# What's this places obsession with ranking stuff?



## Argus

Top composer. Best violin concerto. Greatest symphony/opera. Best one legged female accordionist.

Is this a symptom of elitism? To be part of the good taste elite one must compile lists to provide reassurance of ones good taste.

Just wondering. That's all.


----------



## Aramis

No idea, most of these listings suck and are pointless but I suppose it's matter of people's curiosity about uncurious things and lack of ideas for better, more valueable threads to discuss.


----------



## Almaviva

As far as I'm concerned, it's just for fun, and to function as a way to start conversations and exchanges. Sometimes it is actually useful - not as absolute truth, but as an indication of what people recommend or like. For instance, at one point I consulted the DDD list of greatest 100 operas, there were some there that I didn't know, and I got to know them, and liked a subset of them. Maybe I wouldn't have thought of exploring those, if I hadn't seen their names on the list.

We did a similar list in our opera forum, and decided to call it "top 100 *recommended *operas," not "greatest" or "best" since these are elusive and subjective concepts. We were merely talking about operas that we as a membership corps feel comfortable recommending to others. The thread was lots of fun and increased most participants' knowledge of those works.

Now we're doing a thread about recommended DVD or blu-ray versions of those same operas. Again, it's fun, we don't pretend to know the "truth" about what is "best," but when many of our members recommend the same version, it increases our curiosity about the version and our willingness to purchase or rent it. We get to know other regulars' tastes, and sometimes the endorsement from someone who's got similar taste to ours is a strong incentive.

See, we read reviews in other sites, magazines, etc. But we generally have no clue on whether the reviewer has tastes that are similar to ours. But we do know each other in our forum (as far as tastes and preferences are concerned) so a recommendation from a trusted penpal has more weight than one that I find in the costumer reviews section of Amazon.com.

I can only talk about the opera forum which is the bulk of my participation here.

I don't think that our lists reflect any elitism. We often say "no clue, I don't know that one at all," - "I hadn't even heard of this one, didn't even know it existed" - "I only know this one version and I am no authority to compare with other versions, but I did like it a lot and would recommend it as a good, satisfactory DVD" - etc. These, as you can see, are not statements that snobs and elitists would be likely to make.

The lists also generate friendly banter, some jokes, etc. It's been funny, and fun.

So, no, as far as I'm concerned these are just friendly, relaxed, laid back exercises that work for us in terms of having fun, and even sometimes provide us with useful information when we plan to start or expand our collections.


----------



## Almaviva

Aramis said:


> No idea, most of these listings suck and are pointless but I suppose it's matter of people's curiosity about uncurious things and lack of ideas for better, more valueable threads to discuss.


Even though you often say that it's an useless exercise, Aramis, you have made recommendations that I found useful to me (e.g., Krol Roger), as well as negative recommendations of the gender "this is crap, don't buy it" that I have also found useful.


----------



## emiellucifuge

As Almaviva noted we called it recommended for a reason: in order not to presume an air of elitism.
The point was/is to build a handy guide for people starting with classical music and perhaps this will in some way diminish the number of "recommend me the best...." threads.
Secondly, I have enjoyed the process.

Thirdly - Aramis you say it is due to a lack of better ideas, but I dont see any reason to limit the amount of threads running at the same time. Should I have any better ideas for threads - perhaps you could make some too? - then I will surely post them regardless of whether there are lists running or not.

Also, I read that making lists is a symptom of being a male.

Just explaining.


----------



## Almaviva

What do females do instead of making lists?


----------



## RBrittain

What Almaviva said. This is an internet forum. On internet forums, you discuss things.. Sometimes pointless things which are also quite fun. For example, this thread is totally pointless, but obviously meant something to you, Argus. There is no greater meaning to many of these discussions - we just enjoy them.


----------



## sospiro

Almaviva said:


> What do females do instead of making lists?


Well this female is a compulsive list maker. Every Friday evening when I get home from work I make a 'weekend jobs to do' list & love crossing them off as they get done. I sometimes write 'list' on my 'to do' list to remind me to write my shopping list. 

Going back on topic - I find the reviews/recommendations on here invaluable and often very funny.


----------



## dmg

Gives us (me, at least) a chance to explore works and composers I'm unfamiliar with.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Ranking things is a big part of any message board I've ever been on. I don't think this board's "obsession" is worse than any others'. Whether it's "Rank your favorite movies" or "Rank your favorite albums of 2010" or "Rank your favorite burgers", I think lists just provide any easy outlet for people to share their tastes and discuss their interests.


----------



## Ukko

The 'best of' lists are juvenile, as are most of the polls (and 'surveys'). However, there seems to be plenty of room here, so have at it.

:devil:


----------



## Argus

Reviews and recommendations are the bread and butter of internet forums, plus the ensuing debates that follow when an opinion is voiced, but compiling massive lists seems a bit strange.

It just seems like a lot of people here can easily roll off their 25 favourite composers/works without any difficulty. I have a handful that I consider my favourites but after that it's too close to call.



RBrittain said:


> What Almaviva said. This is an internet forum. On internet forums, you discuss things.. Sometimes pointless things which are also quite fun. For example, this thread is totally pointless, but obviously meant something to you, Argus. There is no greater meaning to many of these discussions - we just enjoy them.


That's all fine and dandy, but why rankings and lists? They always seem to cover the same ground.

My initial reason to visit here was to learn about new music that I could then listen to and lead down different listening paths in the future. I'd rather someone bring up a topic that is original or more obscure than the constant rehashes of greatest this or that.

Maybe I've learned a **** ton about classical music since I've been here, because I haven't discovered anything I didn't already know about or actually cared about for a while now. A member posting 'check out this exciting new composer' or 'I just heard a piece by someone I've never heard about before', is more interesting to me than ranking famous pieces or whatever.

As for the enjoyment aspect, that's cool. I just prefer insulting a persons musical idol and seeing how they react, than dry list making, for my forum hijinks. Different strokes.


----------



## RBrittain

Argus said:


> It just seems like a lot of people here can easily roll off their 25 favourite composers/works without any difficulty. I have a handful that I consider my favourites but after that it's too close to call.


I certainly don't roll them off instantly. It took me a couple of days of pondering to come up with my Top 25, and I'm still not entirely happy with it. Don't take these lists as gospel, but do take them as a fairly accurate reflection of the poster's appreciations and tastes.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Argus said:


> Reviews and recommendations are the bread and butter of internet forums, plus the ensuing debates that follow when an opinion is voiced, but compiling massive lists seems a bit strange.


Well a larger list obviously can include more stuff. If we make short lists THATS when we rehash the same old greatest stuff. Nearing the end of the 150 symphonies Ive learnt about a lot of new composers and pieces of music.



> As for the enjoyment aspect, that's cool. I just prefer insulting a persons musical idol and seeing how they react, than dry list making, for my forum hijinks. Different strokes.


Ive noticed


----------



## jurianbai

ranking projects for this year:

composer's coolest name (taken)
composer's longest name (again taken)
hottest violinist
hottest violinist (male)
longest opera
super longest opera
top 100 recommended music with great silence (john cage banned)
top 100 composer's passed away method
....etc


----------



## TresPicos

emiellucifuge said:


> Well a larger list obviously can include more stuff. If we make short lists THATS when we rehash the same old greatest stuff. Nearing the end of the 150 symphonies Ive learnt about a lot of new composers and pieces of music.


Yes, these ranking threads do provide a lot of pointers to new stuff to explore.


----------



## RBrittain

The Top 25 poll so far has thrown out 187 composers! Certainly more than you'd discover if you were just browsing a published Top 50 or Top 100.


----------



## Art Rock

If you don't like these ranking threads, why not just stay out instead of complaining about them? Personally, I fin it fun and despite over 30 years experience in classical music listening, I am learning from them. I don't think I would have explored Myaskovsky's sixth if it had not been for the symphonies thread - and I would have missed out on a masterpiece.


----------



## Weston

Part of it too is to assess where one's tastes stand in comparison to others. This should not matter one bit, but we are social creatures. It's a bonding experience.


----------



## Air

Lists are useful guides. Lists are interesting points of comparison. Lists are great outlets for discussion.

But most of all, lists are fun. It may be a fallacy of mine, but I truly find pleasure in making "useless" lists. 

Now if we're talking about task lists, agendas, and that kind of stuff, it's a far different story...


----------



## Comus

Rank your top ten favorite posts from this thread.


----------



## sospiro

jurianbai said:


> ranking projects for this year:
> 
> composer's coolest name (taken)
> composer's longest name (again taken)
> hottest violinist
> hottest violinist (male)
> longest opera
> super longest opera
> top 100 recommended music with great silence (john cage banned)
> top 100 composer's passed away method
> ....etc


You've missed sexiest baritones, sexiest sopranos ...


----------



## karenpat

Almaviva said:


> What do females do instead of making lists?


I've been a frequent poster at several forums with probably 98% female members and I can tell you that women 
1) Invent silly games, everything from "what's the next word in the lyric" to "What part of (the singer in question) are you a keeper of?"- Post your suggestion, and if no one else is a keeper of it yet you get to have a long list of "keeper of this and that" in your post signature.
2) Play board police and verbally attack anyone who doesn't support their opinion, and are convinced that they have a special connection with (singer in question) and that therefore he will agree with and support them 
3) Create pointless threads which is actually an inside joke between the initial poster and 2-3 members on the board, with the result that these few friends chat together in this thread for 20 pages oblivious to the fact that no one else can understand what they're talking about

I was a member of the particular forum I got these references from, for about 7 years. I've seen it all...:lol: I've even received hate PMs and been called troll because I uttered one point of criticism. Is it any wonder I prefer this place?

To stay on topic, I don't mind the lists even though I often can't make any contributions. I like reading the discussions


----------



## jhar26

jurianbai said:


> ranking projects for this year:
> 
> composer's coolest name (taken)
> composer's longest name (again taken)
> hottest violinist
> hottest violinist (male)
> longest opera
> super longest opera
> top 100 recommended music with great silence (john cage banned)
> top 100 composer's passed away method
> ....etc


I rather like the "best one legged female accordionists" one that Argus suggested.


----------



## Almaviva

jurianbai said:


> ranking projects for this year:
> 
> composer's coolest name (taken)
> composer's longest name (again taken)
> hottest violinist
> hottest violinist (male)
> longest opera
> super longest opera
> top 100 recommended music with great silence (john cage banned)
> top 100 composer's passed away method
> ....etc


The death method is taken too. There was a thread about it.:lol:


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> It just seems like a lot of people here can easily roll off their 25 favourite composers/works without any difficulty. I have a handful that I consider my favourites but after that it's too close to call.


Not at all. Our top 100 recommended opera project proceeded in chunks of ten and there was intense discussion each time, on whether something deserved to be there or not. The discussion was very informative - and like I said a few times, fun.



> They always seem to cover the same ground.


No, they don't. It's their sheer dimension that makes them original. I've seen "rank your top ten operas" everywhere in similar boards, but it's a lot harder - therefore it generates more discussion and more discovery of works we were previously unfamiliar with - to rank your top 100 operas or your top 150 symphonies.



> I haven't discovered anything I didn't already know about or actually cared about for a while now.


Wow. You must know a tone about classical music. Not everybody's case. Good for you. Maybe you shouldn't even be here, then, interacting with the riff-raff (us). Some people - me included - do learn a lot from these lists.



> A member posting 'check out this exciting new composer' or 'I just heard a piece by someone I've never heard about before', is more interesting to me than ranking famous pieces or whatever.


Well, then, click on those threads, and don't click on the list threads. Simple.



> As for the enjoyment aspect, that's cool. I just prefer insulting a persons musical idol and seeing how they react, than dry list making, for my forum hijinks. Different strokes.


Really? So you think that acting like a troll is better than exchanging friendly information with others in a list thread? I see.  Oh well, I'd not want to see your participation in *my* list threads, then. Refer to the advice about not clicking on the list threads. Oh, and by the way, the list making is not dry. There are lots of funny statements.


----------



## Xaltotun

All internet forums are full of such lists, no matter what the topic. I guess it's no more complicated than that people are curious about their fellow forumists' opinions (both as individuals and as a group) in an easily digestable package.


----------



## jurianbai

sospiro said:


> You've missed sexiest baritones, sexiest sopranos ...


such thing... exist??


----------



## Almaviva

jurianbai said:


> such thing... exist??


Of course it does. Numerous examples are here: http://www.talkclassical.com/8853-loveliest-soprano.html

Of these, of course, the best is Anna Netrebko.










But the list is long.

Here is the latest in our game of ranking them by looks (once they hit 20 votes they get to the top of the list. Some of these are questionable (I don't see how Joan Sutherland got to be voted twice) but most *are* beautiful and sexy.

#1 Anna Netrebko
#2 Renée Fleming
#3 Patricia Petibon
#4 Isabel Leonard
#5 Danielle de Niese
#6 Natalie Dessay
#7 Kiri Te Kanawa
#8 Miah Persson
#9 Draculette (Angela Gheorghiu)
#10 Elina Garanca
#11 Nino Machaidze
#12 Mirella Freni
#13 Diana Damrau
#14 Marina Poplavskaya
#15 Anna Moffo
#16 Frederica von Stade
#17 Lisa della Casa
#18 Maria Callas
#19 Inva Mula
#20 Renata Tebaldi
#21 Anna Caterina Antonacci
#22 Nino Surguladze
#23 Teresa Stratas
#24 Joyce DiDonato

Sonia Ganassi (+19)
Agnes Baltsa (+19)

Sumi Jo (+18)

Veronique Gens (+16)
Ninon Vallin (+16)

Isabel Bayrakdarian (+12)

Barbara Hendricks (+11)

Noemi Nadelmann (+10)

Elisabeth Schwarzkopf (+9)

Kathleen Battle (+7)
Catherine Naglestad's breasts (+7)

Maya Dashuk (+6)
Dawn Upshaw (+6)
Aleksandra Kurzak (+6)
Lucia Popp (+6)

Cassandre Berthon (+5)

Ainhoa Arteta (+4)
Shania Twain (+4)
Mari Eriksmoen (+3)
Annick Massis (+3)
Jana Dolezilkova (+3)

Susan Graham (+2)
Annette Dasch (+2)
Alnitak's ex-girlfriend (+2)
Anne Sofie von Otter (+2)
Kate Royal (+2)
Cecilia Bartoli (+2)
Joan Sutherland (+2)
Galina Gorchakova (+2)

Dinara Alieva (+1)
Anna Bonitatibus (+1)
Vesselina Kasarova (+1)
Stéphanie d'Oustrac's legs (+1)
Kate Aldrich (+1)
Anne-Catherine Gillet (+1)


----------



## jurianbai

haha... (quickly go to opera sub forum)

btw, I know this miss Anna, good that she's nos.1. see, even a thread complaining a ranking list is.. useful.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> Top composer. Best violin concerto. Greatest symphony/opera. Best one legged female accordionist.
> 
> Is this a symptom of elitism? To be part of the good taste elite one must compile lists to provide reassurance of ones good taste.
> 
> Just wondering. That's all.


I support the winning football team.

I back the winning horse.

I have the best property on the street.

I have the best car for its value.

I have the best education.

I send the kids to the best schools/I attend the best college.

I have the best job/I have a successful company.

I am a member of the best country club/fitness centre.

*Most important of all, when it comes to the arts, I listen to those dead/alive composers who were the greatest because they wrote the best music, and I want to test how well others think of this.*



I also have the sexiest partner.


----------



## Almaviva

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I support the winning football team.
> 
> I back the winning horse.
> 
> I have the best property on the street.
> 
> I have the best car for its value.
> 
> I have the best education.
> 
> I send the kids to the best schools/I attend the best college.
> 
> I have the best job/I have a successful company.
> 
> I am a member of the best country club/fitness centre.
> 
> *Most important of all, when it comes to the arts, I listen to those dead/alive composers who were the greatest because they wrote the best music, and I want to test how well others think of this.*
> 
> 
> 
> I also have the sexiest partner.


The only flaw in your argument is that we have as much fun in the lower positions of the lists as when establishing the number one. We have even started a thread about the worst crap ever committed to opera video. It's like our Raspberry awards.:lol:


----------



## Rasa

These lists exist because very few people have anything really meaningful or insightful to say about a musical topics, at least not far beyond very general comments on a composer or work. They serve as easy post-growing farms that float on generalities.


----------



## World Violist

Almaviva said:


> The only flaw in your argument is that we have as much fun in the lower positions of the lists as when establishing the number one. We have even started a thread about the worst crap ever committed to opera video. It's like our Raspberry awards.:lol:


So instead of the Razzies it's the Talkies.

I think I agree with the people who just say it's a lot of fun making lists and rankings and whatnot. I wouldn't call it a symptom of snobbism. People like organizing stuff, and there's no better way of organizing ideas than listing and ranking them.


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I support the winning football team.
> 
> I back the winning horse.
> 
> I have the best property on the street.
> 
> I have the best car for its value.
> 
> I have the best education.
> 
> I send the kids to the best schools/I attend the best college.
> 
> I have the best job/I have a successful company.
> 
> I am a member of the best country club/fitness centre.
> 
> *Most important of all, when it comes to the arts, I listen to those dead/alive composers who were the greatest because they wrote the best music, and I want to test how well others think of this.*
> 
> 
> 
> I also have the sexiest partner.


That's a very nice list of things an arrogant prat might say.:tiphat:



Almaviva said:


> Well, then, click on those threads, and don't click on the list threads. Simple.


Well, that's generally what I do. I haven't made a single post in the 100 recommended symphonies etc threads. Rather than complain in them, I thought making this thread would be more reasonable and less annoying for those who enjoy the lists.



> Wow. You must know a tone about classical music. Not everybody's case. Good for you. Maybe you shouldn't even be here, then, interacting with the riff-raff (us). Some people - me included - do learn a lot from these lists.


That's why I added the 'cared about' bit. Lots of talk about Mozart and Beethoven, but where are the discussions involving Donald Erb, Steven Mackey, Rhys Chatham, Michael Harrison, David Behrman, Ben Johnston, Henry Brant, Zbigniew Karkowski. I don't expect that many people will necessary like and discuss these exact people, but similar levels of musical exploration beyond the well established names surely isn't too much to ask for on a specialist, niche site like this.

I also don't expect people talking about their favourite Sun Ra album or their favourite version of Raag Darbari Kanada, as these have nothing to do with classical music. I would enjoy these topics but I know this isn't the place for them, so I don't mention such things. They are for another place.



> Really? So you think that acting like a troll is better than exchanging friendly information with others in a list thread? I see. Oh well, I'd not want to see your participation in *my* list threads, then. Refer to the advice about not clicking on the list threads. Oh, and by the way, the list making is not dry. There are lots of funny statements.


Knowledge would be nice but it's not always forthcoming. When it isn't I find partaking in a debate more fun than a list making bonanza.

Anyway, I don't think it's trolling if I genuinely believe what I'm posting. I may venture into hyperbole, but the basic sentiment is normally representative of how I feel. I'd hope people can distinguish me being facetious without the boy who cried wolf element coming into play.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Rasa said:


> These lists exist because very few people have anything really meaningful or insightful to say about a musical topics, at least not far beyond very general comments on a composer or work. They serve as easy post-growing farms that float on generalities.


Sure - but who actually pays attention to post count?

I have some meaningful things to say (I think), but I can say them AND make lists. They are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Webernite

Rasa said:


> These lists exist because very few people have anything really meaningful or insightful to say about a musical topics, at least not far beyond very general comments on a composer or work.


Music is a hard thing to talk about.


----------



## karenpat

Rasa said:


> These lists exist because very few people have anything really meaningful or insightful to say about a musical topics, at least not far beyond very general comments on a composer or work. They serve as easy post-growing farms that float on generalities.


If every post here had to sound like a music theory lecture, then we could really start talking about elitist tendencies.  It would only reinforce the conception that classical music is for the intellectual and educated people; the informed few. I admit I still feel like I don't have the "right" to join in on some of the discussions here but I try my best.


----------



## tdc

Rasa said:


> These lists exist because very few people have anything really meaningful or insightful to say about a musical topics, at least not far beyond very general comments on a composer or work. They serve as easy post-growing farms that float on generalities.


Oh boo hoo for you. It must be lonely being such a genius!!


----------



## Rasa

Webernite said:


> Music is a hard thing to talk about.


Exactly.



karenpat said:


> If every post here had to sound like a music theory lecture, then we could really start talking about elitist tendencies.


1. Elitism is a good thing in music. It's the reason we enjoy good music. If art music weren't elitist by nature, we'd be hearing a lot more bad music. To understand (note: not to like it) art music, one has to have a certain amount of knowledge (be it theoretical knowledge, or a good sense of things picked up by listening often et.). That doesn't mean that people with different levels of knowledge are excluded. So the elitism is in the reach for what's good about music, not about who gets to enjoy it.

2. I think a lot of people certainly wouldn't mind more music theory threads, that go deeper into a piece then "I realy liek it cuz i listene to this song in the car and it got me awake"

3. There only so many times you can read a thread where people state that they like a certain kind of music.



tdc said:


> Oh boo hoo for you. It must be lonely being such a genius!!


Problem?


----------



## emiellucifuge

lets have more music theory threads then?


----------



## sospiro

karenpat said:


> If every post here had to sound like a music theory lecture, then we could really start talking about elitist tendencies.  It would only reinforce the conception that classical music is for the intellectual and educated people; the informed few.


That would be so boring. There's a place for earnest discussion but there are times I'd much rather talk about Samuel Ramey's chest or read about Alma's obsession with ladies' *attributes* than some stuffy discourse on the origins of the clavichord.



karenpat said:


> I admit I still feel like I don't have the "right" to join in on some of the discussions here but I try my best.


:scold: Don't you dare think like that kp. You have as much right as anyone to join in!!


----------



## tdc

Rasa said:


> Problem?


I definetely dont have a problem with people coming here to learn, and I dont think individuals should require degrees to participate on a message board.

Honestly, most of what I read from you just comes across as condescending little cracks of zero intellectual value. What was your contribution in the classical forums today I think I read one of your posts with the words 'lol wut'. Or How about 'Schubert taking out classicism like a boss'. As if a pop culture reference is the pinnacle of respect and intellect? I think your criticism's are quite hypocritical!


----------



## starry

I try and go beyond 'I like this piece of music' chat. I'm not an expert on music theory but I look at music in ways that I can and that interests me.

The only ranking I find relevant to myself is whether I like a piece or not. Any specific ranking beyond that would be quite difficult and not that important to me. I think you can discuss music without ranking things, but if people want to rank stuff I'm not complaining they can do what they want. I will still comment on music in such threads though as is my right.

And I am very happy to talk about other composers if people want to. I by chance actually did hear some things by Rhys Chatham recently but they didn't make much of an impression on me. It didn't feel that creative in it's minimalism, it felt like it was just being experimental for the sake of it at times.


----------



## Rasa

tdc said:


> I definetely dont have a problem with people coming here to learn, and I dont think individuals should require degrees to participate on a message board.


Didn't state that, did I



tdc said:


> Honestly, most of what I read from you just comes across as condescending little cracks of zero intellectual value. What was your contribution in the classical forums today I think I read one of your posts with the words 'lol wut'. Or How about 'Schubert taking out classicism like a boss'. As if a pop culture reference is the pinnacle of respect and intellect? I think your criticism's are quite hypocritical!


You sound a bit mad at me.


----------



## starry

Rasa said:


> 1. Elitism is a good thing in music. It's the reason we enjoy good music. If art music weren't elitist by nature, we'd be hearing a lot more bad music. To understand (note: not to like it) art music, one has to have a certain amount of knowledge (be it theoretical knowledge, or a good sense of things picked up by listening often et.). That doesn't mean that people with different levels of knowledge are excluded. So the elitism is in the reach for what's good about music, not about who gets to enjoy it.
> 
> 2. I think a lot of people certainly wouldn't mind more music theory threads, that go deeper into a piece then "I realy liek it cuz i listene to this song in the car and it got me awake"
> 
> 3. There only so many times you can read a thread where people state that they like a certain kind of music.


It's helpful to expand our understanding of music. There are probably different ways to do that. One way is just to hear alot of different types of music and read about it, do research.

I wish more new people to classical music here were just advised to read a short history of classical music on the internet somewhere. Then they would see which composers fit into what styles they like or genres. Then they could explore things more for themselves than just asking for a piece in a similar mood as [insert name of piece].


----------



## emiellucifuge

Anyway - this forum thankfully has a huge memory so we can post as many threads of as many types as we like.


----------



## RBrittain

starry said:


> It's helpful to expand our understanding of music. There are probably different ways to do that. One way is just to hear alot of different types of music and read about it, do research.
> 
> I wish more new people to classical music here were just advised to read a short history of classical music on the internet somewhere. Then they would see which composers fit into what styles they like or genres. Then they could explore things more for themselves than just asking for a piece in a similar mood as [insert name of piece].


Does it really matter what they do? I certainly learnt all my knowledge of classical music by buying CDs, reading books, and (a little) listening to the radio. That is certainly more interesting and rewarding, and enjoyable - I couldn't imagine coming to an internet forum to learn about the basics of classical music, but we are all different and some people may wish to do that.


----------



## starry

I just think it might be more profitable to understand what style a music fits into. But if they don't want to then obviously that is their choice. But then who's to say that some of them might not enjoy looking at the overall picture if they were guided that way? They might.


----------



## RBrittain

Rasa, I think it would be best to refrain from comments like this:



Rasa said:


> These lists exist because very few people have anything really meaningful or insightful to say about a musical topics, at least not far beyond very general comments on a composer or work. They serve as easy post-growing farms that float on generalities.


It sounds very 'elitist' (or just plain arrogant), and is a direct insult aimed at everyone apart from a 'very few'. I also think it is totally incorrect. I think you can see why tdc is annoyed at you, can't you?


----------



## Toccata

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Ranking things is a big part of any message board I've ever been on. I don't think this board's "obsession" is worse than any others'. Whether it's "Rank your favorite movies" or "Rank your favorite albums of 2010" or "Rank your favorite burgers", I think lists just provide any easy outlet for people to share their tastes and discuss their interests.


I quite agree. And of course this place has some the best rankers on the internet.


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> I don't think it's trolling if I genuinely believe what I'm posting.


Look, I don't know you so well to be able to tell if you're a troll or not. I merely focused on this statement (quoted verbatim from one of your posts):

"I just prefer *insulting* a person's musical idol and *seeing how they react*."
Here is why you said you do this for: "*for my forum* *hijinks*."

This, my friend, is the very definition of trolling behavior. Internet trolls are people who make inflammatory and insulting statements in fora and boards and get a kick out of others' reactions to those statements.

Substitute "musical idol" for anything - a person's political beliefs... religious beliefs... love for pets... favorite painters... whatever, according to the kind of board or forum. That's what trolls do.

Whether you believe in what you're saying or not is irrelevant to the definition of trolling behavior. It's the *intention of insulting others for kicks* in order to have fun with the reaction, that constitutes trolling.

Let's say, for example, that in an opera discussion among several opera lovers you go and throw in the following statement: "opera is rubbish." (Does this sound familiar to you? It came from another one of your posts) - and let's say you do believe that opera is not an artform that you like or value, but you throw the hyperbole in just to infuriate people and savor their reaction. I'd say that the fact that you truly don't like opera doesn't take away the trolling aspect.

I usually proceed in a different way. First of all, if I really dislike an artform (or a political ideology, or pets, or some painter, etc), I don't go to sites where people who love it are discussing it, just to aggravate them. But let's suppose I'd be there for some other reason and someone tried to involve me in the discussion. I'd probably say something like "I'm sorry, but ..... [name of the artform, ideology, etc] is not for me. My tastes [ideas, etc] take me elsewhere. I certainly respect your preferences [ideas], but I don't think I have much to say about this since it is not my thing."

This, my friend, is not trollish behavior (although it does express the same true dislike of ....[artform, pets, etc] that you are using to invalidate the notion that your behavior constitutes trolling. Do you see a difference?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with expressing one's views and preferences, or criticising artists, ideologies, etc., as long as it is done in a civil and respectful manner. But when someone does it "for my forum hijinks" and in an insulting manner, then it's trolling. As simple as that.

Have a nice day.:tiphat:


----------



## Sanctus Petrus

RBrittain said:


> Rasa, I think it would be best to refrain from comments like this:
> 
> It sounds very 'elitist' (or just plain arrogant), and is a direct insult aimed at everyone apart from a 'very few'. I also think it is totally incorrect. I think you can see why tdc is annoyed at you, can't you?


Is there something wrong with elitism?


----------



## RBrittain

Sanctus Petrus said:


> Is there something wrong with elitism?


Depends on the context. In this context, it's aggressive, barbed elitism. There is most certainly a problem with that, as it implies both ignorance and arrogance and is likely to antagonise people. Most of all, it's an insult directed at almost everyone on the forum.


----------



## Toccata

Sanctus Petrus said:


> Is there something wrong with elitism?


Not as far as I'm concerned. I agree with the sentiments expressed by one former distinguished member of T-C in a similar thread to this several years, who wrote:

"_To paraphrase and rephrase what everybody else has been saying: Classical Music has always been an elitist phenomenon. Whether supported by royalty, clergy or wealthy benefactors, its roots are in the minority upper-class, whether intellectual or material, and to some degree it will always stay there. And to be honest, I think that's healthy._


----------



## emiellucifuge

Toccata said:


> And of course this place has some the best rankers on the internet.


Lol what does that mean?


----------



## tdc

Rasa said:


> Didn't state that, did I
> 
> You sound a bit mad at me.


No. But your attitude suggests it. I honestly think you'd be sorely disapointed if the masses ever did get educated, b/c then you could no longer get to feel better than them!

Im guessing you werent very popular growing up and now you are taking it out on fictitious people whose intellect is supposedly below yours.


----------



## Argus

Almaviva said:


> Look, I don't know you so well to be able to tell if you're a troll or not. I merely focused on this statement (quoted verbatim from one of your posts):
> 
> "I just prefer *insulting* a person's musical idol and *seeing how they react*."
> Here is why you said you do this for: "*for my forum* *hijinks*."
> 
> This, my friend, is the very definition of trolling behavior. Internet trolls are people who make inflammatory and insulting statements in fora and boards and get a kick out of others' reactions to those statements.
> 
> Substitute "musical idol" for anything - a person's political beliefs... religious believes... love for pets... favorite painters... whatever, according to the kind of board or forum. That's what trolls do.
> 
> Whether you believe in what you're saying or not is irrelevant to the definition of trolling behavior. It's the *intention of insulting others for kicks* in order to have fun with the reaction, that constitutes trolling.
> 
> Let's say, for example, that in an opera discussion among several opera lovers you go and throw in the following statement: "opera is rubbish." (Does this sound familiar to you? It came from another one of your posts) - and let's say you do believe that opera is not an artform that you like or value, but you throw the hyperbole in just to infuriate people and savor their reaction. I'd say that the fact that you truly don't like opera doesn't take away the trolling aspect.
> 
> I usually proceed in a different way. First of all, if I really dislike an artform (or a political ideology, or pets, or some painter, etc), I don't go to sites where people who love it are discussing it, just to aggravate them. But let's suppose I'd be there for some other reason and someone tried to involve me in the discussion. I'd probably say something like "I'm sorry, but ..... [name of the artform, ideology, etc] is not for me. My tastes [ideas, etc] take me elsewhere. I certainly respect your preferences [ideas], but I don't think I have much to say about this since it is not my thing."
> 
> This, my friend, is not trollish behavior (although it does express the same true dislike of ....[artform, pets, etc] that you are using to invalidate the notion that your behavior constitutes trolling. Do you see a difference?
> 
> In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with expression one's views and preferences, or criticising artists, ideologies, etc., as long as it is done in a civil and respectful manner. But when someone does it "for my forum hijinks" and in an insulting manner, then it's trolling. As simple as that.
> 
> Have a nice day.:tiphat:


I only troll elitists.:tiphat:



Toccata said:


> "To paraphrase and rephrase what everybody else has been saying: Classical Music has always been an elitist phenomenon. Whether supported by royalty, clergy or wealthy benefactors, its roots are in the minority upper-class, whether intellectual or material, and to some degree it will always stay there. And to be honest, I think that's healthy.


Sounds like the words of an elitist. 



> I quite agree. And of course this place has some the best rankers on the internet


Post of the the thread.



Sanctus Petrus said:


> Is there something wrong with elitism?


Depends on whether you are in favour of it or not. There's nothing concretely 'wrong' with any philosophy, it's all just preference.


----------



## Charon

Sure, they may be completely meaningless to some, but no harm is done. I don't understand why anybody would have such a problem with a list unless somebody was going around pronouncing the list to be the definitive list of top composers or top symphonies or something.

The lists are useful for recommendations. Also, we can compare our personal tastes to the list for fun. It's interesting. If you don't think it's interesting, then you don't have to visit the threads, let alone participate in the ranking. Some people might find it more interesting to criticize the legitimacy of the lists. We must be careful though... Are we criticizing the lists for not being something it wasn't supposed to be in the first place?


----------



## starry

Charon said:


> Sure, they may be completely meaningless to some, but no harm is done. I don't understand why anybody would have such a problem with a list unless somebody was going around pronouncing the list to be the definitive list of top composers or top symphonies or something.
> 
> The lists are useful for recommendations. Also, we can compare our personal tastes to the list for fun. It's interesting. If you don't think it's interesting, then you don't have to visit the threads, let alone participate in the ranking. Some people might find it more interesting to criticize the legitimacy of the lists. We must be careful though... Are we criticizing the lists for not being something it wasn't supposed to be in the first place?


Everything is open to different opinions on forums. And sometimes people say something is just fun but their attitude might suggest the opposite. Is a ranking thread just about ranking and not allowed for music discussion?

People make lists to try and create order out of a pile of information, it doesn't have to be ranked of course. An unranked list can be just as much a recommended list as ranked one. I look through many lists on the internet, but concentrate on just one or even just a few in most cases and you will have quite a limited opinion. Lists where someone controls and orders it makes them feel like they take ownership of it too perhaps.


----------



## RBrittain

One word: Assumption. Never assume; it makes an *** out of u and me.

(Seriously, don't look at others' posts with squinted eyes, trying to infer things which aren't there. Just read posts and take them as they are)


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> I only troll elitists.:tiphat:


Me, I try not to troll anybody, because trolling is despicable. I dislike trolls much more than elitists, so, I wouldn't act like one even in the presence of an elitist. I don't even know if I truly dislike elitists (of course now you'll say that I have just spoken like an elitist  - but sure, I'll give you even more ammunition next).

Bud Light and Miller are mediocre, cheap beers. I'll drink them if there is no other available, but if there is a Maudite, a Fin du Monde, a Chimay, etc available, I'll much prefer them.

McDonalds is a mediocre fast food chain. If I'm really hungry and it's the only food vendor around in several miles, I'll eat their hamburgers (won't be happy about it). But if I'm in the mood for hamburgers and there is a Five Guys around, I'll eat there instead.

A bottle of "2 bucks Chuck" is plonk. If there is a bottle of Caymus Reserve or a Sassicaia around, I'll drink them instead (too bad they're so expensive).

Olive Garden is a chain Italian restaurant with entrees that don't taste that much better than frozen, microwavable Italian food from supermarkets. But I'll eat there if a bunch of friends are going there. However if I can instead go to a locally owned restaurant that has a real chef who carefully prepares his entrees with original twists, I'll much prefer to eat there, if I can afford it.

Britney Spears performs music. However I'd much better listen to Wagner.

Does the above make of me an elitist? If it does, then elitism is under-rated.

Elitism *can* be OK, when it means that a person tries to consume foods, beverages, music, etc, that are of high quality, as long as there is an opportunity and it's affordable. When elitism, however, takes a turn for dismissing the taste of others as inferior or for asserting that only the elites are worthy of consideration, in my opinion it's best called arrogance, snobbism, and condescending behavior than elitism.

So, take three video clips from YouTube, which is a free service (no need to worry about affordability). All three feature the aria _Pour mon ame. _One is by Andrea Bocelli and is total crap. One is by Pavarotti and it is extremely good. The other one is by Florez and is extremely good.

If prefering the last two makes of me an elitist, again, elitism is under-rated.

:tiphat:


----------



## starry

I don't really want to speak for anyone but I think you may well be taking Argus too seriously. We can be very ironic in Britain and sometimes that doesn't travel well in places where irony is less used.


----------



## Almaviva

starry said:


> I don't really want to speak for anyone but I think you may well be taking Argus too seriously. We can be very ironic in Britain and sometimes that doesn't travel well in places where irony is less used.


Hey, this is just an anonymous Internet forum. *Nothing* that goes on in here is to be taken too seriously. I'm just expressing my opinions about trolling and elitism. Is this as useless as making lists? Probably. But if I'm sticking around, it must be because I'm finding the discussion interesting.

As for irony not traveling well, I don't think cultural differences from accross the pond are my main focus here. I have lived for several years in two other continents (Europe included) and have traveled around the world quite a lot. I'm not really the kind of guy who only accepts or understands cultural values or behaviors that are typical of my own country.


----------



## starry

Good I'm glad you can do that, some can't so easily. I think hardly anyone likes trolls, they are just tiresome.


----------



## Argus

starry said:


> I don't really want to speak for anyone but I think you may well be taking Argus too seriously. We can be very ironic in Britain and sometimes that doesn't travel well in places where irony is less used.


Tongue firmly in cheek.:tiphat:

Can you remember what the Chatham piece you heard was? For his kind of sound, I do prefer Glenn Branca with his more of a 'wall of sound' effect and no-wave jaggedness, but I dig the drony beating of something like A Crimson Grail, if for nothing more than 200+ guitars simultaneously with all the slight intonation nuances.



Almaviva said:


> Britney Spears performs music. However I'd much better listen to Wagner.


Rock and a hard place.


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> Tongue firmly in cheek.


^Frequent excuse used by trolls when they get caught.



> Rock and a hard place.


That hard place is pretty soft. You don't know what you're missing.


----------



## Argus

Almaviva said:


> ^Frequent excuse used by trolls when they get caught.


^Frequent excuse used by those who didn't realise the position of the tongue within the mouth.

It's okay though, I'll strike it down to cultural differences.



> That hard place is pretty soft. You don't know what you're missing.


Definite elitism.


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> ^Frequent excuse used by those who didn't realise the position of the tongue within the mouth.
> 
> It's okay though, I'll strike it down to cultural differences.


Oh no, I got the tongue-in-cheek comment about elitism all right (there was even a smiley). The reason I went on about it has more to do with the various discussions about elitism in this very thread; I was expressing my opinion about it.

It's the initial comment about insulting other people's preferences to see their reaction and enjoy it for hijinks that I thought to be trollish. Especially because I've seen you doing just that, and more than once, even before you stated that it's what you do (it's not the first time that the "opera is rubbish" comment has surfaced).

So, maybe you do it with your tongue in your cheek. But it's still something that you do regardless of the position of said tongue, and I find it to be trollish.

Let's settle for considering that you're a tongue-in-cheek troll, how about that?

It's okay though. Tongue-in-cheek trolls can be funny.:tiphat:


----------



## jhar26

Almaviva said:


> When elitism, however, takes a turn for dismissing the taste of others as inferior or for asserting that only the elites are worthy of consideration, in my opinion it's best called arrogance, snobbism, and condescending behavior than elitism.


And elitism or snobbism isn't limited to fans of classical music. If you visit forums of rock or popular music you will find that some members there also think of themselves as superior because they are into certain types of music or sub-genres. Some also consider themselves to be part of some sort of elite because they are familiar with the music of obscure bands that the masses don't know about. Snobbism or elitism isn't so much a characteristic of classical music lovers (or ANY music lovers) but of the human race in general. Many feel the need to think of themselves as superior about something. To a degree it even explains things like racism, sexism, conficts about religion and so on - the need to put people into all sort of categories and the impulse to regard the category that one belongs to as somehow better than the others.


----------



## starry

jhar26 said:


> If you visit forums of rock or popular music you will find that some members there also think of themselves as superior because they are into certain of music or sub-genres.


No doubt. Those who look at some kind of music as being purer or more honest than other types.



jhar26 said:


> Some also consider themselves to be part of some sort of elite because they are familiar with the music of obscure bands that the masses don't know about.


To be fair much of the good popular music now isn't well known, it's not so much in the charts like maybe it used to be. However there are hyped groups who some latch onto because they think it is hip. I think that is people not thinking for themselves sometimes as much as wanting to belong to a club and feeling they are cool because of it. Then if you challenge the legitimacy of such a group they act like it's a personal insult to them even though you are just criticising the music.



jhar26 said:


> the need to put people into all sort of categories and the impulse to regard the category that one belongs to as somehow better than the others.


I suppose we all need to feel good about ourselves in some way, but certainly not an excuse to look down on others. And from my view it's better not to limit yourself to a small area. I like to look at a lot of different types of music, so hopefully that is more beyond elitism.


----------



## Argus

Almaviva said:


> Oh no, I got the tongue-in-cheek comment about elitism all right (there was even a smiley). The reason I went on about it has more to do with the various discussions about elitism in this very thread; I was expressing my opinion about it.
> 
> It's the initial comment about insulting other people's preferences to see their reaction and enjoy it for hijinks that I thought to be trollish. Especially because I've seen you doing just that, and more than once, even before you stated that it's what you do (it's not the first time that the "opera is rubbish" comment has surfaced).
> 
> So, maybe you do it with your tongue in your cheek. But it's still something that you do regardless of the position of said tongue, and I find it to be trollish.
> 
> Let's settle for considering that you're a tongue-in-cheek troll, how about that?
> 
> It's okay though. Tongue-in-cheek trolls can be funny.:tiphat:


I'd self-identify more as a wind-up merchant. That suggests more of a banterous side to my remarks.

Do elitists partake in banter?


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> I'd self-identify more as a wind-up merchant. That suggests more of a banterous side to my remarks.
> 
> Do elitists partake in banter?


Wind-up merchants in Internet fora = Internet trolls.
But like I said, that's OK, as long as it's done tongue-in-cheek. What I said about it being OK and funny was a kind of peace offer, after my comments above criticizing your statements.:tiphat:

Like I said, I'm not sure if I'd qualify myself as elitist, at least not when it's used with the negative connotations in mind. One thing that you won't see me doing is putting down others due to their tastes. I like what I like, I often appreciate high quality stuff (you can see in that couple of threads about members' mini-biographies that my hobbies are gourmet food, fine wines, and opera) but I don't flash it at all (you know, in real life, this thing with opera brings me more trouble than not - in America you can't talk about opera around the proverbial watercooler otherwise people look at you weirdly) and I'm a rather convivial guy who has friends with all sorts of tastes and of all socioeconomic levels.

Even though some will qualify my tastes as "fancy" or "elitist" in the bad sense, I don't hesitate in joining my buddies for a tailgate party with hamburgers, hot dogs, and Bud Light (arrgghhh) and attending an American Football game with them. They won't even notice that I kind of balk at the Bud Light. In my job, I relate friendly to everybody, from the janitors to the big boss, and dinner parties in my place have had invitees ranging from my blue collar, unsophisticated car mechanic buddy and a lady who is a hotel maid, to leading scientists with doctoral degrees and university presidents. I befriend people of all social strata and all cultural levels.

But OK, if you're placing me in your roster of elitists and wonder if "we" engage in banter, just go to the Opera forum and look up a thread about "sexiest tenors and baritones builder" and you'll see lots of hilarious banter going on, of which I was a wicked and willing participant.


----------



## science

I read almost all the posts in this topic, and I think most of the points against lists are correct, but I am _passionately_ on the other side of the aisle.

The main reason I strongly support lists/rankings is that they contain information that is helpful to me. I don't take lists/rankings as guides to "greatest" or "best", but as guides to what other people like, what is likely to come up in conversation, etc, and that information is important to me.

There is a huge, huge amount of music that I haven't heard yet, and I'll have to pay for it to hear it, and since my time and money are finite I have to prioritize. Ultimately the responsibility is mine, and I do what I want, but I value other people's input very much, especially since all of you know something that I don't - and most of you know many things that I don't!

Refusing to participate in the list/ranking is certainly your right, but it is a deliberate choice not to share your knowledge, however much or little it is.

Finally, I just simply enjoy the list/ranking process, the experience of making the list/ranking in collaboration with others. It prompts me to listen more closely to music that I've neglected, and so on. It really is a lot of fun and somewhat educational.

I came too late to participate meaningfully in this site's opera and symphony projects, and anyway I'm participating pretty heavily in another site's ranking project. I plan to start a similar project on this site when that one winds down, largely because I look forward to the comparison, to getting different people's insights and opinions, etc...


----------



## science

Also, I am an elitist, and unapologetically so - provided it is an elitism of merit rather than birth, wealth, or whatever. While I see the wisdom of knowing what you are and accepting it, I detest the democratic spirit of contented mediocrity.


----------



## starry

There is a huge amount of music that *everyone* hasn't heard, classical music alone is a huge area. I think lists can be useful if it's simply lists of favourites, and people look at the individual lists or individual recommendations. You can look at alot of music on the internet (such as youtube), there is loads of information all over to explore music. Yes it can take many hours of someone's life to find stuff and listen through things, dedication is needed and lots of energy, lots of research. There are lots of recommendations throughout the internet on forums or just on websites, either basic repertory lists or lists of more obscure things. But for those starting out I think it is better to start with the more famous stuff and not get too overwhelmed. Ultimately as with anything it's best to look through as much as you can to find what *you* like. But how much you want is up to you, not everyone I suppose wants loads of music.


----------



## emiellucifuge

science said:


> I read almost all the posts in this topic, and I think most of the points against lists are correct, but I am _passionately_ on the other side of the aisle.
> 
> The main reason I strongly support lists/rankings is that they contain information that is helpful to me. I don't take lists/rankings as guides to "greatest" or "best", but as guides to what other people like, what is likely to come up in conversation, etc, and that information is important to me.
> 
> There is a huge, huge amount of music that I haven't heard yet, and I'll have to pay for it to hear it, and since my time and money are finite I have to prioritize. Ultimately the responsibility is mine, and I do what I want, but I value other people's input very much, especially since all of you know something that I don't - and most of you know many things that I don't!
> 
> Refusing to participate in the list/ranking is certainly your right, but it is a deliberate choice not to share your knowledge, however much or little it is.
> 
> Finally, I just simply enjoy the list/ranking process, the experience of making the list/ranking in collaboration with others. It prompts me to listen more closely to music that I've neglected, and so on. It really is a lot of fun and somewhat educational.
> 
> I came too late to participate meaningfully in this site's opera and symphony projects, and anyway I'm participating pretty heavily in another site's ranking project. I plan to start a similar project on this site when that one winds down, largely because I look forward to the comparison, to getting different people's insights and opinions, etc...


Which site? Which project?


----------



## science

emiellucifuge - check your PM!


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> I came too late to participate meaningfully in this site's opera and symphony projects, and anyway I'm participating pretty heavily in another site's ranking project. I plan to start a similar project on this site when that one winds down, largely because I look forward to the comparison, to getting different people's insights and opinions, etc...


There is still time to participate of the current opera project, trying to established the most recommended DVD or blu-ray versions for each of the operas that made our Top 100 Recommended Operas list (the thread is in our opera on DVD sub-forum rather than in the general opera forum). You'd be welcome there.

And we are planning to revise both lists annually.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Also, I am an elitist, and unapologetically so - provided it is an elitism of merit rather than birth, wealth, or whatever. While I see the wisdom of knowing what you are and accepting it, I detest the democratic spirit of contented mediocrity.


I like what you said here.:tiphat:


----------

