowly working my way through these works. I added them to my long list of works I want to hear and occasionally select one somewhat randomly from the list. If I didn't think you for the list before, I will thank you now.


----------



## Selby

Prodromides said:


> Here's a thread I deposited months ago on my faves from post-1950
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/37589-subset-my-post-1950-a.html?highlight=Gagneux


I appreciate the list Prodromides - what I meant was for people, like myself, who were not a part of the voting, adding their own honourable mentions list to the final project, aka, the 10-20 works I think should have made it but were left out of the conversations. (Due, of course, to my own fault for not showing up)


----------



## Prodromides

mmsbls said:


> I will thank you now.


You're welcome, Sr. Moderator.

Hope you accrue additional favorites.


----------



## Prodromides

Selby said:


> I appreciate the list Prodromides - what I meant was for people, like myself, who were not a part of the voting, adding their own honourable mentions list to the final project, aka, the 10-20 works I think should have made it but were left out of the conversations. (Due, of course, to my own fault for not showing up)


Yeah - I didn't participate either since I have limited access to internet. I'd be interested in a one-time deposit of hono(u)rable mentions.


----------



## DeutscherFan

Selby and Prodromides:

Can you say now which works you were thinking deserved honourable mentions?

Also: there's still time for at least a few of them to go on and off the board in the remaining time, if you wanted to nominate specific ones now.


----------



## Selby

DeutscherFan said:


> Selby and Prodromides:
> 
> Can you say now which works you were thinking deserved honourable mentions?
> 
> Also: there's still time for at least a few of them to go on and off the board in the remaining time, if you wanted to nominate specific ones now.


Did you have a number in mind? I just made a quick list and ended with 40, so I may need some limitations.


----------



## DeutscherFan

Well, you're allowed up to four nominations on the go at any one time, so what would be your four favorites of those forty?

...and/or which four do you think would have the most popular support?

(I'm interested in both answers - as well as seeing the whole forty list)

plus don't forget you're allowed to, encouraged to, vote for your favorites of what's currently on the board, however irregularly you visit.


----------



## Selby

If I was to narrow it would be to composers not yet represented:

Hovhaness: Symphony No. 19, Op. 217, "Vishnu" (1966)
Mompou: Música callada (1959)
Flynn: Trinity (1968/76/93)
Tabakova: Concerto for Cello and Strings (2008)
Parra: Hypermusic Prologue (2008-09)


----------



## GreenMamba

I don't know how big our honorable mention list is going to be, but I'd be hesitant to allow 40 per person. Those of us who participated would also want to put a whole bunch on. I don't know, maybe that's a good thing to have a huge list, but the HM list would have nothing to do with the actual exercise. And those works won't necessarily have support beyond one person.

ADD: I see Selby has already cut it down to a handful.


----------



## Selby

^ It was just an inquiry, I wasn't intending to add confusion or frustration


----------



## GreenMamba

I didn't mean to shoot it down, but the number 40 just threw me off. There are a lot of composers who deserve mention. Maybe that's how we do the honorable mention: just have people add works from composers not yet represented.

We don't have to nail down the process now.


----------



## DeutscherFan

Selby said:


> If I was to narrow it would be to composers not yet represented:
> 
> Hovhaness: Symphony No. 19, Op. 217, "Vishnu" (1966)
> Mompou: Música callada (1959)
> Flynn: Trinity (1968/76/93)
> Tabakova: Concerto for Cello and Strings (2008)
> Parra: Hypermusic Prologue (2008-09)


Fascinating. I'm not sure I've heard any of those. I'll try to rectify that as soon as possible. Thanks.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

DeutscherFan said:


> Fascinating. I'm not sure I've heard any of those. I'll try to rectify that as soon as possible. Thanks.


Me neither. Have they been nominated?


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> Me neither. Have they been nominated?


No, but if we nominate one Selby will feel duty-bound to participate!


----------



## Guest

fresh nom!!!

Mompou


----------



## Guest

fresh nom II

Stroppa 
Let me Sing into your Ear

(6 part work, each one uploaded to Youtube)


----------



## GioCar

^ Ok, I believe I really have to get the Donaueschinger Musiktage 2010 CD set from Neos


----------



## Guest

GioCar said:


> ^ Ok, I believe I really have to get the Donaueschinger Musiktage 2010 CD set from Neos


I would say it is tremendously stonking*.

* molto bello.


----------



## Selby

Albert7:

I'm surprised that you chose Rising Sun for a Takemitsu nomination; would you be willing to share your reasoning?

I would have gone with Eclipse, Paths, Alll in Twilight, Rain Tree Sketch II, or In an Autumn Garden, personally.


----------



## brotagonist

^ Or how about November Steps, Gémeaux or Spirit Garden?


----------



## Selby

^^^ Or those


----------



## GreenMamba

brotagonist said:


> ^ Or how about November Steps, Gémeaux or Spirit Garden?


November Steps was enshrined a long time ago and Spirit Garden is on the current nom list.


----------



## GioCar

dogen said:


> I would say it is tremendously stonking*.
> 
> * molto bello.


Yes, I have to admit I googled it. Never heard before. Thanks!


----------



## GreenMamba

OK, did we agree we are ending at 200? Do we still want to? If so, what do we do with the leftovers?

The issue is that we have had a spate of new nominations recently. At the very least, I'm not sure people know when we're going to stop. Maybe that changes nominating behavior as it could be difficult for them to pass.


----------



## Guest

I think we did agree to end at 200.

I think we left open what to do with the "leftovers". Can we come up with an "Honourable Leftovers" methodology?

One suggestion: no more new works to be nominated as of ... er ...now...


----------



## mmsbls

On other lists often all works that were nominated anytime in the process were collected as honorable mention (or perhaps some other similar name). This methodology is somewhat different. For other lists a work simply needed to be nominated by one person or in some cases nominated by one person and seconded by another. One solution for our list is to have all works that are not ultimately enshrined in the top 200 but were nominated and seconded (3 times) placed on the honorable mention list. So currently there would be several works that were nominated but have not been seconded enough, and those works would not make the honorable mention list. Of course we could include any work that was simply nominated, but that would allow anyone to nominate anything for automatic inclusion on the honorable mention list.

I would prefer an honorable mention list of all non-enshrined but properly seconded works.

I would also be happy to have no new works nominated (as dogen suggested).


----------



## PeterFromLA

Perhaps this was already addressed, but I'm a bit confused by the entry of "Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music" as one work. Those are two different pieces by Cage. And I know that Cage encouraged simultaneous performances of discrete works, and that these two pieces have been performed simultaneously quite often, but still they are different works. Or am I missing something?


----------



## GreenMamba

I believe that was nathanb's nomination, and he's on hiatus. We had a discussion about whether it should have been separate, but that was after the fact. The fact that the composer encouraged them to be performed together is enough, I suppose. A bit like a work that was composed but. revised later.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I would agree that there should be no new nominations from now.


----------



## Guest

MoonlightSonata said:


> I would agree that there should be no new nominations from now.


I'll put a sign up then, boss!


----------



## Guest

Is it time to start discussing the basis for Honourable Mentions? (with only 16 more to be Enshrined...)


----------



## mmsbls

dogen said:


> Is it time to start discussing the basis for Honourable Mentions? (with only 16 more to be Enshrined...)


There are 45 works on the Seconded Board and only 16 more enshrinement slots. Roughly 2/3 of the works won't be enshrined. If the entire Seconded Board will get honorable mention, then people might want to vote for works they think have a chance of enshrinement. I agree we should clarify honorable mention soon.

I would vote for all Seconded works making honorable mention.


----------



## Guest

That seems eminently rational.


----------



## GioCar

That's fine with me.


----------



## ptr

I despise rational, I want it to be complex, mystical and long winding just because I don't really have a life outside voting in this and the other list project.. If You let me down on this I might throw myself at derailing the Opera Project despite not having that much love for this genre! :kiss:

Ok, I'm fine with whatever the loudest majority wants...

/ptr


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I vote for mmsbls's idea.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

*Final List:*

001. Berio: Sinfonia (1968-70)
002. Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
003. Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1955)
004. Messiaen: Des canyons aux étoiles... (1971-4)
005. Rzewski: The People United Will Never be Defeated! (1975)
006. Ligeti: Études pour piano (1985-2001)
007. Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1974-6)
008. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10 in E minor, op. 93 (1953)
009. Górecki: Symphony No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (1976)
010. Crumb: Black Angels (1971)
011. Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-85)
012. Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990)
013. Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)
014. Penderecki: St. Luke Passion (1966)
015. Ligeti: Violin Concerto (1992)
016. Messiaen: Éclairs sur l'au-delà... (1991)
017. Lutoslawski: Symphony No. 3 (1983)
018. Britten: War Requiem (1962)
019. Varèse: Déserts (1950-54)
020. Stravinsky: Threni (1958)
021. Stockhausen: Gruppen (1955-57)
022. Shostakovich: Cello Concerto No. 1 (1959)
023. Stockhausen: LICHT (1977-2003)
024. Pärt: Te Deum (1985)
025. Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1976)
026. Schnittke: Piano Quintet (1972-76)
027. Boulez: Répons (1984)
028. Xenakis: Metastaseis (1953-54)
029. Glass: Einstein on the Beach (1976)
030. Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain (1970)
031. Harvey: Mortuos Plango, Vivos Voco (1980)
032. Feldman: Rothko Chapel (1971)
033. Penderecki: Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (1960)
034. Adams: Nixon in China (1987)
035. Boulez: Anthèmes II (1997)
036. Gubaidulina: Offertorium (1980)
037. Scelsi: Uaxuctum (1969)
038. Andriessen: De Staat (1976)
039. Haas: Limited Approximations (2010)
040. Saariaho: L' Amour de Loin (2000)
041. Shostakovich: Symphony No.15 (1971)
042. Barber: Piano Concerto (1962)
043. Reich: Different Trains (1988)
044. Adès: Concentric Paths (2005)
045. Messiaen: St. François d'Assise (1975-83)
046. Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra (1954)
047. Babbitt: All Set (1957)
048. Haas: String Quartet 3 "In iij. Noct" (2003)
049. Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995/2001)
050. Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 (1960)
051. Ligeti: Piano Concerto (1985-8)
052. Xenakis: Persepolis (1971)
053. Nono: La lontananza nostalgica utopica futura (1988)
054. Vasks: Violin Concert, 'Distant Light' (1997)
055. Cage: Music of Changes (1951)
056. Pärt: Tabula Rasa (1977)
057. Murail: Gondwana (1980)
058. Adams: The Dharma at Big Sur (2003)
059. Boulez: Sur Incises (1996-1998)
060. Riley: In C (1964)
061. Cage: 4'33" (1952)
062. Sciarrino: Allegoria della Notte (1985)
063. Poulenc: Gloria (1961)
064. Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985)
065. Stockhausen: Kontakte (1958-60)
066. Berio: Laborintus II (1965)
067. Chin: Xi (1998)
068. Gerhard: Symphony No. 4 "New York" (1967)
069. Takemitsu: November Steps (1967)
070. Crumb: Ancient Voices of Children (1970)
071. Ligeti: Atmosphères (1961)
072. Gubaidulina: Viola Concerto (1996)
073. Kurtag: 2nd String Quartet (12 Microludes) (1977/78)
074. Stravinsky: Requiem Canticles (1966)
075. Ferneyhough: String Quartet No. 6 (2010)
076. Chin: Violin Concerto (2001)
077. Pärt: Fratres (1977)
078. Berio: Sequenze (2002)
079. Grisey: Quatre chants pour franchir le seuil (1998)
080. Carter: Symphonia: Sum fluxae pretium spei (1996)
081. Stravinsky: Agon (1957)
082. Ligeti: Chamber Concerto, for 13 instrumentalists (1970)
083. Nørgård: Symphony no. 3 (1975)
084. Furrer: Piano Concerto (2007)
085. Kagel: Music for Renaissance Instruments (1966)
086. Nono: Como Una Ola De Fuerza Y Luz (1972)
087. Gubaidulina: Canticle of the Sun (Sonnengesang) (1997)
088. Partch: Delusion Of The Fury (1965-1966)
089. Ferneyhough: Terrain (1992)
090. Takemitsu: Requiem for Strings (1957)
091. Pintscher: Five Pieces for Orchestra (1997)
092. Adams: Harmonium (1981)
093. Maderna: Quadrivium (1969)
094. Messiaen: Chronochromie (1960)
095. Feldman: For Philip Guston (1984)
096. Schnittke: Symphony No. 1 (1969-74)
097. Saariaho: 'Nymphéa' (Jardin Secret III) (1987)
098. Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 1 (1977)
099. Ustvolskaya: Symphony No. 3 "Jesus Messiah, Save Us" (1983)
100. Prokofiev: Symphony No. 7 in C-sharp minor (1952)
101. Stravinsky: Septet (1953)
102. Shostakovich: Piano Concerto No. 2 (1957)
103. Nono: Prometeo (1981-85)
104. Ligeti: Lux Aeterna (1966)
105. Stockhausen: KLANG (2004-2007)
106. Dallapiccola: Piccola Musica Notturna (1954)
107. Ligeti: Lontano (1967)
108. Saariaho: Six Japanese Gardens (1994)
109. Nancarrow: Studies for Player Piano (1948-1992)
110. Feldman: String Quartet No. 2 (1983)
111. Reich: The Desert Music (1983)
112. Xenakis: Tetras (1983)
113. Britten: The Turn of the Screw (1954)
114. Rautavaara: Symphony No. 7 'Angel of Light' (1994)
115. Duckworth: Time Curve Preludes (1978)
116. Schnittke: Concerto for Piano and Strings (1979)
117. López: La Selva (1998)
118. Schnittke: Symphony No. 5 (Concerto Grosso No. 4) (1988)
119. Babbitt: Philomel (1964)
120. Lachenmann: Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern (1996)
121. Xenakis: Nomos Alpha (1965-66)
122. Stravinsky: The Rake's Progress (1951)
123. Murail: Désintégrations (1983)
124. Haas: In Vain (2000-2002)
125. Boulez: Pli selon pli (1989)
126. Kurtág: 3rd String Quartet (Officium breve) (1989)
127. Carter: String Quartet No. 1 (1951)
128. Zimmermann: Die Soldaten (1957-64)
129. Schnittke: Choir Concerto (1985)
130. Ligeti: Double Concerto, for flute, oboe and orchestra (1972)
131. Lachenmann: Kontrakadenz (1970/71)
132. Messiaen: La Transfiguration De Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ (1965-1969)
133. Penderecki: Symphony No. 7 "Seven Gates of Jerusalem" (1996)
134. Ligeti: Musica Ricercata (1952)
135. Nørgård: String Quartet No. 8 (1997)
136. Birtwistle: The Triumph of Time (1972)
137. Holt, Simeon ten: Canto Ostinato (1976)
138. Crumb: Vox Balaenae (1971)
139. Murail: Winter Fragments (2000)
140. Feldman: Crippled Symmetry (1983)
141. Xenakis: Kraanerg (1968)
142. Boulez: Cinq Notations (1978)
143. Sessions: String Quartet No. 2 (1951)
144. Goebbels: Surrogate Cities (1994)
145. Berio: Coro (1974-76)
146. Cage: Roaratorio (1979)
147. Silvestrov: Symphony No. 5 (1982)
148. Lieberson: Neruda Songs (2005)
149. Adams: Gnarly Buttons (1996)
150. Messiaen: Méditations sur le Mystère de la Sainte-Trinité (1969)
151. Messiaen: Catalogue d'oiseaux (1956-58)
152. Takemitsu: Toward the Sea (1981)
153. Dillon: Nine Rivers (1982-2000)
154. Stockhausen: Momente (1969)
155. Barraqué: Piano Sonata (1950-52)
156. Eötvös: Psychokosmos (1993)
157. Yoshimatsu: Symphony No. 5 (2001)
158. Hosokawa: Utsurohi (1986)
159. Oliveros: To Valerie Solanas and Marilyn Monroe... (1970)
160. Petrassi: Concerto for Orchestra No.5 (1955)
161. Corigliano: Symphony No. 1 (1988-89)
162. Ligeti: Clocks and Clouds (1973)
163. Henze: Symphony No. 5 (1962)
164. Glass: Akhnaten (1983)
165. Penderecki: Utrenja (1971)
166. Tavener: Song for Athene (1993)
167. Carter: Double Concerto (1959-61)
168. Schnittke: Symphony No. 2 "St. Florian" (1979)
169. Nono: Il Canto Sospeso (1955)
170. Adams, J.L.: Become Ocean (2013)
171. Shostakovich: Viola Sonata (1975)
172. Cerha: Spiegel (1960-1)
173. Malec: Sonoris Causa (1997)
174. Schnittke: Requiem (1975)
175. Lutosławski: Cello Concerto (1969-70)
176. Berio: Rendering (1989)
177. Cage: Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music (1962)
178. MacMillan: The Confession of Isobel Gowdie (1990)
179. Ablinger: Voices and Piano (1998/2010)
180. Ligeti: Le Grand Macabre (1974-7)
181. Lindberg: Kraft (1985)
182. Crumb: Makrokosmos (1972-1979)
183. Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004)
184. Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 2 (1981-1982)
185. Romitelli: Dead City Radio, Audiodrome for orchestra (2003)
186. Penderecki: String Quartet No. 3 (2008)
187. Takemitsu: Stanza II (1971)
188. Manoury: Fragments pour un portrait (1998)
189. Britten: Cello Symphony (1963)
190. Coates: Symphony No.14 (2002) 
191. Gubaidulina: String Quartet No. 3 (1987)
192. Tippett: Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli (1953)
193. Ligeti: String Quartet No. 2 (1968)
194. Donatoni: Hot (1989)
195. Radulescu: Byzantine Prayer (1988)
196. Stroppa: Let me Sing into your Ear (2010)
197. Reimann: Lear (1978)
198. Rodrigo: Fantasia para un gentilhombre (1954)
199. Finnissy: English Country Tunes (1977-1985)
200. Abrahamsen: Schnee (2008)


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Composers by number of works on the list:

13: Ligeti
10: Schnittke
7: Messiaen
6: Adams, Boulez, Shostakovich
5: Berio, Takemitsu, Penderecki, Xenakis, Stravinsky, Stockhausen
4: Feldman, Cage, Carter, Gubaidulina, Crumb, Nono
3: Reich, Lutoslawski, Britten, Pärt, Haas, Saariaho, Murail
2: Glass, Kurtág, Ferneyhough, Babbitt, Grisey, Chin, Nørgård, Lachenmann
1: Adès, Riley, Rzewski, Górecki, Varèse, Dutilleux, Harvey, Scelsi, Andriessen, Barber, Rihm, Sciarrino, Poulenc, Furrer, Kagel, Partch, Pintscher, Maderna, Ustvolskaya, Prokofiev, Dallapiccola, Nancarrow, Rautavaara, Duckworth, López, Zimmerman, Birtwistle, Holt, Goebbels, Sessions, Silvestrov, Lieberson, Dillon, Barraqué, Eötvös, Yoshimatu, Hosokawa, Oliveros, Petrassi, Corigliano, Henze, Cerha, Malec, MacMillan, Ablinger, Lindberg, Salonen, Romitelli, Manoury, Coates, Tippett, Donatoni, Radulescu, Stroppa, Reimann, Rodrigo, Finissy, Abrahamsen


----------



## GioCar

Final list still to be confirmed.......


----------



## juliante

MoonlightSonata said:


> *Final List:*
> 
> 001. Berio: Sinfonia (1968-70)
> 002. Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
> 003. Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1955)
> 004. Messiaen: Des canyons aux étoiles... (1971-4)
> 005. Rzewski: The People United Will Never be Defeated! (1975)
> 006. Ligeti: Études pour piano (1985-2001)
> 007. Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1974-6)
> 008. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10 in E minor, op. 93 (1953)
> 009. Górecki: Symphony No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (1976)
> 010. Crumb: Black Angels (1971)
> 011. Grisey: Les Espaces Acoustiques (1974-85)
> 012. Takemitsu: From Me Flows What You Call Time (1990)
> 013. Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)
> 014. Penderecki: St. Luke Passion (1966)
> 015. Ligeti: Violin Concerto (1992)
> 016. Messiaen: Éclairs sur l'au-delà... (1991)
> 017. Lutoslawski: Symphony No. 3 (1983)
> 018. Britten: War Requiem (1962)
> 019. Varèse: Déserts (1950-54)
> 020. Stravinsky: Threni (1958)
> 021. Stockhausen: Gruppen (1955-57)
> 022. Shostakovich: Cello Concerto No. 1 (1959)
> 023. Stockhausen: LICHT (1977-2003)
> 024. Pärt: Te Deum (1985)
> 025. Carter: A Symphony Of Three Orchestras (1976)
> 026. Schnittke: Piano Quintet (1972-76)
> 027. Boulez: Répons (1984)
> 028. Xenakis: Metastaseis (1953-54)
> 029. Glass: Einstein on the Beach (1976)
> 030. Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain (1970)
> 031. Harvey: Mortuos Plango, Vivos Voco (1980)
> 032. Feldman: Rothko Chapel (1971)
> 033. Penderecki: Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (1960)
> 034. Adams: Nixon in China (1987)
> 035. Boulez: Anthèmes II (1997)
> 036. Gubaidulina: Offertorium (1980)
> 037. Scelsi: Uaxuctum (1969)
> 038. Andriessen: De Staat (1976)
> 039. Haas: Limited Approximations (2010)
> 040. Saariaho: L' Amour de Loin (2000)
> 041. Shostakovich: Symphony No.15 (1971)
> 042. Barber: Piano Concerto (1962)
> 043. Reich: Different Trains (1988)
> 044. Adès: Concentric Paths (2005)
> 045. Messiaen: St. François d'Assise (1975-83)
> 046. Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra (1954)
> 047. Babbitt: All Set (1957)
> 048. Haas: String Quartet 3 "In iij. Noct" (2003)
> 049. Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995/2001)
> 050. Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 (1960)
> 051. Ligeti: Piano Concerto (1985-8)
> 052. Xenakis: Persepolis (1971)
> 053. Nono: La lontananza nostalgica utopica futura (1988)
> 054. Vasks: Violin Concert, 'Distant Light' (1997)
> 055. Cage: Music of Changes (1951)
> 056. Pärt: Tabula Rasa (1977)
> 057. Murail: Gondwana (1980)
> 058. Adams: The Dharma at Big Sur (2003)
> 059. Boulez: Sur Incises (1996-1998)
> 060. Riley: In C (1964)
> 061. Cage: 4'33" (1952)
> 062. Sciarrino: Allegoria della Notte (1985)
> 063. Poulenc: Gloria (1961)
> 064. Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985)
> 065. Stockhausen: Kontakte (1958-60)
> 066. Berio: Laborintus II (1965)
> 067. Chin: Xi (1998)
> 068. Gerhard: Symphony No. 4 "New York" (1967)
> 069. Takemitsu: November Steps (1967)
> 070. Crumb: Ancient Voices of Children (1970)
> 071. Ligeti: Atmosphères (1961)
> 072. Gubaidulina: Viola Concerto (1996)
> 073. Kurtag: 2nd String Quartet (12 Microludes) (1977/78)
> 074. Stravinsky: Requiem Canticles (1966)
> 075. Ferneyhough: String Quartet No. 6 (2010)
> 076. Chin: Violin Concerto (2001)
> 077. Pärt: Fratres (1977)
> 078. Berio: Sequenze (2002)
> 079. Grisey: Quatre chants pour franchir le seuil (1998)
> 080. Carter: Symphonia: Sum fluxae pretium spei (1996)
> 081. Stravinsky: Agon (1957)
> 082. Ligeti: Chamber Concerto, for 13 instrumentalists (1970)
> 083. Nørgård: Symphony no. 3 (1975)
> 084. Furrer: Piano Concerto (2007)
> 085. Kagel: Music for Renaissance Instruments (1966)
> 086. Nono: Como Una Ola De Fuerza Y Luz (1972)
> 087. Gubaidulina: Canticle of the Sun (Sonnengesang) (1997)
> 088. Partch: Delusion Of The Fury (1965-1966)
> 089. Ferneyhough: Terrain (1992)
> 090. Takemitsu: Requiem for Strings (1957)
> 091. Pintscher: Five Pieces for Orchestra (1997)
> 092. Adams: Harmonium (1981)
> 093. Maderna: Quadrivium (1969)
> 094. Messiaen: Chronochromie (1960)
> 095. Feldman: For Philip Guston (1984)
> 096. Schnittke: Symphony No. 1 (1969-74)
> 097. Saariaho: 'Nymphéa' (Jardin Secret III) (1987)
> 098. Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 1 (1977)
> 099. Ustvolskaya: Symphony No. 3 "Jesus Messiah, Save Us" (1983)
> 100. Prokofiev: Symphony No. 7 in C-sharp minor (1952)
> 101. Stravinsky: Septet (1953)
> 102. Shostakovich: Piano Concerto No. 2 (1957)
> 103. Nono: Prometeo (1981-85)
> 104. Ligeti: Lux Aeterna (1966)
> 105. Stockhausen: KLANG (2004-2007)
> 106. Dallapiccola: Piccola Musica Notturna (1954)
> 107. Ligeti: Lontano (1967)
> 108. Saariaho: Six Japanese Gardens (1994)
> 109. Nancarrow: Studies for Player Piano (1948-1992)
> 110. Feldman: String Quartet No. 2 (1983)
> 111. Reich: The Desert Music (1983)
> 112. Xenakis: Tetras (1983)
> 113. Britten: The Turn of the Screw (1954)
> 114. Rautavaara: Symphony No. 7 'Angel of Light' (1994)
> 115. Duckworth: Time Curve Preludes (1978)
> 116. Schnittke: Concerto for Piano and Strings (1979)
> 117. López: La Selva (1998)
> 118. Schnittke: Symphony No. 5 (Concerto Grosso No. 4) (1988)
> 119. Babbitt: Philomel (1964)
> 120. Lachenmann: Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern (1996)
> 121. Xenakis: Nomos Alpha (1965-66)
> 122. Stravinsky: The Rake's Progress (1951)
> 123. Murail: Désintégrations (1983)
> 124. Haas: In Vain (2000-2002)
> 125. Boulez: Pli selon pli (1989)
> 126. Kurtág: 3rd String Quartet (Officium breve) (1989)
> 127. Carter: String Quartet No. 1 (1951)
> 128. Zimmermann: Die Soldaten (1957-64)
> 129. Schnittke: Choir Concerto (1985)
> 130. Ligeti: Double Concerto, for flute, oboe and orchestra (1972)
> 131. Lachenmann: Kontrakadenz (1970/71)
> 132. Messiaen: La Transfiguration De Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ (1965-1969)
> 133. Penderecki: Symphony No. 7 "Seven Gates of Jerusalem" (1996)
> 134. Ligeti: Musica Ricercata (1952)
> 135. Nørgård: String Quartet No. 8 (1997)
> 136. Birtwistle: The Triumph of Time (1972)
> 137. Holt, Simeon ten: Canto Ostinato (1976)
> 138. Crumb: Vox Balaenae (1971)
> 139. Murail: Winter Fragments (2000)
> 140. Feldman: Crippled Symmetry (1983)
> 141. Xenakis: Kraanerg (1968)
> 142. Boulez: Cinq Notations (1978)
> 143. Sessions: String Quartet No. 2 (1951)
> 144. Goebbels: Surrogate Cities (1994)
> 145. Berio: Coro (1974-76)
> 146. Cage: Roaratorio (1979)
> 147. Silvestrov: Symphony No. 5 (1982)
> 148. Lieberson: Neruda Songs (2005)
> 149. Adams: Gnarly Buttons (1996)
> 150. Messiaen: Méditations sur le Mystère de la Sainte-Trinité (1969)
> 151. Messiaen: Catalogue d'oiseaux (1956-58)
> 152. Takemitsu: Toward the Sea (1981)
> 153. Dillon: Nine Rivers (1982-2000)
> 154. Stockhausen: Momente (1969)
> 155. Barraqué: Piano Sonata (1950-52)
> 156. Eötvös: Psychokosmos (1993)
> 157. Yoshimatsu: Symphony No. 5 (2001)
> 158. Hosokawa: Utsurohi (1986)
> 159. Oliveros: To Valerie Solanas and Marilyn Monroe... (1970)
> 160. Petrassi: Concerto for Orchestra No.5 (1955)
> 161. Corigliano: Symphony No. 1 (1988-89)
> 162. Ligeti: Clocks and Clouds (1973)
> 163. Henze: Symphony No. 5 (1962)
> 164. Glass: Akhnaten (1983)
> 165. Penderecki: Utrenja (1971)
> 166. Tavener: Song for Athene (1993)
> 167. Carter: Double Concerto (1959-61)
> 168. Schnittke: Symphony No. 2 "St. Florian" (1979)
> 169. Nono: Il Canto Sospeso (1955)
> 170. Adams, J.L.: Become Ocean (2013)
> 171. Shostakovich: Viola Sonata (1975)
> 172. Cerha: Spiegel (1960-1)
> 173. Malec: Sonoris Causa (1997)
> 174. Schnittke: Requiem (1975)
> 175. Lutosławski: Cello Concerto (1969-70)
> 176. Berio: Rendering (1989)
> 177. Cage: Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music (1962)
> 178. MacMillan: The Confession of Isobel Gowdie (1990)
> 179. Ablinger: Voices and Piano (1998/2010)
> 180. Ligeti: Le Grand Macabre (1974-7)
> 181. Lindberg: Kraft (1985)
> 182. Crumb: Makrokosmos (1972-1979)
> 183. Salonen: Wing On Wing (2004)
> 184. Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 2 (1981-1982)
> 185. Romitelli: Dead City Radio, Audiodrome for orchestra (2003)
> 186. Penderecki: String Quartet No. 3 (2008)
> 187. Takemitsu: Stanza II (1971)
> 188. Manoury: Fragments pour un portrait (1998)
> 189. Britten: Cello Symphony (1963)
> 190. Coates: Symphony No.14 (2002)
> 191. Gubaidulina: String Quartet No. 3 (1987)
> 192. Tippett: Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli (1953)
> 193. Ligeti: String Quartet No. 2 (1968)
> 194. Donatoni: Hot (1989)
> 195. Radulescu: Byzantine Prayer (1988)
> 196. Stroppa: Let me Sing into your Ear (2010)
> 197. Reimann: Lear (1978)
> 198. Rodrigo: Fantasia para un gentilhombre (1954)
> 199. Finnissy: English Country Tunes (1977-1985)
> 200. Abrahamsen: Schnee (2008)


Not that it matters ...but how come schnittke's concerto grosso no 1 is not on this list? If it does not warrant if then great I have you a hell of a lot of amazing music to discover!


----------



## Guest

juliante said:


> Not that it matters ...but how come schnittke's concerto grosso no 1 is not on this list? If it does not warrant if then great I have you a hell of a lot of amazing music to discover!


Well you can't have everything! A lot of blood sweat and random tears went into that damn fine list!!!!!!!


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I miss Sir Peter Maxwell Davies and Edison Denisov on that list! (random tears...)


----------



## GreenMamba

juliante said:


> Not that it matters ...but how come schnittke's concerto grosso no 1 is not on this list? If it does not warrant if then great I have you a hell of a lot of amazing music to discover!


Schnittke actually has a lot of works on the list, among the most of any composer (IIRC, Ligeti is #1). Maybe people selected the wrong works?

_ADD: scroll up a bit to see the tally. I forgot it was there. _

Anyway, the process got a little wonky at the end. In fact, no one was 100% happy with it. I think a lot of voting was effectively by composer, with the nominator essentially getting to name which work.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> Schnittke actually has a lot of works on the list, among the most of any composer (IIRC, Ligeti is #1). Maybe people selected the wrong works?
> 
> _ADD: scroll up a bit to see the tally. I forgot it was there. _
> 
> Anyway, the process got a little wonky at the end. In fact, no one was 100% happy with it. I think a lot of voting was effectively by composer, with the nominator essentially getting to name which work.


True. But you can definitely point at this list and say "Take that!"


----------



## SimonNZ

GreenMamba said:


> Schnittke actually has a lot of works on the list, among the most of any composer (IIRC, Ligeti is #1). Maybe people selected the wrong works?
> 
> _ADD: scroll up a bit to see the tally. I forgot it was there. _
> 
> Anyway, the process got a little wonky at the end. In fact, no one was 100% happy with it. *I think a lot of voting was effectively by composer, with the nominator essentially getting to name which work.*


There were quite a few comments along the way of "much as I'd like to vote for that composer, I don't like that (or those) works." And I seem to remember that being said a few times wrt Philip Glass and the nominations of his operas over other areas of his output. On the other hand there were also a number of consensus-gathering mini-polls on the other thread about which works of a given composer people would prefer to vote for, before actually nominating a piece.


----------



## SimonNZ

juliante said:


> Not that it matters ...but how come schnittke's concerto grosso no 1 is not on this list? If it does not warrant if then great I have you a hell of a lot of amazing music to discover!


Um...hang on a second...isn't that piece no.98?


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Um...hang on a second...isn't that piece no.98?


Well spotted sir!


----------



## juliante

dogen said:


> Well spotted sir!


Ah yes. How did I miss that? No absolutely, TC top lists have been an absolute godsend for me in terms of a guide for building my library and i am grateful for them - as far as i am aware there is no comparable reference guide in terms of size / detail. So i am pleased to see Schnitkke's CG no 1 on there and even more pleased that there are so many more works to listen to.


----------



## GreenMamba

SimonNZ said:


> There were quite a few comments along the way of "much as I'd like to vote for that composer, I don't like that (or those) works." And I seem to remember that being said a few times wrt Philip Glass and the nominations of his operas over other areas of his output.


True, but two of the operas were pushed through, and nothing else was. One opera didn't make it. I think one guy nominated three Glass operas at once and they sort of blocked other works.

I still think it was a good experience and a very good list, but I think there was a nominator's bias of sorts.


----------

