# "Favorite Recordings Of..." Project



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

After my experience with the previous project, I have decided that it was too ambitious. The goal of this one is to simply offer a chance to discuss and vote, and to record the results in a spreadsheet. This thread is for updates, individual games will be posted in the "Polls and Games" sub-category.

Two stages for each work:

1. Nominations - this is where participants can nominate specific recordings
2. Voting - where participants vote on the recordings nominated, in a poll

Results will be recorded in the linked spreadsheet above. We will begin starting on the first work of the first tier of this list.

For nominations, each member can submit 3 nominations per day. Once 15 recordings have been nominated at least twice, nominations will close, and voting will begin.

Final Note: I am starting over from my previous project, that thread should be considered closed.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for the *Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor, op. 125 "Choral" [1824] *:

Favorite Recordings Of... Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor "Choral" (1, Nominations)

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYDaH6fIid-88a4GGEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit#gid=27008300


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the nominations:*

Bohm: 1972 DG/VPO
Fricsay: 1958 DG/BPO
Furtwängler: 1942 Pristine/BPO
Furtwängler: 1954 Pristine/Philharmonia Lucerne
Furtwängler: 1998 EMI/BFO
Gardiner: 1996 Archiv Produktion/Orchestre Révolutionnaire Et Romantique
Harnoncourt: 1991 Teldec/Chamber Orchestra of Europe
Honeck: 2021 Reference Recordings/Pittsburgh SO
Immerseel: 2008 Zig Zag/Anima Eterna
Karajan: 1963 DG/BPO
Karajan: 1977 DG/BPO
Klemperer: 1957 Testament/Philharmonia (live)
Krivine: 2011 Naive/La Chambre Philharmonique
Reiner: 1962 RCA/CSO
Szell: 1961 Sony/Cleveland


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

lnjng said:


> *Results for the nominations:*
> 
> Bohm: 1972 DG/VPO
> Fricsay: 1958 DG/BPO
> ...


Wand's recording with the NDR-SO also deserves to be in the poll. I was going to nominate it today.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

lnjng said:


> *Results for the nominations:*
> 
> Bohm: 1972 DG/VPO
> Fricsay: 1958 DG/BPO
> ...


How did Furtwangler manage to pull off that posthumous gig! Did he conduct a ghost orchestra? Did he conduct by proxy in a seance? And was it mastered in pristine digital stereo? That may finally give me an opportunity to actually enjoy a Furtwangler recording! .... Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I’ve always found the 1998 Furtwängler to be lacking in energy, although some prefer it for the vastly improved sound quality


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

haziz said:


> Wand's recording with the NDR-SO also deserves to be in the poll. I was going to nominate it today.


I think that Toscanini's with the NBCSO in 1952 also deserved to be in. It's my favorite performance of the magnificent work that is the _Choral_ symphony. Unfortunately I didn't even see this thread yesterday, otherwise I would have nominated it.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've always found the 1998 Furtwängler to be lacking in energy, although some prefer it for the vastly improved sound quality


By that point, he so deeply understood the score, many remarked he had a near death-grip on the musical content of the symphony. Unfortunately, the smell in the concert hall kept many away.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll for the *Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor, op. 125 "Choral" [1824]*:

Favorite Recordings Of... Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor "Choral" (1, Voting)

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYDaH6fIid-88a4GGEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit#gid=27008300


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Who among us know a good proportion of recordings of a much recorded work? There will be a tendency to vote for the better known and more familiar recordings. If the music is great there is a good chance this will throw up inspiring listening experiences. But it may miss a lot of very special recordings, don't you think?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Who among us know a good proportion of recordings of a much recorded work? There will be a tendency to vote for the better known and more familiar recordings. If the music is great there is a good chance this will throw up inspiring listening experiences. But it may miss a lot of very special recordings, don't you think?


That's the big problem I had with Trout's original lists too. Lesser known but just as worthy (or more worthy) recordings are totally overlooked. Basing recommendations on mentions or positive comments on Internet forums / Amazon recommendations is fatally flawed and is just gonna throw up the most well-known accounts or recordings recommended by those who shout the loudest. I'd much rather such lists be based on the poster's subjective opinion as I know at least they've listened to those recordings. How can you recommend recordings you've not heard?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Obviously the point is to get a cross section of opinions as opposed to just one person’s. Certainly that is valuable.

I have found that when recordings become well known, there are obvious reasons for that when you actually listen to them. If you personally can’t understand why a recording has become famous and stood the test of time, that’s a perfect example of why hearing only one poster’s opinion is less valuable. You’re getting only one, biased opinion.

When giving recommendations, I try to at least address why certain recordings are widely popular even if I don’t personally like them as much.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

And that's why Nigel Kennedy's Four seasons is the greatest recording ever. 3 million people can't be wrong! . :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> And that's why Nigel Kennedy's Four seasons is the greatest recording ever. 3 million people can't be wrong! . :lol:


From my post above:

"When giving recommendations, I try to at least address why certain recordings are widely popular even if I don't personally like them as much."

We know the difference between popular fads and artists that are popular among classical music connoisseurs, don't we? We can say the same for Andrea Bocelli.

.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

May I suggest that future polls should be modified slightly...

- Each person may only nominate 3 recordings (or 5?) but no additional nominations on subsequent days.
- A recording would need 3 nominations to be added to the list


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Becca said:


> - Each person may only nominate 3 recordings (or 5?) but no additional nominations on subsequent days.


I think this is a good idea, the next poll will allow nominators to nominate 5 different recordings only once per poll. I am assuming this is to give an equal voice to those who don't come back to nominate multiple days in a row...



Becca said:


> - A recording would need 3 nominations to be added to the list


I don't know about this one... Only 5 recordings reached the level of 3 nominations during the current poll.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Yeah, requiring 3 nominations makes no sense to me either. I’m always of the mind the more choice the better.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

When there are only 15 available slots and, whatever your opinion may be of them, there are 3xFurtwangler, 2xKarajan and no Toscanini, then something needs adjusting.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Becca said:


> When there are only 15 available slots and, whatever your opinion may be of them, there are 3xFurtwangler, 2xKarajan and no Toscanini, then something needs adjusting.


One problem when voting is that it is difficult to chose between eg Karajan's two versions so votes split for that interpretation


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

lnjng said:


> I don't know about this one... Only 5 recordings reached the level of 3 nominations during the current poll.


That's because the nominations went by really fast. Give it more time and more people would have voted.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

AndorFoldes said:


> That's because the nominations went by really fast. Give it more time and more people would have voted.


Absolutely I agree with this. I would have liked to have seen more nominations.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Becca said:


> When there are only 15 available slots and, whatever your opinion may be of them, there are 3xFurtwangler, 2xKarajan and no Toscanini, then something needs adjusting.


I don't understand the problem. Everyone had the opportunity to nominate who they wanted. The goal is to get an accurate picture of peoples' preferences.

The 3 Furtwangler and 2 Karajans are all among the most famous and circulated of Beethoven 9ths. It wouldn't be a legitimate poll without them in it.

I like Toscanini's 9ths, for variety, but they are not his most famous Beethoven interpretations. He was more known for his 3rd, 5th, and especially 7th. In any case, people could have nominated him, but for whatever reason did not. I don't see it as being the least bit controversial. It's the reality of the voting process.

Furtwangler/Karajan being tops for the 9th didn't surprise me at all.

My guesses for the other major symphonies would be:

3 - Klemperer, Szell, Furtwangler
5 - C. Kleiber
6 - Walter, Bohm, Klemperer
7 - C. Kleiber, Toscanini

.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Becca said:


> May I suggest that future polls should be modified slightly...
> 
> - Each person may only nominate 3 recordings (or 5?) but no additional nominations on subsequent days.
> - A recording would need 3 nominations to be added to the list


These make sense to me - I might even require more nominations to make the list. For the LvB 9th, nominations went by so quickly that I barely had a chance to think about my favorites or remind myself of their merits. I don't know why people seem to be in such a rush to get through nominations - it's not as though Beethoven will be writing another symphony any time soon.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> These make sense to me - I might even require more nominations to make the list. For the LvB 9th, nominations went by so quickly that I barely had a chance to think about my favorites or remind myself of their merits. I don't know why people seem to be in such a rush to get through nominations - it's not as though Beethoven will be writing another symphony any time soon.


I agree there should be more time, but why require more nominations? I think two is perfect. If it was just one nomination required, then you may end up with a plethora of nominations that nobody votes for.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> These make sense to me - I might even require more nominations to make the list. For the LvB 9th, nominations went by so quickly that I barely had a chance to think about my favorites or remind myself of their merits. I don't know why people seem to be in such a rush to get through nominations - it's not as though Beethoven will be writing another symphony any time soon.


Exactly.............


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

In the games I've run where the nominating process is similar to this project, I have always used 3 nominations being required to actually play the game. I never encountered any problems.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> In the games I've run where the nominating process is similar to this project, I have always used 3 nominations being required to actually play the game. I never encountered any problems.


Have you ever done a project on recordings?

I think the biggest issue would be if you had one conductor get 4 nominations split between two recordings and thus get shut out.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you ever done a project on recordings?


Rarely. There are many folks who are not into multiple recordings of one work.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Currently, the top 5 results for the Beethoven 9th are being dominated by two conductors: Furtwangler and Karajan. Would it be better if it showed more variety, as a result of a rule stating that a conductor may only appear once or twice?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

lnjng said:


> Currently, the top 5 results for the Beethoven 9th are being dominated by two conductors: Furtwangler and Karajan. Would it be better if it showed more variety, as a result of a rule stating that a conductor may only appear once or twice?


This is a rare situation where the work in question has multiple famous versions by the same conductor.

I am against that rule because often there is wide disagreement over which version is the best by the same conductor.

Safe to say Furtwängler and Karajan came out way ahead for the Beethoven 9th. Nothing earth-shattering in that.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

lnjng said:


> Currently, the top 5 results for the Beethoven 9th are being dominated by two conductors: Furtwangler and Karajan. Would it be better if it showed more variety, as a result of a rule stating that a conductor may only appear once or twice?


Strange suggestion, it means ( if I read you correctly) that if member x an z voted Karajan I can't?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Rogerx said:


> Strange suggestion, it means ( if I read you correctly) that if member x an z voted Karajan I can't?


I'm sure that lnjng was referring to the nomination process, not the voting.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Results for *Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 in D Minor (1)*:

1. Furtwängler: 1951 EMI/BFO (17)
2. Furtwängler: 1942 Pristine/BPO (12)
3. Furtwängler: 1954 Pristine/Philharmonia Lucerne (12)
4. Karajan: 1977 DG/BPO (12)
5. Karajan: 1963 DG/BPO (11)
6. Fricsay: 1958 DG/BPO (11)

The nominations stage for _Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier_ will begin soon.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for *Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 846-893 [1722, 1742]: *

Favorite Recordings Of... Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier (2, Nominations)

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYDaH6fIid-88a4GGEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit#gid=0


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Knorf said:


> I strongly urge you to make the next poll public, to help ensure against the possibility of shenanigans (sock puppet voting and the like).


I strongly second this proposal so there is total transparency in the voting system. There is a simple way to manipulate these polls (if you're a sad enough individual) and I know how to do it easily, seeing as the number of votes needed is so low.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> I strongly second this proposal so there is total transparency in the voting system. There is a simple way to manipulate these polls (if you're a sad enough individual) and I know how to do it easily, seeing as the number of votes needed is so low.


I would have supported this motion, but now I lean strongly against it given the lack of decorum on the Beethoven 9th poll. When people are insulted and bullied for their choices, they have a reason to remain anonymous.

And I seriously doubt anyone cared enough to go to the lengths you suggest. Cute theory for the Furtwängler haters though.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And I seriously doubt anyone cared enough to go to the lengths you suggest....


You'd be surprised how sad, obsessive and weird some people can be. As a former forum moderator I've seen and heard it all (members pretending to have cancer to freeload or gain sympathy, catfishing, criminals, sex pests, soliciting, stalking, men pretending to be women, sociopaths, people pretending to be rock stars, etc) . We banned one guy for having 22 sock accounts. Very, very easily and quickly done.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> You'd be surprised how sad and weird some people can be. As a former forum moderator I've seen and heard it all (members pretending to have cancer to freeload or gain sympathy, catfishing, criminals, sex pests, soliciting, sociopaths. We banned one guy for having 22 sock accounts. Very, very easily and quickly done.


Okay, but what reason do you have to suspect that occurred here other than that you obviously made it known you don't agree with the results. You see how that's problematic, right?

My concern now is that with the vitriol shown in the B9 thread, people will be hesitant to let their votes be public.

.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm not saying it happened here, BHS, but I understand how some people might feel that if there's no transparency in the system it can be manipulated. I'm not bothered about the result as I didn't vote for any of them. I never once made it known that I didn't *agree* with the vote, btw. I've not commented, to my knowledge.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Merl said:


> I strongly second this proposal so there is total transparency in the voting system. There is a simple way to manipulate these polls (if you're a sad enough individual) and I know how to do it easily, seeing as the number of votes needed is so low.


I'll consider it for the third game, but not the second one that is currently in the nominations round. As Brahmsianhorn has observed:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I would have supported this motion, but now I lean strongly against it given the lack of decorum on the Beethoven 9th poll. When people are insulted and bullied for their choices, they have a reason to remain anonymous.


If I find that the insults have died down in the voting round for #2, I may make the polls public for the next one.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

lnjng said:


> I'll consider it for the third game, but not the second one that is currently in the nominations round...
> .... If I find that the insults have died down in the voting round for #2, I may make the polls public for the next one.


Fair enough. :tiphat:


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

With three Furty choices as the final result,this shows a fatal flaw. Possibly even ballot box stuffing. Most respectfully to the OP,this won’t work. I would rather hear about a multitude of choices rather than old poorly recorded badly played finalists. 
Good bye.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I would have supported this motion, but now I lean strongly against it given the lack of decorum on the Beethoven 9th poll. When people are insulted and bullied for their choices, they have a reason to remain anonymous.


No one was insulted or bullied on the LvB 9 poll. If you felt that criticisms there rose to the level of insult and bullying, it suggests that perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Merl said:


> I strongly second this proposal so there is total transparency in the voting system. There is a simple way to manipulate these polls (if you're a sad enough individual) and I know how to do it easily, seeing as the number of votes needed is so low.


You might also consider limiting people to a certain number of choices, forcing people to make difficult ones. Or limit votes to one per day, and allow the poll to go on for longer time. That would allow more people to participate (there are plenty of people who aren't nearly as compulsive about TC as some of us are) and might make the results more meaningful.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

wkasimer said:


> No one was insulted or bullied on the LvB 9 poll. If you felt that criticisms there rose to the level of insult and bullying, it suggests that perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin.


You may not have been bullied or insulted, but I would respectfully suggest that it's not for you to declare that nobody else felt bullied or insulted.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Forster said:


> You may not have been bullied or insulted, but I would respectfully suggest that it's not for you to declare that nobody else felt bullied or insulted.


Oh, I don't deny that some people may have felt insulted or bullied. My point is that if that's what they thought, they have odd ideas about what constitutes insults and bullying.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> No one was insulted or bullied on the LvB 9 poll. If you felt that criticisms there rose to the level of insult and bullying, it suggests that perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin.


First, I cited specifically the post on the other thread. It wasn't you.

Second, I do have a thick skin as evidenced by my openness about my opinions and willingness to engage others.

But do you notice that I was the only one on that thread defending the choice of Furtwängler? He won the poll in a landslide and yet most everyone who voted for him was silent. There very clearly was a ganglike reaction on that thread from the anti-Furt people, which is bizarre. It's just a recording. If you don't like it, find another one. Listen to the one that came in second, or third, or fourth. There are plenty of recordings and choices for everyone.

If people who voted for Furtwängler were silent once the arguing started heating up, who's to say they wouldn't feel uncomfortable letting their votes be known? Some people don't like confrontation. I welcome it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> Oh, I don't deny that some people may have felt insulted or bullied. My point is that if that's what they thought, they have odd ideas about what constitutes insults and bullying.


To be specific, Knorf's and Merl's posts on February 17-18 were literally shaming and insulting people for their choices.

I can understand discussing the merits of the recordings you like or don't like. But the over the top posts were IMO attempts to push people into their way of thinking. They showed zero openness to allowing people their opinions.

I responded to them both in that thread. Part of me wishes I hadn't let them drag me into the mud. But I don't mind confrontation.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

wkasimer said:


> Oh, I don't deny that some people may have felt insulted or bullied. My point is that if that's what they thought, they have odd ideas about what constitutes insults and bullying.


...or maybe you do? Doubtless people have different thresholds for such things.

I didn't feel bullied, but I wasn't a contributor til after the hiatus, when some posts were removed. I nevertheless felt that mod intervention was justified.

But we digress...I posted in Area 51 on this topic.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> To be specific, Knorf's and Merl's posts on February 17-18 were literally shaming and insulting people for their choices....


As opposed to telling them their opinion was, "Absolute rubbish", as you did to Xisten267 on February 16th?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Chilham said:


> As opposed to telling them their opinion was, "Absolute rubbish", as you did to Xisten267 on February 16th?
> 
> Asking for a friend.


I was specifically responding to a point that was made, and I don't deny getting heated myself in that thread. I don't deny making my points strongly.

But I did not try to influence people's choice or insult those that chose differently. In fact I did the opposite. I even listed all the alternative versions I own.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ... I did not try to influence people's choice or insult those that chose differently...


Except that you called the poster's opinion of Toscanini's Beethoven, "Absolutely rubbish".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Chilham said:


> Except that you called the poster's opinion of Toscanini's Beethoven, "Absolutely rubbish".


I was strongly disagreeing with a specific statement made by the poster, that Toscanini conducts Beethoven while Furtwängler conducts Furtwängler. This is a tired old myth. Toscanini is just as distinct and individual as any other conductor.

That's my opinion on the music. I did not insult the poster for his choice of Toscanini. In fact, not only did I state that I like Toscanini's Beethoven, but it is for that very reason, that he is just as distinct and individual as any other conductor!

.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...I did not insult the poster for his choice of Toscanini...


Except that you did.

I'll leave you to dance on that pinhead.

I'm out.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Chilham said:


> Except that you did.
> 
> I'll leave you to dance on that pinhead.
> 
> I'm out.


No I did not. Strong disagreement on a musical point is not the same as personal insults.

If I said, "No conductor opened the Adagio with such heavenly care as did Furtwängler," and a poster responded, "Total rubbish," that would be a comment on my statement, not on me personally. If he said, "Anyone who believes such a thing is an obsessive cult member," that would be a comment obviously on me personally.

I'm sorry you can't see the distinction. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Chilham said:


> Except that you called the poster's opinion of Toscanini's Beethoven, "Absolutely rubbish".


Wow, you're even more wrong than I thought. This is the post I responded to. The poster opened by making a statement about me, not Toscanini. I clearly was responding to his statement, not insulting him personally or his choice of Toscanini. Nice try, though.



Xisten267 said:


> Considering your choices, I think that you're a strong advocate of the wagnerian school of conducting: the performer's vision of the work comes first and the score comes second, this is, any changes can be made to the score in terms of interpretation as long that this is in agreement with the performer's own conception of it. In Beethoven, I prefer the Berlioz way of conducting, this is, total fidelity to the score except for the instrumentation (Berlioz allows the use of modern instruments and increased number of instrumentists for a more powerful effect).
> 
> When I listen to Furtwängler's _Ninth_, I hear Furtwängler. But when I listen to Toscanini's, I hear Beethoven. That's why I favour the latter.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> Absolute rubbish. Toscanini is more individual than the majority of Beethoven interpreters. When I hear his versions, I recognize it immediately as distinctly his own.
> 
> I am not an advocate of a school of conducting. I have known Beethoven's music since learning the Moonlight Sonata as a child. I know the difference between what sounds like Beethoven and what does not, between what naturally follows the harmonic language and does not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> To be specific, Knorf's and Merl's posts on February 17-18 were literally shaming and insulting people for their choices.
> 
> I can understand discussing the merits of the recordings you like or don't like. But the over the top posts were IMO attempts to push people into their way of thinking. They showed zero openness to allowing people their opinions.
> 
> I responded to them both in that thread. Part of me wishes I hadn't let them drag me into the mud. But I don't mind confrontation.


Can you please point me to the *exact* moment I actually insulted either you, other posters or the recording in question? Don't bother... I'll answer for you. *I DIDN'T! *I have never 'bullied', 'shamed' or 'insulted anyone on TC in the many years I have been on this forum. I have never been warned about my behaviour, been sanctioned or banned for any comments I have made. If you think I like to shame or bully individuals in life then you really don't know me at all! I have many, many good friends on this forum (some who have become even better friends in real life)! Ask them whether I am a bully or better still ask the thousands of children I've taught over the years (or their parents). May I suggest that the problem is closer to home. Trolling my name does not impress me and anyone who does gets reported. If I directly insult you or any other individual on TC (which I would never do) you may happily report it to the moderators and I would accept my punishment but that isn't going to happen cos I'm not an @rsehole.

Btw, looking back through the thread I can't see any actual evidence that Knorf actually insulted you. He just opined that he thought that a certain recording was a steaming pile of crud. I think he's allowed to say that if that's how he feels. I never once passed my opinion on that recording. I just questioned the flawed process behind this thread.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Criticizing a recording should not in any way be construed as insulting someone who happens to like that recording, as if by proxy.

ETA: I am in no way an "Anti-Furt" person. I think that recording in question is terrible, and actually should not be taken as exemplifying his work. I do think Furtwängler is highly overrated, but of course he was nonetheless a great conductor, even if that recording sucks.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> If he said, "Anyone who believes such a thing is an obsessive cult member," that would be a comment obviously on me personally.


Literally no one said this.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Can I suggest that everyone move on? Obviously there were strong opinions in this poll, and some members clashed over the results. Strong opinions are fine, and sometimes it's interesting to see members argue over aspects of their views. Others can benefit from such discussions. The problem comes when people make negative comments about other members. Such comments almost always trigger people to be defensive, and the thread can suffer as a result.

I would ask people to perhaps find ways to make their point without provocative statements and certainly without pointing fingers at other members. Thanks.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

You asked, and so I'll just leave this here and then I'm done with this topic.

Right after Furtwangler moved ahead of Karajan:



Knorf said:


> But what this is, is an example only representative of a very small, indeed tiny, plurality of those who decided to participate. In such conditions, quality and good taste can by no means whatsoever be guaranteed. This is illustrated here very well indeed.
> 
> ETA: I suppose it's worth a listen for those curious as to how cults of personality and total narrative myths can form around almost any source. Rather like Rorschach tests, susceptible people perceive what they desire.





Knorf said:


> I know almost all of the Ninths in that poll--probably far more than most people who voted in it--and I think the plurality chose literally the worst one.





Knorf said:


> Second, a plurality of this poll's responders has chosen one of the most infamously YMMV, polarizing recordings in the history of recorded classical music. I think that's inherently a bad idea.





Merl said:


> Just lol.
> 
> View attachment 163984


In light of these insulting, mocking, childish responses, I don't think people's votes should be made public. No one should have to be concerned with being judged for something as inconsequential as preferring a recording.

With regards to this ridiculous "sock puppet" conspiracy theory, can't the mods just ensure that voters are long-standing members as opposed to accounts created just for the poll?

What's ironic is that having never participated in these polls before, I didn't even know I could have voted for more than one recording. So I only voted for one of the Furtwanglers. Just respect people's opinions and handle the results like adults. That's all.

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Ah, forgot this one. Literally a call out post for anyone who dared commit the crime of crossing Knorf's tastes. How dare they?



Knorf said:


> Those who wanted Furtwängler to win were intensely focused on voting for him, and the rest who know better were divided and dispersed among the numerous other, superior-but-far-less-likely-to-attract-obsessive-fans options.
> 
> But I have denounced this outcome as disgraceful, and I stand by that. It's absurd and embarrassing that this abominably bad recording won, that it continues to garner so much attention that it does not deserve.
> 
> Unfortunately, this sort of thing is going to be a huge problem for many of these polls, especially if they're anonymous. More recent and non-cult favorite recordings aren't going to have a chance at all.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Everyone can like what they like and no one should say that you can’t like a certain recording


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Really, I don't think I need to defend myself, because I know I didn't do anything wrong. Brahmsianhorn's claims are totally baseless, and his characterization of me misleading to say the least.

But what he quoted left out some context that I think explains why I wrote what I did; he quoted selectively as he did to try to make me look bad, and he mischaracterized my position as "beholden to perfect intonation" and having "Draconian expectations," neither of which are remotely true.

I certainly began with expressing my displeasure with the recording that was leading, and ultimately "won," the Beethoven Ninth poll. It was hotly stated, I freely admit (I really, _really_ think it's a very bad recording), but I saw no reason to hold back, and I had already expressed reservations with how the poll was structured and undertaken. I stand by these remarks.

I'll just repeat here what I wrote earlier, that criticizing a recording, or even criticizing a culture that praises an possibly overrated recording, should in no way by taken as insulting by proxy any individual poster here on Talk Classical or anywhere else, unless that person is named or very clearly being referred to.

It would hardly be fair to make some sort of requirement to post a disclaimer every single time anyone criticizes a recording by Furtwängler (or anyone else), to the effect of "this comment should not considered to apply to Brahmsianhorn or any other poster on Talk Classical." That should just be understood.

We all know that reasonable people may disagree; saying otherwise is really just an underhanded way to prevent someone's sacred cow from being gored. No good can come from generally trying to block negative opinions and comments just because someone, who likes what is being criticized, might inadvertently take it personally.

Anyway, I also did criticize the culture which in my view excessively prizes that recording, because I do sincerely feel that it is an example that may represent some of the deplorable "hero worship" and "groupthink" trends one sometimes witnesses in classical music. At no time did I say that everyone who likes that recording is guilty of contributing to that deplorable culture, guilty of obsessive hero worship or cultish behavior, nor I did name or even necessarily have in mind any poster on Talk Classical. But I was directly challenged to explain how I could reconcile the extraordinarily high praise (from certain quarters) for that recording with my own judgment that it is in fact singularly terrible, and I tried to do so in all sincerity. I spoke generally and did not specifically talk about anyone on Talk Classical at all.

It is perfectly possible for someone who is otherwise entirely reasonable to sincerely like that recording, despite whatever its faults may be, and to do so without contributing to the potentially problematic behavior trends I referred to earlier. That much should be obvious.

At no time was my intention to "call out" any behavior on this message board. If there is any overly sensitive, reactionary, or indeed cult-like behavior on Talk Classical as a response to strongly-worded criticism of any specific conductor from history, or recordings that conductor made, I was not referring to it. Indeed, I would not; I'd just refer the problem to the moderators.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Ah, forgot this one. Literally a call out post for anyone who dared commit the crime of crossing Knorf's tastes. How dare they?


Isn't this a bit much?



EvaBaron said:


> Everyone can like what they like and no one should say that you can't like a certain recording


Indeed. And no one did. You are free to like any recordings I detest. I won't even judge you for that, at least not in itself.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> With regards to this ridiculous "sock puppet" conspiracy theory, can't the mods just ensure that voters are long-standing members as opposed to accounts created just for the poll?


We have no way of determining who voted. We only know who has entered the thread, and we would likely not spend time carefully checking each of those members.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Instead of going through these mental gymnastics, why can't you just simply acknowledge that there is some aspect of that which recording which many people hear and appreciate and that you do not. Simple as that.

Why is that so hard?


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Instead of going through these mental gymnastics, why can't you just simply acknowledge that there is some aspect of that which recording which many people hear and appreciate and that you do not. Simple as that.
> 
> Why is that so hard?


He doesn't have to do that all


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

EvaBaron said:


> He doesn't have to do that all


He doesn't have to do anything. It was just a question. What is so hard about simply acknowledging that other people hear a recording differently?


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

I would like to state that this thread is not meant for the discussion of anything other than updates for the project and the implementation or modification of new or existing rules. Please do not derail the topic of this thread into discussions about other subject-matter. Any post regarding recordings of a piece or work should go into that specific poll thread. If that poll thread is closed for a period of time, do not resort to using this one to continue your debate.

I should have mentioned this in the beginning, but rule discussion should not turn out to be the back-and-forth exchanges going on currently here. Just state your opinion, yes or no, explain counter-arguments if you have any, and I will decide. As for the current topic of public polls, I have already decided that:



> I'll consider it for the third game, but not the second one that is currently in the nominations round...If I find that the insults have died down in the voting round for #2, I may make the polls public for the next one.


It doesn't matter if 1 person feels insulted, or 10 people do - what matters is that we should be inclusive of everyone. As per forum rules, please state your opinions and discuss in a _civil and respectful manner_, and _do not resort to ad homs_.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

There seems to be an argument in the above posts that directing an ad hom vs a class of people (i.e. “the cultists who perpetuate the myth of this recording”) is different than singling out a specific poster. I flatly disagree. The insinuation is clearly that anyone who voted for the recording is likewise perpetuating a myth.

Again, I could care less myself. I am very open in my opinions. But if posters are going to make the above comments, then we should have anonymous voting because people are going to be less inclined to stick their necks out.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the nominations: *

Crossland: 2007 Signum
Feinberg: 1958-61 Classical Records
Fischer: 1933-36 EMI, Naxos
Gilbert: 1983 Archiv
Gould: 1963 Columbia
Gulda: 1972 Philips
Koopman: 1982 Erato
Koroliov: 2000 Tacet
Leonhardt: 1967 DHM
Richter: 1970 RCA
Ross: 1980 Disques Pelleas
Schiff: 1987 Decca
Tureck: 1953 DG
Walcha: 1961 Celestial Harmonies
van Asperen: 1989-90 Virgin


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

*?????*



lnjng said:


> *Results for the nominations: *
> 
> Crossland: 2007 Signum
> Feinberg: 1958-61 Classical Records
> ...


I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

FrankinUsa said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about.


These are the 15 recordings that participants nominated for the 2nd game on Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. You can see the voting thread here, the nominations thread here, and all the results in the spreadsheet here.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

lnjng said:


> These are the 15 recordings that participants nominated for the 2nd game on Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. You can see the voting thread here, the nominations thread here, and all the results in the spreadsheet here.


Thank you for the clarification


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Morning Injng. As this week's vote on Bach's WTC has passed by without arguing, bickering and supposed "bullying" can I be the first to propose again that all subsequent voting be made public (as they are on 90% of the polls on here). It would ensure total transparency in the voting process. Thanks.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Give it time. Edwin Fischer is currently in second place, another “emperor has no clothes” recording no doubt a result of mindless received wisdom, rose-colored spectacles, and the Fischer cult.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Give it time. Edwin Fischer is currently in second place, another "emperor has no clothes" recording no doubt a result of mindless received wisdom, rose-colored spectacles, and the Fischer cult.


There you go again, insulting a recording and the folks who voted for it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that there's anything mindless or cultish going on here.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

I must say, it's disappointing to see Richter leading. It's not a very good recording, so if it is the best, what does that say about all the others? The Fischer is a classic, but in obviously limited sound. Surprising that Schiff gets so little support, and Hewitt isn't even in the running.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> There you go again, insulting a recording and the folks who voted for it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that there's anything mindless or cultish going on here.


Haha. I know that you know I was making a parody post.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

AndorFoldes said:


> I must say, it's disappointing to see Richter leading. It's not a very good recording, so if it is the best, what does that say about all the others? The Fischer is a classic, but in obviously limited sound. Surprising that Schiff gets so little support, and Hewitt isn't even in the running.


I predicted that Richter would win. Beautiful version.

I'm happily surprised to see so many vote for Fischer. That's an all timer.

Agreed on Hewitt, but I must admit that I find Schiff to be rather dull.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Haha. I know that you know I was making a parody post.


I din't know that at all; I tend to take people at their word. I suppose I'll stop doing that with you.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

As a observation from an interested onlooker - if the polls were public I can't see why there would a problem. I only take part in a few polls and the vast majority are public - I find it interesting to see who's voted for what or what their preferences are depending on the nature of the poll.
Who is disadvantaged? Only posters with something to hide I guess.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Malx said:


> As a observation from an interested onlooker - if the polls were public I can't see why there would a problem. I only take part in a few polls and the vast majority are public - I find it interesting to see who's voted for what or what their preferences are depending on the nature of the poll.


I agree with this. I like to see who's voting for what, so in the future, I have some idea whether or not their taste aligns with mine when they make recommendations.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Whatever you do do not engage in any arguing with other posters. It will only lead to calls from one particular quarter for keeping polls private.

So that's 4 people who want public polling.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

AndorFoldes said:


> I must say, it's disappointing to see Richter leading. It's not a very good recording, so if it is the best, what does that say about all the others? The Fischer is a classic, but in obviously limited sound. Surprising that Schiff gets so little support, and Hewitt isn't even in the running.


What surprises me is the number of votes for Feinberg. Of the five leading recordings, his is the only one not on a fairly major recording label, and is in pretty limited sound. I'm glad to see it, though - he and Nikolayeva are my favorites on modern piano.

Schiff's versions are beautifully played and the ECM recording is particularly well recorded, but his playing lacks a strong interpretive profile, so I'm not surprised that he's not getting a lot of votes. As for Hewitt, I find her Bach soporific.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Malx said:


> As a observation from an interested onlooker - if the polls were public I can't see why there would a problem. I only take part in a few polls and the vast majority are public - I find it interesting to see who's voted for what or what their preferences are depending on the nature of the poll.
> Who is disadvantaged? Only posters with something to hide I guess.


I absolutely prefer open polling. I'm very open with my views.

I raised this issue of anonymity when the response to the results of the B9 poll took on an over-the-top ganglike reaction, to the point of insulting everyone who voted for the recording that won en masse and alleging a conspiracy. I can take the arrows - and I've taken quite a few of them on these threads for publicizing my views - but maybe everyone doesn't want to be a target. Then you could end up with less people voting.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

My preference is that the member starting the poll do whatever he/she wants concerning open polling.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

I'll try using public polls for the third polling game to see how it goes.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Additionally, I might shorten the polls to 3 days. It seems as if most of the new votes die down by then, and I don't want to waste too much time with no new votes or changes in the order of the top 5.

What do you think?


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I think that's a good idea


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

lnjng said:


> Additionally, I might shorten the polls to 3 days. It seems as if most of the new votes die down by then, and I don't want to waste too much time with no new votes or changes in the order of the top 5.
> 
> What do you think?


No need to shorten the voting window - in fact, I think that it should be longer. What's the hurry?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> No need to shorten the voting window - in fact, I think that it should be longer. What's the hurry?


There are a lot of works to get through


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There are a lot of works to get through


Yes, there are. But to repeat myself - what's the hurry?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> Yes, there are. But to repeat myself - what's the hurry?


Ellen Jane - "Speed is the essence of our times."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> Yes, there are. But to repeat myself - what's the hurry?


I was only speculating, but I imagine the faster the votes get tallied, the faster we can move on to the next poll.

I agree there should be no rush in principle. Maybe we can start new nominations for the next poll after Day 3 of voting.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I was only speculating, but I imagine the faster the votes get tallied, the faster we can move on to the next poll.
> 
> I agree there should be no rush in principle. Maybe we can start new nominations for the next poll after Day 3 of voting.


Conversely, the longer the voting timeframe, the greater chance that people will have time to listen to the various recordings, allowing them to make a more informed vote.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

If the issue is to speed things up then the nominations for a piece can overlap with the voting on the previous piece.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

For the past two days, the votes for the Bach WTC has only gained 1. The order of preference, also, has not change since the second day of voting. Additionally, the order of preference for the Beethoven 9th had not changed since the third day either.

In the future, I think I will start nominations for the next piece on the 4th day of voting for the current piece.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations round for *Bach: Mass in B Minor* will be starting soon!


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for the *Bach: Mass in B minor, BWV 232 [1749]*:

Favorite Recordings Of... Bach: Mass in B Minor (3, Nominations)

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYDaH6fIid-88a4GGEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit#gid=0


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the nominations:*

Brüggen: 2010 EMI/Orchetra of the 18th Century Glossa
Fasolis: 1988 ARTS/Suonatori della gioisa marca, Coro della Radio Svizzera
Gardiner: 1985 DG/Monterverdi Choir
Gardiner: 2015 Soli Deo Gloria/EBS
Herreweghe: 2012 PHI/Collegium Vocale Gent
Hickox: 1992 Chandos/Collegium Musicum 90
Jochum: 1980 EMI/BRSO
Karajan: 1952 EMI/VPO
Klemperer: 1967 EMI/New Philharmonia
Leonhardt: 1985 DHM/La Petite Bande
Marriner: 1977 Decca/Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields
Richter: 1962 Archiv/MBO
Richter: 1969 DG/MBO
Savall: 2011 Alia Vox/Le Concert des Nations
Suzuki: 2007 BIS/Bach Collegium Japan


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll for the *Bach: Mass in B minor, BWV 232 [1749]:*

Favorite Recordings Of... Bach: Mass in B Minor (3, Voting)

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYDaH6fIid-88a4GGEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit#gid=27008300


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

_Reminders: _

- Poll for the Mass closes in 3 days, get your votes in if you haven't already
- Current results for the poll have been tallied in the spreadsheet
- Nominations round for Beethoven's 5th Symphony will begin in 1 day


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the Bach Mass:*

Klemperer: 1967 EMI/New Philharmonia (11)
Richter: 1962 Archiv/MBO (9)
Herreweghe: 2012 PHI/Collegium Vocale Gent (9)
Gardiner: 1985 DG/Monteverdi Choir (8)
Suzuki: 2007 BIS/Bach Collegium Japan (7)


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the nominations:*

C. Kleiber: 1974 DG/VPO
E. Kleiber, 1953 Decca/RCO
Fischer: 2019 Naxos/DCO
Furtwängler: 1943 Pristine/BPO
Furtwängler: 1947 Tahra, Audite/BPO
Honeck: 2014 RR/Pittsburg Symphony
Immerseel: 2008 Zig Zag/Anima Eterna
Karajan: 1962 DG/BPO
Klemperer: 1959 EMI/Philharmonia Orchestra
Norrington: 2002 Hanssler/SWR
Reiner: 1959 RCA/CSO
Solti: 1958 Decca/VPO
Szell: 1963 Columbia, Sony/Cleveland
Toscanini: 1939 RCA/NBCSO
Wand: 1987 RCA, Sony/NDRSO

Polling round for the 5th Symphony will start soon!


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll for the *Beethoven: Symphony #5 in C minor, op. 67 [1808]:*

Favorite Recordings Of... Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 (4, Voting)

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...GEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit#gid=27008300


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

_Reminder: _ Polling for the 5th Symphony ends in 2 days, and nominations for Brahms Symphony No. 4 will begin soon.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Results for *Beethoven: Symphony No. 5*:

C. Kleiber: 1974 DG/VPO (13)
Karajan: 1962 DG/BPO (12)
E. Kleiber: 1953 Decca/RCO (10)
Toscanini: 1939 RCA/NBCSO (8)
Klemperer: 1959 EMI/Philharmonia Orchestra (7)


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for the *Brahms: Symphony #4 in E minor, op. 98 [1885]:*

https://www.talkclassical.com/75179-favorite-recordings-brahms-symphony.html#post2248405

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYDaH6fIid-88a4GGEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit#gid=0


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

I have a question. Most respectfully, how and where are the votes tallied. I see 52 votes for the top vote getters for LvB 5 but I don't see how the votes were taken and who voted.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

FrankinUsa said:


> I have a question. Most respectfully, how and where are the votes tallied. I see 52 votes for the top vote getters for LvB 5 but I don't see how the votes were taken and who voted.


Take a look at the voting thread. It is in the Games/Polls subforum. I believe voting in the LvB 5th poll, the polling was public. Polling on some of the earlier selections was not.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the nominations:*

Abbado: 1991 DG/BPO
C. Kleiber: 1980 DG/VPO
Chailly: 2013 Decca/Gewandhausorchester Leipzig
Dohnányi: 1987 Teldec/Cleveland Orchestra
Furtwängler: 1943 Pristine/BPO
Furtwängler: 1948 EMI/BPO
Jochum: 1953 DG/BPO
Jochum: 1976 EMI/LPO
Karajan: 1963 DG/BPO
Klemperer: 1957 EMI/Philharmonia Orchestra
Levine: 1978 RCA/CSO
Reiner: 1961 Chesky/RPO
Toscanini: 1952 Pristine/Philarmonia Orchestra
Van Beinum: 1958 Philips/Concertgebouw Orchestra
Walter: 1959 Sony/Columbia Symphony Orchestra


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll for the *Brahms: Symphony #4 in E minor, op. 98 [1885]:*

Favorite Recordings Of... Brahms: Symphony No. 4 (5, Voting)

Spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYDaH6fIid-88a4GGEGEnFs-tOP8rq6f6LVuIHboO7k/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

I would like to bring attention to the fact that with the new forum software, it seems as though we can have *unlimited poll choices*. The nominations round was instituted partly because of the fact that we were limited to 15 choices on the voting round. 

With the new system, it is possible to be able to vote for all nominations. What are your ideas?


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

In the future, we will set a time frame of 7 days for nominations - then vote on all of the nominations in the following round.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for Brahms 4th Symphony:*

Walter: 1959 Sony/Columbia Symphony Orchestra
Klemperer: 1957 EMI/Philharmonia Orchestra
C. Kleiber: 1980 DG/VPO
Furtwangler: 1943 Pristine/BPO
Abbado: 1991 DG/BPO


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the nominations*:


Recording# of Nom.Barbirolli: 1970 EMI, Hunt/SRSO1Klemperer: 1965 EMI/BRSO2Klemperer: 1951 Decca/RCO2Scherchen: 1958 MCA/Vienna St Opera Orch.1Mehta: 1975 Decca/VPO5Bernstein: 1963 Sony/NYPO3Rattle: 1986 EMI/CBSO2Walter: 1958 Sony/NYPO2Haitink: 1968 Philips/CGO2Haitink: 1984 Philips/CGO (Kerstmatinee)1Chailly: 2001 Philips/CGO1Blomstedt: 1994 Decca/SFO3Solti: 1964 Decca/LSO2Levi: 2002 Telarc/ASO1Litton: 1999 Delos/DSO1Maazel: 1984 CBS, Sony/VPO1Ozawa: 2000 Sony/Saito Kinen Orchestra2Gielen: 2004 Hannsler/SWR1Kubelik: 1969 DG/BRSO2Solti: 1980 Decca/CSO1Jurowski: 2009 LPO/LPO2Klemperer: 1962 EMI/Philharmonia2Levine: 1989 Orfeo/VPO1Wit: 1993 Naxos/NOSPR1Boulez: 2006 DG/VPO1Jarvi: 2010 Virgin/Frankfurt RSO1Abravanel: 1967 Vanguard/Utah SO1Neumann: 1982 Supraphon/Czech PO1Bernstein: 1987 DG/NYPO1Abbado: 1976 DG/Chicago SO1Inbal: 1985 Denon/FRSO1Fischer: 2006 Channel Classics/Budapest Festival Orchestra2Stokowski: 1974 RCA/LSO1


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll for the *Mahler: Symphony No. 2:*









Favorite Recordings Of... Mahler: Symphony No. 2 (6, Voting)


We have nominated 33 recordings, however it has come to my attention that there is an unstated limit of 25 choices - for now we will only vote on the ones nominated twice and those first nominated. It is possible to split it up into several rounds to vote, however. Discussion below is...




www.talkclassical.com





Spreadsheet:









"Favorite Recordings Of..." Project Discography


Discography Composer,Work,Artist,Label/Group,Recommendations,Link Beethoven, Ludwig van,Symphony #9 in D minor, op. 125 "Choral" [1824],Karajan,1977 DG/BPO,7,<a href="https://www.talkclassical.com/threads/favorite-recordings-of-beethoven-symphony-9-in-d-minor-choral-1b-finals.80444/">https://www...




docs.google.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Since there is an unstated limit of 25 poll choices, it is possible that I will split the nominations between two rounds, and a final round for the top of each round.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Final Results for Mahler 2nd Symphony:*


Mehta1975 Decca/VPO12Bernstein1963 Sony/NYPO10Kubelik1969 DG/BRSO8Klemperer1969 EMI/Philarmonia7Walter1958 Sony/NYPO6


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Because of the new forum software, new possibilities in voting, and other factors, I have decided to change the structure of the procedure for nominating/voting recordings.

_It is very possible that in the future, there will no longer be enough "seconded" recordings to satisfy 15_. Therefore, going forward, we will vote on *every single nomination*. Of course, with such a system, there will be problems that need to be addressed: (1) limits on nominations, (2) rounds of polling, and (3) how the top recording is decided. I will address each of these below.

First, limits on nominations. The trial run of using every nomination has been partially successful for the Mahler 2nd Symphony, but there are lessons to be learned. Thus, in the future, the nominations round will time out after *7 days* OR *1 day of inactivity*, whichever comes first. This is to prevent the nominations from dwindling down to 0 by the last 4 days. By inactivity I mean no new nomination being made in the thread. Furthermore, we will keep the *1 post, 5 nominations per post* rule as before.

Second, rounds of polling. With this new system, we will exceed the amount of choices that we can have in a poll. I didn't know this before, but it seems as if the system automatically stops giving you more options after _25 poll choices_. This means that I will have to divide up the polls into separate groups - if I have 48 nominations for example, I will divide them up into 2 groups of 24 poll choices each. These will go on simultaneously, with the poll time limit set to *3 days.*

Finally, since we have multiple rounds of polling, we need to narrow our selections down to the top 5, 6, or 7 (if there are ties) with a *final round*. I will take 24 poll choices, split evenly between each group. Note that 24 = 2 * 3 * 4, which means that we can evenly divide it if we have 2, 3, or 4 groups. Also note that if nominations are enough for _only 1 group_, we will not have a final round.

I will be test-running this new system for the next few pieces on the list. I welcome any and all feedback, so we can better improve it! I am also contemplating whether or not to split Wagner's Ring cycle up into its 4 constituent parts, or leave it as one (I am currently favoring the latter, but feel free to express your opinions here). The nominations round for it will be up soon!


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for the *Mahler: Der Ring des Nibelungen:*









Favorite Recordings Of... Wagner: Der Ring des...


This is stage one of the seventh game in the "Favorite Recordings Of..." project. The goal here is to nominate recordings for Wagner's Ring cycle. Separate participants may nominate the same recording several times, but the same person may not. Nominations end after 7 days, or 1 day of...




www.talkclassical.com





Spreadsheet:









"Favorite Recordings Of..." Project Discography


Discography Composer,Work,Artist,Label/Group,Recommendations,Link Beethoven, Ludwig van,Symphony #9 in D minor, op. 125 "Choral" [1824],Karajan,1977 DG/BPO,7,<a href="https://www.talkclassical.com/threads/favorite-recordings-of-beethoven-symphony-9-in-d-minor-choral-1b-finals.80444/">https://www...




docs.google.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

*Results for the nominations:*


Barenboim: 2009 Warner/BFOKnappertsbusch: 1957 Walhall/BFOGoodall: 2001 Chandos/ENOFurtwängler: 1950 Pristine, Gebhardt/La ScalaKeilberth: 1955 Testament/BFOJanowski: 1983 Eurodisk, RCA/Staatskapelle DresdenFurtwängler: 1953 EMI, Pristine/RAIKnappertsbusch: 1956 Orfeo/BFOBöhm: 1967 Philips, Decca/BFOSolti: 1958-1965 Decca/VPOKarajan: 1970 DG/BPOBarenboim: 1994 Teldec/BFOLevine: 2002 DG/Met


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Important announcement for the participants in this project:

*The moderating team has investigated the first six rounds of this undertaking. We have discovered some serious voting irregularities which have impacted the results of these rounds considerably. We have taken measures to ensure that this does not occur again. The most recent nomination phase (Wagner's Ring) is OK, but the first six rounds would need to be re-done.*

We have discussed the situation with lnjng, and he has agreed to re-do the first six rounds. We are working out some details.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

'"Voting irregularities"! Who'd have thought it? 🤔🧦. Looks like some of those results weren't the landslides they first appeared.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Can the mods at least tell us the nature of the irregularities?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Can the mods at least tell us the nature of the irregularities?


No. We will not give more details than this, for good reasons.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> No. We will not give more details than this, for good reasons.


National security?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

For anyone who was following those polls, and is aware of the reasons why Internet polling is beyond dodgy, it's hardly a challenge to surmise with likely accuracy what was happening.

This is why some of us called for public polling. That in itself wouldn't necessarily stop the potential problems, but it would assist in revealing them. It's also why I called out the polling right away as clearly not above board, and stopped participating.

I don't think there is actually much like a true consensus for top recordings of major works here on Talk Classical, but to the extent that there is, it was apparent what was happening in these polls was very far from it. _Someone_ was putting their thumb on the scale.

What's pathetic is that someone was so obsessed with their own selection winning, that they decided they had to cheat in order to make it happen.

I applaud the mods for uncovering the fraud, calling it out, and requesting a total re-do of those polls. I'm not sure whether I will participate again, because I'm rather soured on the whole procedure, but the mods did good here.

Now I'd like to call on the mods to also please ban whomever it was who tried this. Such behavior is against the Terms of Agreement for posting here, is it not?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I can't help being struck by the number of banned members in the voting for the more 'popular' recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Knorf said:


> For anyone who was following those polls, and is aware of the reasons why Internet polling is beyond dodgy, it's hardly a challenge to surmise with likely accuracy what was happening.
> 
> This is why some of us called for public polling. That in itself wouldn't necessarily stop the potential problems, but it would assist in revealing them. It's also why I called out the polling right away as clearly not above board, and stopped participating.
> 
> ...


1) What is your proof that this occurred, other than the results not being in accord with your own preferences?

2) If that was indeed the case and it was proven to be the case, why do the mods need to hide it now, especially given that we now have people openly speculating as to what happened?


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ... we now have people openly speculating as to what happened?


What do you think happened?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Specific actions by the moderating team that involve members of this site will not be discussed by us in public. That has always been the case and we make no exception here. 

Let's stop this discussion. The decision has been made, we are confident that our actions ensure a fair nomination/voting procedure from now on, and lnjng has agreed to re-do the first series of nominations/votings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Chilham said:


> What do you think happened?


I have no idea, but I’m certainly not going to pretend to know


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Redone nominations for *Beethoven: Symphony No. 9*:


Recording# of Nom.Karajan: 1963 DG/BPO2Karajan: 1977 DG/BPO4Chailly: 2008 Decca/Gewandhaus3Szell: 1961 Sony/Cleveland1Honeck: 2021 Reference Recordings/Pittsburgh SO2Fricsay: 1958 DG/BPO2Abbado: 1987 DG/VPO1Immerseel: 2008 Zig Zag/Anima Eterna3Wand: 1986 RCA/NDR1Jochum: 1969 Philips/Concertgebouworkest1Harnoncourt: 1991 Teldec/Chamber Orchestra of Europe1Ádám Fischer: 2019 Naxos/Danish Chamber Orchestra1Furtwängler: 1951 EMI/BFO1Krivine: 2011 Naive/La Chambre Philharmonique1Schmidt-Isserstedt: 1965 Decca/VPO1Leinsdorf: 1969 RCA/BSO1Furtwängler: 1942 Pristine/BPO3Bernstein: 1979 DG/VPO1Bohm: 1972 DG/VPO1Solti: 1972 Decca/CSO1Abbado: 2000 DG/BPO1Munch: 1958 RCA/BSO1Giulini: 1972 His Master's Voice/LSO1Giulini: 1989 DG/BPO1Wand: 1987 RCA/NDRSO2Blomstedt: 1980 RCA/Staatskapelle Dresden1


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Final results for *Wagner: Der Ring des Nibelungen*:


Böhm1967 Philips, Decca/BFO7Solti1958-1965 Decca/VPO5Karajan1970 DG/BPO5Keilberth1955 Testament/BFO5Janowski1983 Eurodisk, RCA/Staatskapelle Dresden4Barenboim1994 Teldec/BFO4


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for _Bach: Cello Suites_ and re-done polls for Beethoven's 9th will begin soon.


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Re-done poll (1) for *Beethoven: Symphony No. 9*:









Favorite Recordings Of... Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D...


We have redone the nominations due to problems with nominations in the past, and we are now redoing the voting rounds. We have nominated 26 recordings, 13 of which will be voted on in this first round. Updated rules can be found on post #120 of the main thread. Discussion below is encouraged...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for *Bach: Cello Suites, BWV 1007-1012:*









Favorite Recordings Of... Bach: Cello Suites (8...


This is stage one of the eigth game in the "Favorite Recordings Of..." project. The goal here is to nominate recordings for Bach's Cello Suites. Separate participants may nominate the same recording several times, but the same person may not. Nominations end after 7 days, or 1 day of...




www.talkclassical.com





Spreadsheet:









"Favorite Recordings Of..." Project Discography


Discography Composer,Work,Artist,Label/Group,Recommendations,Link Beethoven, Ludwig van,Symphony #9 in D minor, op. 125 "Choral" [1824],Karajan,1977 DG/BPO,7,<a href="https://www.talkclassical.com/threads/favorite-recordings-of-beethoven-symphony-9-in-d-minor-choral-1b-finals.80444/">https://www...




docs.google.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Nominations for Bach: Cello Suites:


Fournier: 1961 Archiv4Wispelwey: 2012 Evil Penguin4Wispelwey: 1998 Channel Records1Bylsma: 1992 Sony3Jian Wang: 2005 DG1Maisky: 1985 DG1Heinrich Schiff: 1985 EMI1Queyras: 2007 Harmonia Mundi2Butt: 2009 Warner1Gendron: 1979 Philips2Casals: 1936 EMI4Starker: 1992 RCA3Haimovitz: 2015 Pentatone3Vardai: 2017 Brilliant2Coppey: 2004 Aeon1Rostropovich: 1991 EMI3Ma: 1983 CBS2Carr: 2013 Wigmore Hall Live1Badiarov: 2010 Ramée1Kuijken: 2004 Arcana1Brunello: 1995 Amadeus1Luckert: 2017 DSP1Mercury: 1990 Living Presence1Domenga: 2017 ECM New Series1Bagratuni: 2005 Blue Griffin1Mork: 2005 Virgin1Kirshbaum: 1994 Virgin1Geringas: 2011 Es-dur1Gastinel: 2007 Naive1Ma: 2018 Sony1Isserlis: 2007 Hyperion2ter Linden: 2006 Brilliant1Zlotkin: 1997 Parnassus1Dumas: 2018 Urania1


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Re-done poll (2) for *Beethoven: Symphony No. 9*:









Favorite Recordings Of... Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D...


We have redone the nominations due to problems with nominations in the past, and we are now redoing the voting rounds. We have voted upon 13 recordings already in the first round, and the next 13 will be voted on in this second round. Updated rules can be found on post #120 of the main thread...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll (round 1) for *Bach: Cello Suites:*









Favorite Recordings Of... Bach: Cello Suites (8, Round 1)


We have nominated 34 recordings which will be split up into two rounds of 17 recordings each. Updated rules can be found on post #120 of the main thread. Discussion below is encouraged, but make sure to vote! The poll will be open for 7 days, but you can vote for as many recordings as you want...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Finals round for *Beethoven: Symphony No. 9:*









Favorite Recordings Of... Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D...


Welcome to the final round of the re-done nominations for Beethoven's 9th Symphony. The poll options shown here are the top 5 recordings of each of the two previous rounds. Updated rules can be found on post #120 of the main thread. Discussion below is encouraged, but make sure to vote! The poll...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll (round 2) for *Bach: Cello Suites:* 









Favorite Recordings Of... Bach: Cello Suites (8, Round 2)


This is the second voting round for the nominated 34 recordings that have been split up into two rounds of 17 recordings each. Updated rules can be found on post #120 of the main thread. Discussion below is encouraged, but make sure to vote! The poll will be open for 7 days, but you can vote for...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Final results for *Beethoven: Symphony No. 9:*


Karajan1977 DG/BPO7Karajan1963 DG/BPO6Fricsay1958 DG/BPO5Furtwängler1942 Pristine/BPO4Solti1972 Decca/CSO3Wand1987 RCA/NDRSO3Blomstedt1980 RCA/Staatskapelle Dresden3


----------



## lnjng (Dec 24, 2021)

Poll (finals) for *Bach: Cello Suites*:









Favorite Recordings Of... Bach: Cello Suites (8, Finals)


Welcome to the final round for Bach's Cello Suites. The poll options shown here are the top recordings of each of the two previous rounds. Discussion below is encouraged, but make sure to vote! The poll will be open for 7 days, but you can vote for as many recordings as you want. Please make...




www.talkclassical.com


----------

