# Obsession With Polls, Lists, and Ranking at TC



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I find it rather tedious and uninteresting to see so many of these types of threads here. What do they contribute to anyone's knowledge or appreciation of classical music? 

Yeah, I realize they're harmless, but isn't there anything better to discuss among intelligent and knowledgeable people?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Generally I feel the same way too, especially about the "classical music project" but if that's what people like to do then it's not like we can do much about it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I'm not saying I completely disagree with you, but perhaps instead of complaining you might start a new kind of thread or not contribute to such threads. An interesting thread is an interesting thread, and it will draw attention to itself not just because its a list. In my view we have a variety of successful threads here, new ones being created all the time.

I personally find the project threads and ranking threads a little more routine and less interesting, but they don't REALLY dominate here do they?

Edit: I suppose looking upon all our latest updated threads, you have a point, but I really like my thread about one movement symphonies nonetheless


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I prefer the tameness of the lists though to the raging debates about modern music.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Sorry, my bad. 

But seriously, I enjoy them very much, as long as they aren't the same ol' "list your top 10 composers ever, omggggg" kind of thing. It's nice to have a thread where we only praise works, rather than bash them. I know that the folks who for some reason or another are drawn only to controversy may disagree though. 

I actually find such threads very edifying in that I learn a lot from the process and the end result (the whole collection of TC recommended lists has become a favorite reference tool for me), and not to mention, it's a nice little package of fun too. So no need to wreck our fun, correct?

I won't go on, since you can read more at the disclaimer here. Oh, and while you're at it, feel free to pitch in a vote if you want. You are formally invited!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Maybe some of it has to do with the absence of Aramis, I both miss and don't miss him.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Participating in lists actually exposes me to a lot of music that I might not have otherwise heard.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well, if the lists must continue, I prefer the ones I can learn from. For example, top 10 contemporary composers you should be listening to. Or best new chamber, orchestral, or solo work you've heard recently.

Maybe these threads already exist? I'd start one, but I'm not that knowledgeable about this stuff. How about a list of the most neglected, or obscure works by famous composers that deserve wider recognition?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I agree with Air and dmg, I don't think anyone really cares how authoritative and accurate these lists are, but aren't they great resources for finding new music? The classical music project in particular is a real gem in this regard. Similar lists can be found online but they're usually much narrower in scope, and are assembled by a single person rather than an assortment like TC's with wildly differing tastes and backgrounds. Another great one is the list of best opera DVDs, which is almost entirely the work of only a few members and a tremendous amount of effort on behalf of Almaviva, I have consulted it quite a few times already. Given this site is fairly well linked with Google I think a multitude of unseen people are getting good use out of these threads.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah, I referred someone to TC today at another forum I frequent. I never even opened the classical music project thread. This forum has an awful lot of threads!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not against these lists, or the canon, but I don't have time to take part & I'm not very systematic with what I listen to. Eg. I basically have the same high regard for Jean-Luc Ponty, Hilary Hahn & Andre Rieu, to name three excellent violinists in their respective fields. Another thing is that I'm just as much interested in histories, contexts, anecdotes, personalities, debates, philosophies, etc. of/around classical music as the music itself. So I tend to hover around threads that offer some of that, as well as cater to more general discussion of things rather than the specifics...


----------



## Xytech (Apr 7, 2011)

The use of lists and polls is at least twofold in my view: 
1. Expose people to music they have not have thought of before 
2. Encourage discussion on the pieces mentioned in the list. This to me is the most valuable part of them. 

I do agree though that an over emphasis on ranking doesn't help anyone - but to say "Best conductor of all time?" is quite different to "Favorite conductors and why they are your favorite conductors" - in my view the latter could give rise to some interesting commentary and discussion.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I agree, but such threads more often than not produce some discussion, and that's the whole point, right?

Plus, it's accessible. To give another extreme, someone posted some huge philosophical treatise in the community forum about how Jesus loves you or some silliness, demanded MLA style rebuttals and generally acted like an ***, which kinda drove away substantial conversation.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> ...To give another extreme, someone posted some huge philosophical treatise in the community forum about how Jesus loves you or some silliness, demanded MLA style rebuttals and generally acted like an ***, which kinda drove away substantial conversation.


If you're talking about the thread started by member Lukecash about religion, my God that had some LONG posts, with endless quotes. I thought I was bad in terms of length, but not compared to that thread, the things there were in bad need of some judicious editing, imo...


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

> Obsession With Polls, Lists, and Ranking at *every music forum in the world*


That's more like it.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Sid James said:


> If you're talking about the thread started by member Lukecash about religion, my God that had some LONG posts, with endless quotes. I thought I was bad in terms of length, but not compared to that thread, the things there were in bad need of some judicious editing, imo...


 That one had "_this is going nowhere_" written all over it right from the off. T'was amazing that anyone even thought it might have any "legs".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I guess if one is not a music student and or music history and musicology aficionado, but just listens to and enjoys the music, then what else would be up for "discussion" other than "what's your favourite/best in ..."?

I'm not a chef nor a cook. But I sure love to ask others "what's your favourite cuisine", or "do you dislike farty egg smells".


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

starthrower said:


> I find it rather tedious and uninteresting to see so many of these types of threads here. What do they contribute to anyone's knowledge or appreciation of classical music?
> 
> Yeah, I realize they're harmless, but isn't there anything better to discuss among intelligent and knowledgeable people?


The main problem I have with them is that 95% of the posts seem to be simply someone's vote and are therefore uninteresting. They also take up a large percentage of all the posting activity on this Forum, and I wonder whether this might put off some people posting more interesting material for discussion if they think that it will simply get crowded out by all this voting actvity.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm no fan of them either. Looking at them bore me, and participating is even worse.

Sometimes, if there is a specific topic like "symphonic poems", then I might find something new, but once a list gets over something like 50, then it's just a big wall of random crap that I can't be bothered to read.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

If polls and lists have a focus on a specific category, and aren't just the whole repertoire(or a huge portion of), I generally feel less swamped and more interested, and I feel they can be extremely educational. Their educational value is one that can be revisited as most of us do not systematically listen to all the pieces right away and have a good sense of how we appreciate them, but rather learn about the piece there and it works on us for a while, and we have a structure within which to frame our interest in the piece. I refer mostly to my single movement/movement connected symphony thread!  If they are a large portion of the repertoire, it takes member's like Air to organize it to make it interesting for me.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

If you want to find out, why not start a poll so that we can vote on whether we like polls or not?


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

I don't see what the problem is. Only a small fraction of threads are polls and lists. I don't care what the format of the thread is, I simply post in the ones that look interesting. If you don't like polls and lists then skip 'em. That is easy enough. But they are not bringing this forum down at all. This forum is healthy with many, many posters discussing many things in classical music. You can find atonal debates, lists, games, playlists, discussions of composers, performers, esoteric works... TC is awesome!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> If you're talking about the thread started by member Lukecash about religion, my God that had some LONG posts, with endless quotes. I thought I was bad in terms of length, but not compared to that thread, the things there were in bad need of some judicious editing, imo...


Uh-oh. The style of the Christ thread isn't going to encourage you, is it Sid?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Uh-oh. The style of the Christ thread isn't going to encourage you, is it Sid?


I was surprised to see threads on politics and religion when I first visited this site. That's a no no at some other music forums I've participated in. I don't mind discussions on the history of religion, or the influence it had on composers, but some folks here insist on quoting bible verses to others insinuating their supposed lost state and how hell is waiting for those who don't believe their dogma. This stuff should be off limits, imo.

I just want to learn about interesting modern music and the best available recordings. I don't care about how Mozart ranks ahead of Beethoven, or vice versa in some minds.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

starthrower said:


> I was surprised to see threads on politics and religion when I first visited this site. That's a no no at some other music forums I've participated in. I don't mind discussions on the history of religion, or the influence it had on composers, but some folks here insist on quoting bible verses to others insinuating their supposed lost state and how hell is waiting for those who don't believe their dogma. This stuff should be off limits, imo.


I agree with you 100%. Perhaps the moderators should sit down and think about whether topics like these should be banned. It really does no good for the health of a forum - people who would otherwise get along are at loggerheads, and the conversations inevitably get more heated until a mod has to step in and intervene. Being a moderator myself on another forum, I know what it feels like to have to make decisions like these.

What is more, discussions on politics and religion are irrelevant to the main thrust of this forum, which is about Classical Music - unless, as you say, the discussion is limited to how a composer has been influenced by religion or politics.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I just want to learn about interesting modern music and the best available recordings. I don't care about how Mozart ranks ahead of Beethoven, or vice versa in some minds.


I hope you find a solution to that problem. I bet it'll be that annoying kind of solution you had in front of you the whole time, but just didn't see...


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

The last few posts seem to have gone off topic. The thread started out discussing whether or not there are too many polls on T-C. It's now discussing whether topics on religion and politics should be disallowed, which is a different matter altogether. There has also been a suggestion that other big classical music forums don't allow topics of this nature to be discussed. 

I don't see how topics on religion and politics can be stopped.  There is too fuzzy a line around each of these topics to be able to do so effectively. All the moderators should do is stop discussion in their tracks if the TOS are breached. The other big classical music forums that I know of (CMG and GMG) definitely do allow any topic to be discussed outside classical music provided they are carried out in the specified areas of those forums. On the whole, those non-musical topics appear to run with very little moderation, if any at all.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

TresPicos said:


> I hope you find a solution to that problem. I bet it'll be that annoying kind of solution you had in front of you the whole time, but just didn't see...


Well now, isn't that how life works? It's like misplacing your keys. They're still there in the house, but you don't know that until you seem them. So many other distracting objects to to draw your attention astray.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Anyway, about the lists - 

In principle, it's a vital exercise for me. First, it reminds me of works that I haven't listened to in too long. But second, it gives me information about what other people think is really good. 

The thing that is called the "classical music project" on this board was born in my brain after spending some months on a site like this, and getting things recommended to me at a rate at least ten times faster than I could actually listen to them. I was thinking, how can I force them to prioritize their recommendations - and the beta version of "the classical music project" was born. 

That's what it's all about for me. I live in a world with Mozart's piano trios, Haydn's piano trios, Busoni's piano concerto, Janacek's operas, Wolf's songs, Saint-Saen's chamber music, Brahms' songs, Purcell's operas, Xenakis' string quartets, Ligeti's string quartets, Maxwell Davies' string quartets, the early symphonies of Dvorak, Halvorsen's suites, Mendelssohn's organ sonatas, Mendelssohn's Elija, Mendelssohn's piano sonatas, Handel's trio sonatas, Chopin's cello sonatas, Haydn's early string quartets, Haydn's masses, Jongen's symphonie concertante for organ, Nono's Inoteranza, Korngold's violin concerto, Faure's piano quartets, Elgar's piano quintet, Enescu's violin sonata #3, Elgar's violin sonata, Mozart's flute quartets, Leyendecker, Mozart's flute concertos, Delibes' Coppelia, Maw's violin concerto, Sarasate's Carmen Fantasy, Orlando Gibbons' anthems, Bernstein's Candide, Reger's violin sonata, Reger's variations on a theme of Bach, Hindemith's organ concerto, Durufle's prelude and fugue on the name of Alain, Biber's Requiem, Saint-Saens' requiem, Bruckner's Te Deum, Tchaikovsky's Mazeppa, Tchaikovsky's 3rd piano concerto, Tchaikovsky's 6 pieces for piano, Chausson's symphony, Franck's symphony, Weiss's lute sonatas, Prokofiev's the Fiery Angel, Rimsky-Korsakov's Le Coq d'Or, Amy Beach's Gaelic Symphony, Nielsen's symphonies, Prokofiev's Ivan the Terrible, Shostakovich's string quartets, Stravinsky's Agon, Corigliano's Red Violin Concerto, Previn's "Anne-Sophie" violin concerto, Lennox Berkeley, Lutoslawski's symphonies, Telemann, Tippett, Haydn's Paris symphonies, Ramirez' Missa Criolla, Couperin, G. Gabrieli, Strauss' Ariade auf Naxos, Alwyn's Lyra Angelica harp concerto, Ippolitov-Ivanvo's Caucasian Suites, Carter's string quartets, Crumb's "Songs, Drones, and Refrains of Death," Berwald's symphonies, C. P. E. Bach, all those Kronos Quartet CDs, Dave Brubeck's music, John Lord's music, Bloch's "America: An Epic Rhapsody," Suk's Asrael Symphony, Haas' string quartets, Faure's nocturnes, Meredith Monk, Brad Daughterty, Josquin, Silvesrov's Requiem for Larissa, Das Gansebuch, Haydn's piano sonatas, Mendelssohn's fifth symphony, Rachmaninov's Vespers, Rachmaninov's 1st piano concerto, Bruch's octet, Bruch's symphonies, Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances, Spohr's clarinet concertos, Liszt's transcriptions for piano of Beethoven's symphonies, Martin's petite symphonie concertante, Bun-Ching Lam's "... Like Water," Lalo's Namouna, Liszt's Faust symphony, Liszt's Les annees perilange (or whatever), Weill's Berlin Requiem, Korngold's Much Ado about Nothing, Messiaen's 20 Regards sur l'enfant Jesus, Bolcom's Songs of Innocence and of Experience, Grieg's violin sonatas, Lassus, Machaut, Delius, Martinu, Hoddinut, Moravec, Hovhannes, Ibert, Victoria, Stanford, Dvorak's piano concerto, Dvorak's violin concerto, 

and so that's why I created the "classical music project." 

It has nothing to do with any objective truth, just an aid to my own exploration. If it doesn't help you, by all means, ignore it! 

It helps me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I left off some stuff.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

science said:


> Anyway, about the lists -
> 
> If it doesn't help you, by all means, ignore it!


I'll have to ignore your list because it hurts my eyes!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> I left off some stuff.


The problem for me is that I see the _same_ thing in your unwieldy wall of pieces two posts above, and in the classical music project thread. The project thread _purports_ to give you a method of exploration, or at least guidance, but because all our tastes differ immensely, the rankings are arbitrary, and so is no more helpful.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> The problem for me is that I see the _same_ thing in your unwieldy wall of pieces two posts above, and in the classical music project thread. The project thread _purports_ to give you a method of exploration, or at least guidance, but because all our tastes differ immensely, the rankings are arbitrary, and so is no more helpful.


Where do you find guidance?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Lists are generally helpful as a "recommended works" guide to save people countless hours of trudging through second-rate music to find something good. However, some lists are obviously better than others...

I don't really like the lists that try to encompass everything like science's list (sorry!) or the DDD top 100 classical works, since there's SO much variety and we must be careful how we compare things. For example, ranking Dvorak's 8th symphony higher than Chopin's Op. 15 Nocturnes has no meaning to me; they were written with entirely different purposes in mind. Dvorak's symphony is for grand concert hall entertainment, Chopin's nocturnes are written for intimate settings.

More helpful are lists broken down by genre (symphony, chamber works, opera, etc), but even these have problems because of how genres and terms evolved throughout the centuries. It doesn't really make sense to compare a Stamitz symphony to a Shostakovich symphony. They had completely different conceptions of what a symphony was supposed to be. Handel had a completely different conception of opera from Wagner; it makes no sense to rank them against each other.

Therefore, it seems pretty meaningless to me to rank compositions spanning different composers, especially across different genres and time periods. Music is about _individuality_. Really, the only meaningful lists to me are those that rank individual composers' works (Beethoven's top 20 works, J.S. Bach's top 50, etc); these lists will usually point out the compositions in which the composer has mastered the technique of their own personal style of writing.

I'll still participate in the top keyboard works and other lists because they're fun, but they're really not very helpful in the end.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I'm guilty of starting several of those 'favorite -insert genre-' polls. Why do I do it? Cause I want to be able to quickly gauge which works are the most popular, and because regardless of a poll or not there will be a discussion about works in the genre. Adding in a poll doesn't really hurt, unless I guess there's some sort of stigma to it, which I don't think there should be. I find there also useful for viewers just starting to get into classical music, to reference which works are the most famous and popular (I certainly targeted 'polling' threads when I first found the site).

As for the lists and rankings... they were fun at first, but now they're getting a little redundant. I don't even understand how the _Talk Classical Recommended Pieces_ thread works. But does that mean we shouldn't have them? They're only around because they're popular, and they'll die down eventually... there are only so many 'Top 100' threads you can make, and since I believe the latest one is a 'single movement' work thread, it seems that they're at the end of the run.

It would be nice to have an 'ignore thread' button though. I get sick of having half of the threads not pertain to classical music at all.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

A short treatise -

As much as we may hate to admit it, there _is_ objectivity in music - there's a reason that Bach's _Well-Tempered Clavier_ is rated more highly than any number of excellent works such as _Schubert's Impromptus_ or _Ravel's Miroirs_. Mind you, these are all works that are perceivably in the "top 30" of all piano works. But even with what seems like a small discrepancy, our brain is at work organizing things. It's something we simply can't avoid.

I think it's a struggle all of us go through. Many of us would claim, eagerly I think, that the main goal of our listening is to ultimately derive the greatest sense of enjoyment possible. And yes, this is only natural. But I think very few of us truly know how to go about it. At the end, organization is, for many, the only way we can truly grasp the significance of our mission, to conquer the Holy Grails of classical music that exist out there. And whether we'll admit it or not, we're not happy with little. And this is why we compare.

Many would argue that Handel and Wagner set out to do very different things, so at the end, why compare? But I want to point out that this is not what ultimately matters to us at the end. Supplemental information is purely supplemental, it does not equate to the true purpose of why we listen. We listen for the enjoyment, the fulfillment - and this is why we compare, because we want to figure out what gives us these things, and the only way to do this is to organize, even in pure, basic terms. But we do organize.

Since the end result is enjoyment and fulfillment, it is almost essential that we know how to get there. Organization is a self-revealing process - it puts our likes and interest in perspective so we have a better grasp of our "mission" as a whole. In a world in which objectivity does not exist at all, every work would be the same as the next - the same ol' - and where does the real significance come out of this sort of listening? Is it possible to derive true enjoyment?

And this is why, I believe, that every human is guilty of making lists - not guilty, perhaps, but susceptible to it. And this is why, for many people, making lists is such a good deal of fun.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Air said:


> A short treatise -
> 
> As much as we may hate to admit it, there _is_ objectivity in music - there's a reason that Bach's _Well-Tempered Clavier_ is rated more highly than any number of excellent works such as _Schubert's Impromptus_ or _Ravel's Miroirs_. Mind you, these are all works that are perceivably in the "top 30" of all piano works. But even with what seems like a small discrepancy, our brain is at work organizing things. It's something we simply can't avoid.
> 
> ...


Nice treatise there, Air. But, would you object to the viewpoint of someone who classifies composers according to their intent to express something, considers whether or not the composer is expressing something that can garner positive results from the listener (i.e. intellectual substance), and then imposes upon him/her self the task of ignoring aesthetic tastes and simply enjoying those composers considered worthy (according to the two aforementioned standards) as if they were equals?

It may be interesting to bring up in another thread, whether or not aesthetic interpretation of music in order to garner an emotional response, subscribes to a lesser version of the same intellectually vacuous pursuit called hedonism?


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Lukecash12 said:


> But, would you object to the viewpoint of someone who classifies composers according to their intent to express something, considers whether or not the composer is expressing something that can garner positive results from the listener (i.e. intellectual substance), and then imposes upon him/her self the task of ignoring aesthetic tastes and simply enjoying those composers considered worthy (according to the two aforementioned standards) as if they were equals?


I would not object. I'm not debating values here, but rather the fact that all of us have to have them - because if not, all of our listening would basically be irrelevant. I should probably also clarify that by "objective" I mean able to be compared within our own minds - subject to classification, organization, listing, etc. Whether two works can actually be compared objectively without the bias of humans is more subject to debate and is a question that is much, much harder to answer. But perhaps that is irrelevant, when it comes down to how meaning is ultimately derived from music _for us_.

Perhaps a good argument for universal objectivity is the fact that there is a significant and obvious LCM out there in terms of what we like and don't like - some works are simply more pleasing in the larger sample size. But then, this still doesn't make them objectively better.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Air said:


> ...As much as we may hate to admit it, there _is_ objectivity in music...


Yes, there is objectivity, but I see it as being combined with subjective reasoning. Eg. scholars will make different conclusions after consulting the same or similar sources. & sometimes they make *very* different conclusions, eg. as to whether one composer or work was more or less influential than another, which composers made the most impact on any given genre/style/era, whatever, which works are more important than others, which should a listener tackle first, etc. I see it as a mix of the objective "baseline" or "consensus" and personal taste, subjective aspects. & it's these things that I suppose the ranking threads here want to get at with regards to the cohort of members on TC.



> ...And this is why, I believe, that every human is guilty of making lists - not guilty, perhaps, but susceptible to it. And this is why, for many people, making lists is such a good deal of fun.


Yes, it is inherent in humans to categorise, it's part of life, for better or worse. Even when you go into a supermarket, the way that's layed out, which goods are placed next to others, which isles contain what things, etc. these things are part and parcel of what we do to kind of make things smoother in life/society, etc. So it's no wonder that it'll be applied to other things, including music. I have a book which discusses 50 composers throughout history, from the Renaissance to more recent times, and in the foreward, writer Jeremy Nicholas discusses how hard it was to decide which 50 to include, to whittle the myriad of composers down to that relatively small number. He did have to take into account his personal biases and preferences, of course, why write a book entirely about composers you may not like? But of course, there had to be balance there, there were certain composers that simply could not be left out of the final tally. Eg. he chose Schoenberg from the triumvirate of c20th Viennese School guys, and I think he made the right choice, in terms of that composer's stature and influence on the other two...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Perhaps a good argument for universal objectivity is the fact that there is a significant and obvious LCM out there in terms of what we like and don't like - some works are simply more pleasing in the larger sample size. But then, this still doesn't make them objectively better.


That would be committing a basic fallacy: The appeal to popularity.



> I would not object. I'm not debating values here, but rather the fact that all of us have to have them - because if not, all of our listening would basically be irrelevant. I should probably also clarify that by "objective" I mean able to be compared within our own minds - subject to classification, organization, listing, etc. Whether two works can actually be compared objectively without the bias of humans is more subject to debate and is a question that is much, much harder to answer. But perhaps that is irrelevant, when it comes down to how meaning is ultimately derived from music for us.


Then we find ourselves coming to this question:

Can the pursuit of music amount to anything more than an intellectual vanity, if it isn't beneficial? Or even more generally- If art doesn't express any value that can benefit the appreciator, why on earth should we bother with it?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> That would be committing a basic fallacy: The appeal to popularity.


Why is being popular a problem? I'm sick and tired, for example, of people accusing composers who are popular and rich - eg. Liszt of times past, or for example Philip Glass today - of being so-called 'sell-outs.' These same accusers also seem to often have a problem with composers who are "obscure" or too "fringe." It seems you can't win, because this type of thinking is a fallacy, imo. It has little to do with the art or music in question, just the prejudices of certain cliques.



> Then we find ourselves coming to this question:
> 
> Can the pursuit of music amount to anything more than an intellectual vanity, if it isn't beneficial? Or even more generally- If art doesn't express any value that can benefit the appreciator, why on earth should we bother with it?


Well, this is black and white thinking, imo. In most cases, I'm happy if a piece of music or composer gives me SOMETHING of benefit or value. When I listen to a piece more and more, I tend to get more out of it in each listen. Even if I leave it on the backburner for a while and come back to it, it inevitably becomes more enjoyable for me in some ways. Recently, I've been finding this happen with composers like Xenakis, Lutoslawski, Szymanowski, Bax, etc. who'd I'd previously not enjoyed or understood as much in my own ways...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Air said:


> A short treatise -
> 
> As much as we may hate to admit it, there _is_ objectivity in music - there's a reason that Bach's _Well-Tempered Clavier_ is rated more highly than any number of excellent works such as _Schubert's Impromptus_ or _Ravel's Miroirs_. Mind you, these are all works that are perceivably in the "top 30" of all piano works. But even with what seems like a small discrepancy, our brain is at work organizing things. It's something we simply can't avoid.
> 
> ...


Don't take this as a rejection of your whole treatise, but its painful for me to here that you are so certain about the objective greatness of the Well Tempered Clavier over Schubert Impromptu's, which in my opinion are in certain ways far more enjoyable. It depends on my state of appreciation, it really does. You can't compare so many things to the Well Tempered Clavier because it consists of so many damned pieces, its so massive its not fair! If you took a slice of Scarlatti sonatas from a period of Scarlatti's work, you'd have something fairly comparable.

Enjoyability is more important than greatness and greatness is more fun to measure within different categories and not across the whole board. Greatness is often really just a consensus anyway, and what people have paid the most attention to often informs greatness even though the attention was not informed by greatness itself, but by reputation. Its so complicated.

So, I feel its more fun to measure the impact lesser known works have among you. If there is a consensus of the quality of certain lesser known works it is a very useful tool for those who haven't heard it, filter through the crap as Ravelian put it, though if you always have such high standards, you don't realize that what you thought "crap" can actually be extremely enjoyable. Then you are truly able to discover the hidden gems.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Air said:


> A short treatise -
> 
> As much as we may hate to admit it, there _is_ objectivity in music - there's a reason that Bach's _Well-Tempered Clavier_ is rated more highly than any number of excellent works such as _Schubert's Impromptus_ or _Ravel's Miroirs_. Mind you, these are all works that are perceivably in the "top 30" of all piano works. But even with what seems like a small discrepancy, our brain is at work organizing things. It's something we simply can't avoid.
> 
> ...


What I was trying to say is that these lists do provide some measure of help for the novice listener, to give them an organized idea of what the Generally Accepted Great Works are. But that's it. Otherwise, yes objectivity exists in music, but not in lists. I think any music scholar would laugh at you if you tried to tell him that Ravel's _Miroirs_ is objectively "better" than, say, Prokofiev's Sonata No. 6.

As for the WTC, I already stated in that topic that it really isn't fair to be including the entire 4-hour WTC in the list. It's of a vastly different scale from anything else if you include it; it should be broken down into prelude-fugue pairs. Nominating the entire WTC is akin to nominating "Satie - Piano Works" or "Scriabin - Sonatas". If these lists are to be of any use at all we should at least try to make it so that the nominations are of similar scale.

If you really want to learn about music, I would suggest people stay away from lists and all this "objectively better" nonsense. Read some music history, or music theory, or biographies instead.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> Where do you find guidance?


Two things:

1) I read about the historical context of my favourite works/composers and work outwards from their influence.
2) If looking for something unfamiliar, I actually prefer to listen to whatever happens to be on the latest 5* albums (I tend to trust the BBC CD Review).

@Air - I agree that quality in music can be objective, but, counter-intuitively, I don't think you can conclude from this that works can be ranked. Never mind ranked reliably on an internet forum.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

starthrower said:


> I find it rather tedious and uninteresting to see so many of these types of threads here. What do they contribute to anyone's knowledge or appreciation of classical music?
> 
> Yeah, I realize they're harmless, but isn't there anything better to discuss among intelligent and knowledgeable people?


I don't know, but I think a forum like this one is supposed to have a mix of hopefully interesting discussions and stuff that maybe doesn't contribute much in terms of knowledge, but that members (many of them anyway) find 'fun to do.' If it's only knowledge we seek we're better off just reading books. And not everyone is a seasoned listener who knows the repertoire inside-out. For the newcomer these 'best 100' this or that lists may actually contribute to their knowledge or make them curious enough to check out certain works or composers.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I'll have to ignore your list because it hurts my eyes!


I ain't no Dr. Mike, but Mr. Mike suggests you go get your eyes checked because that don't sound normal...

...oh, and, uh...what do you know?...you just started up a 'list' thread talking about lists!...is that irony?...

Someone, start another Liszt thread...this, perhaps, may be found to be more acceptable.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hey, this isn't a list thread, it's a discussion about such things! I don't need my eyes checked, but some folks need to use a bit of spacing when listing their lists in a thread questioning the usefulness of lists! 

I suppose lists can be helpful to a certain degree, but I find polls and ranking utterly useless.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

starthrower said:


> I suppose lists can be helpful to a certain degree, but I find polls and ranking utterly useless.


I agree. I hardly ever bother looking at the emerging results of any of the music polls, and when I do so occasionally I can't help but sigh at the waste of effort some of the results are, like for example placing 4 hours of Bach's WTC (a very turgid load of stuff) in front of something far more likeable like Schubert's Impromptus, D 899, which run to a small fraction of the former's length.

Looking at the various T-C "recommended lists" in total so far, I appreciate that this type of thing is one way of learning what's most worth listening to among the various genres, but I question whether it's the best way to learn. From what I have seen on some of these lists, I don't much care for the results other than in terms of providing a mere listing of what's available. The effort at ranking the works numerically seems to be such a spurious activity, and creates a sprawling mess of posts in the process with no real content or value to anyone. Some people are chalking up masses of posts but have made no significant comments about the music they like, why they are voting in the way they do so, except possibly something completely banal.

A further problem associated with all the music polls is that the results seem to be entirely driven by a relatively small number of members, some of whom appear (from their own admissions) don't know much about the topics they're voting upon anyway. The members also seem to change which gives an added twist of dubious statistical propiety. Clearly, the results would be different if the exercise was to be repeated at a later date, and yet these results are emblazoned with labels like "_T-C's Most Recommended .._."

What I especially dislike about them is the attempt to rank works across all time periods as if they are one continuous period. This is quite ridiculous, as the styles changed quite significantly. For example, there is hardly any similarity between Bach's keyboard works and Romantic piano works. Such inter-temporal comparisons are bogus.

For anyone interested, I suggest it would be far better to find yourself a few composers you know you like, then look up internet sources to find what their best works are considered to be. Good old Wiki is a good starting point, and then possibly have a glance at the ArkivMusic website to see which of the various composers' works are the most popular. Take all this with a pinch of salt, don't be mislead by any single source, and then work out for yourself what you like best.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

After my hollow-feeling victory in getting Nielsen's 5th symphony on the recommended list early last month (I was almost single-handedly responsible for getting what I personally consider to be one of the greatest symphonies ever written on this list, and it took FOREVER...) I kind of lost interest.

But, lists have always been a love/hate thing for me. I'm fascinated by them, and they infuriate me at the same time. The fact that Goulding's book on the 50 Top Composers listed people like Telemann, Couperin and Rameau and not Elgar, Nielsen and Barber (the latter didn't even get an honorable mention) drove me crazy at one point. 

But, I'm learning how to chill....

(edited to replace "Top Five" with "greatest"...don't want to be accused of making another list)


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Yeah - every now and again threads pop up criticizing the lists. I don't know what to say other than if you don't like them don't participate. I'm growing tired of trying to justify it. The bottom line is any such list no matter how scientifically constructed will be subject to the utmost scrutiny and derision. I've never claimed the lists to be reliable or accurate at reflecting anything but the opinions of a handful of posters at TC, and would be fine if such a disclaimer was tacked beside all such lists. I participate because for me it is fun and definitely educational. If someone else would rather learn about classical music by reading and not interacting with other people in a game that is fine. Everyone learns in different ways.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Artemis said:


> Bach's WTC (a very turgid load of stuff)


 Disagree


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jalex said:


> Disagree


 I suppose it helps when watching paint dry, but it's a relief to get it over with, and move onto some proper piano playing like Schumann's Ops 1-28.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jalex said:


> Disagree


Seconded (and surly to be thirded and fourthed ect.)

WTC is a really great compilation of amazingly crafted counterpoint, tackling all sorts of concepts such as, augmentation, diminution, inversion, thematic breakdown, intense chromaticism ect...


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

violadude said:


> Seconded (and surly to be thirded and fourthed ect.)
> 
> WTC is a really great compilation of amazingly crafted counterpoint, tackling all sorts of concepts such as, augmentation, diminution, inversion, thematic breakdown, intense chromaticism ect...


I know it is. It's still pretty boring though. I wouldn't choose to play it all that often. It's the kind of thing one pays lip service to rather actually listens to. Stick it away somewhere, and play something listenable to, like Schubert's last 3 Sonatas.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Artemis said:


> I know it is. It's still pretty boring though. I wouldn't choose to play it all that often. It's the kind of thing one pays lip service to rather actually listens to. Stick it away somewhere, and play something listenable to, like Schubert's last 3 Sonatas.


Well your boring is my fascinating I suppose...

Just to be clear, I didn't say WTC is better than Schubert's sonatas, nor did I say you should like them better. Nor did I even say that you should change your mind about WTC. All I said was that I disagreed with your adjective "turgid" to describe the WTC and instead said that I found them to be comprehensive instead. So that cheap shot at me on the other thread wasn't too necessary. Especially since one can find beauty in many different things, not just pretty melodies and harmonies. I happen to find beauty in the fact that Bach was able to do so much with his themes and stick them into one huge amazing comprehensive set. Is that wrong?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

violadude said:


> Just to be clear, I didn't say WTC is better than Schubert's sonatas, nor did I say you should like them better.


But they are and you should


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I participate in the list threads simply because it's fun and a good way for me to learn new works. I'm glad there are others here who enjoy participating as well.

Since no one has explicitly asked moderators to ban list threads or suggested that members refrain from starting similar threads in the future, I assume people are just venting their personal dislike of such threads.

At least one person in this thread as well as some others in other threads have raised an issue that perhaps could use some debate. The results of these list threads are posted in sticky threads with the words "The TC 50/100/150 Most Recommended X" where X is Woodwind/Brass Concerti, String Concertos, Symphonies, etc.. The symphony list includes the words "The results of a poll conducted ..." Those who don't know the process used and number of members participating might view these results as carrying more weight within TC than they really do. Maybe there should be a disclaimer in each post describing how the lists were created and referencing that fact that a small to modest minority of TC members participated. 

I can't speak for other participants, but I doubt anyone feels the lists have any significant authority. The games are fun and the results can benefit those interested in exploring the various genres. Period.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

It's really ironic that the people who are taking our innocent little lists the most seriously are the ones who are not even participating in the lists themselves. 

As I said, it's all a little bit of fun. We're not writing the ten commandments or anything.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

To defend the classical music project, the ranking means almost nothing in terms of how great any piece is over another. It's more like a collection of the members' favorite works than anything else and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Air said:


> It's really ironic that the people who are taking our innocent little lists the most seriously are the ones who are not even participating in the lists themselves.
> 
> As I said, it's all a little bit of fun. We're not writing the ten commandments or anything.


Hope you're not putting me in that group (in spite of what I said). I can certainly see the fun of it all. It just took such an effort to push the Nielsen through that I couldn't muster up the energy to try again (like, say, Nielsen's 4th  ).

That, and the fact that I kept feeling bad for having to take points away from somebody else's favorite.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I suggest we list all the members who have posted in this thread saying that they dislike polls, lists, and rankings, and then rank them with a poll.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Couchie said:


> I suggest we list all the members who have posted in this thread saying that they dislike polls, lists, and rankings, and then rank them with a poll.


 Good idea, not forgetting to rank them for their innovation and influence, aesthetic importance, historical significance, and lasting popularity. I hope I do well. Can one vote for oneself?* importance, historical significance and lasting popularity.*


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think there should be an option for a poll with at least 5,000 options in which we list all the best compositions (by popular consensus, of course...) and then we each have to choose just one. That would educate me so much!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I think there should be an option for a poll with at least 5,000 options in which we list all the best compositions (by popular consensus, of course...) and then we each have to choose just one. That would educate me so much!


Nice strawman


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

tdc said:


> Nice strawman


Nice humourless application of elementary critical thinking in response to a blatantly sarcastic comment. *SLOW CLAP*


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There is supposed to be truth in jest. 

Again man, fine, you listen to the stuff by your favorite composers. But how do you know whether to listen to stuff by Bax, Borodin, Busoni, Balakirev, Beach...? 

There really is just too much music out there, and we have to have some guidance. The point of the list is not that some work is "better" than another, but that collectively more people recommended it and allowed it to be recommended. It is fairly (but not perfectly) reliable: you're more likely to walk into a conversation about Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier than into a discussion about Beach's Gaelic Symphony. 

That might be obvious to you, so you can scorn the lists, but it's something that less well-educated people like myself need to be told.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Nice humourless application of elementary critical thinking in response to a blatantly sarcastic comment. *SLOW CLAP*


Fair enough, but your blatantly sarcastic comment seemed to include a critique of the list threads - I was just pointing out the actual critique was a strawman, and not really relevant to any of the actual threads here. I guess I usually use humor when I am trying to be funny. Others often try to use it to express certain things besides just humor I guess. I wasn't trying to be funny or impress anyone - so why should I be fake about it or beat around the bush?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Gentleman, don't get in a fight just yet... Mother, where did you my pom-poms!!! No, I don't have anger issues! What? I'm going back down to the man cave! Yes, make me dinner, Ma, I won't be watching Dr. Who all that long.



> There is supposed to be truth in jest.
> 
> Again man, fine, you listen to the stuff by your favorite composers. But how do you know whether to listen to stuff by Bax, Borodin, Busoni, Balakirev, Beach...?
> 
> ...


It's not hurting anything, and occasionally I see I name I don't recognize. If I don't recognize it, I typically listen to it, because it at least passed the test of whether or not it's gratuitous Weber music.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> There is supposed to be truth in jest.
> 
> Again man, fine, you listen to the stuff by your favorite composers. But how do you know whether to listen to stuff by Bax, Borodin, Busoni, Balakirev, Beach...?
> 
> ...


I don't deny that we all need guidance - I certainly do, and I said on a previous page where I get it from. I _might_ be tempted to browse lists created with a much, much larger community, but with a place like TC, where the number of regulars is relatively small, the lists are necessarily skewed in all kinds of ways.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Polednice said:


> I don't deny that we all need guidance - I certainly do, and I said on a previous page where I get it from. I _might_ be tempted to browse lists created with a much, much larger community, but with a place like TC, where the number of regulars is relatively small, the lists are necessarily skewed in all kinds of ways.


Well said. That's more or less exactly how I feel about T-C's lists. They're not based on a sufficiently large, experienced group of voters, and they're not based on any agreed standards of "greatness", merely personal favourites. I get the impression that many of the voters haven't heard some of the works they're voting on, judging by some of the eye-wateringly embarrassing admissions about lack of familiarity with much of the classical music canon I've spotted elsewhere by some participants.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Artemis said:


> Good idea, not forgetting to rank them for their innovation and influence, aesthetic importance, historical significance, and lasting popularity. I hope I do well. Can one vote for oneself?


Nah, I think we should do the ranking based on just "greatness", like we always do.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

TresPicos said:


> Nah, I think we should do the ranking based on just "greatness", like we always do.


I meant of course that "greatness" as measured by ... "innovation and influence, aesthetic importance, historical significance, and lasting popularity", in time-honoured tradition as established in A N Other place!


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Artemis said:


> I meant of course that "greatness" as measured by ... "innovation and influence, aesthetic importance, historical significance, and lasting popularity", in time-honoured tradition as established in A N Other place!


Ah, I see. I meant greatness as measured by... eh... well... hm... yeah... whatever. Which is the kind of greatness we usually use. But yours is better, I think.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

When all is said and done, isn't it all rather harmless fun? If people enjoy it, I can't see any reason to condemn it. The fact that only one Nielsen work has made the list so far does not change my personal estimation of his greatness as a composer. I'm not *that* unsure of my opinions.

It would be different if the people participating in the threads were making claims that their lists are definitive, or that they represent the opinions of experts, or even of the majority of people who visit here. But, I haven't seen that. It's just a curiosity that entertains. And, it occasionally might give someone the impetus to check out a work with which she/he is unfamiliar.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> And, it occasionally might give someone the impetus to check out a work with which she/he is unfamiliar.


Not just occasionally. I get a lot of listening ideas from these threads, both new composers and new works of well-known composers.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

TresPicos said:


> Ah, I see. I meant greatness as measured by... eh... well... hm... yeah... whatever. Which is the kind of greatness we usually use. But yours is better, I think.


I can see that I have possibly been a bit presumptous in assuming that other people are as familiar as I am with similar activities as T-C's music lists that have been done previously on other Boards.

The "big-daddy" of them all is probably the type done at the DDD site. The criteria they most often used for defining "greatness" in their various greatest music lists (and they did many) was exactly the one I quoted earlier. I know it's vague and question-begging, and you can't measure things precisely, etc. But all the same, it was a useful anchor-point to come back to, if only to stop all the voters' mere personal favourites being trotted out. If you use the "favourite" criterion alone, as seems to be the case here, you'll risk getting rubbish results unless the sample size is large, knowledgeable and unbiased, which it would be difficult to argue is the case here.

Their voting procedure was completely different too. The results were not based on democratic principles, with results moving at a snail-like pace after numerous mind-bogglingly boring voting rounds. Instead, a short-list of candidates was discussed at each of several iterations among whatever group of members happened to be around, but the final decisions on rankings were taken by a moderator on the basis partly of discussion and by reference to his own resources.

In my view, the results of that kind of approach are better provided you can find someone with the required broad classical music knowledge who is capable of applying himself/herself neutrally to the task. I do realise that some of their music lists are weak (because they lacked sufficient input and interest), but most of them are quite good.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've also learned a lot from the DDD lists.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Amfibius said:


> I agree with you 100%. Perhaps the moderators should sit down and think about whether topics like these should be banned. It really does no good for the health of a forum - people who would otherwise get along are at loggerheads, and the conversations inevitably get more heated until a mod has to step in and intervene. Being a moderator myself on another forum, I know what it feels like to have to make decisions like these.
> 
> What is more, discussions on politics and religion are irrelevant to the main thrust of this forum, which is about Classical Music - unless, as you say, the discussion is limited to how a composer has been influenced by religion or politics.


It's been extensively discussed. The decision, driven by site owner Frederik Magle, was to allow these threads to survive, in the Community Forum area, since many members do seem to like them and to participate. We are aware of the downsides.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Artemis said:


> I can see that I have possibly been a bit presumptous in assuming that other people are as familiar as I am with similar activities as T-C's music lists that have been done previously on other Boards.
> 
> The "big-daddy" of them all is probably the type done at the DDD site. The criteria they most often used for defining "greatness" in their various greatest music lists (and they did many) was exactly the one I quoted earlier. I know it's vague and question-begging, and you can't measure things precisely, etc. But all the same, it was a useful anchor-point to come back to, if only to stop all the voters' mere personal favourites being trotted out. If you use the "favourite" criterion alone, as seems to be the case here, you'll risk getting rubbish results unless the sample size is large, knowledgeable and unbiased, which it would be difficult to argue is the case here.
> 
> ...


I'm replying not only to the above post of yours, but to your multiple contributions to this thread.

I can't speak about the other areas of the site, since my experience here is mostly focused on the Opera area.

Unlike DDD (I'm familiar with their claim that you've quoted), we've always cared for indicating that our lists are merely a 'most recommended by our members' concept (as in, more often recommended by those who cared to participate), with no pretension of being a list of 'best' or 'greatest.' Participation was of course open to *ALL* TC members, and of course only a sub-set of them chose to participate. I still feel that it is entirely justified to call these lists, TC lists. They reflect a style of approaching this sort of thing, and if someone feels that they weren't sufficiently representative, well, too bad, those who think so could have participated. Criticizing an effort from the outside instead of participating to make it better is rarely the most constructive approach.

All that we've tried to accomplish in the Opera area was a way to show to fellow members what some other members have liked and recommend. By interacting with each other, we came to trust each others' opinions and tastes a lot more than the opinions of Amazon.com reviewers, or the opinions of DDD members, or even the opinions expressed in professionally-authored guides and encyclopedias.

Most people in the Opera forum have found our lists - AND the discussion that led to them - rather informative and fun.

Do we have any authoritative knowledge of opera? Well, as a matter of fact, I think we do. We have some incredibly knowledgeable members. Again, I can't vouch for other areas of the site, but I do vouch for the knowledge of our Opera forum participants. We have people there who are among the *most* knowledgeable scholars I've ever encountered or read, including musicians, and people who are part of the opera industry.

For example, one of our current and slow-moving projects - the _Opera In-Depth Project_ - has yielded incredibly insightful and rich information about the first opera that we've tackled (_La Traviata_; next to follow, _Die Tote Stadt_ and third, _Les Troyens_) that goes *way* beyond what is usually found in Wikipedia, and even in professionally-authored opera guides.

Then, when we look at our "most recommended" list (which has just been finished at 272 operas - almost three times as long as DDD's list), I believe (and I'm not alone in thinking so) that the list is actually a very well done and high-quality one. Is it statistically significant? Was it made out of the opinions of numerous participants? No, and no. Still, it is a very interesting and surprisingly accurate list. I don't think our list is any worse than any other similar list. As a matter of fact, I think it is *better* in many ways.

Similarly, our Most Recommended Opera DVDs-Blu-rays list is also very well done and has received lots of praise from existing members, new members, and I'd assume, visitors, since it gets *incredibly* high numbers of visits, in the several thousands.

I've used it for the purpose of expanding my collection, and many others have expressed the fact that it was useful for this purpose.

And above it all, these efforts were incredibly fun, and have highly entertained the members who participated, and others (non-participating readers). Voting rounds have generated numerous interesting discussions.

I wouldn't underestimate the membership corps of Talk Classical in operatic matters. I think it is a fine group, worthy of respect and consideration.

So, you don't like these efforts, you question their validity, you think they contain no valid musical insight, and you think that the people who engage in this effort have no valid knowledge, are biased, the sample size is small, etc.? You're entitled to your opinion, but there is a quick fix to this: don't click on those threads. They've been thriving without you just fine, anyway.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

TC is the only place where people have objections to polls and sensitivity to proclamations of good taste and greatness. That is its distinguishing feature.

Have you visited rock forums? Rolling Stones has lists of the top 500 greatest songs, albums, etc, of all time. Can you imagine a classical music magazine doing the same? 100 greatest arias? I'm not talking about record companies who have "100 best X" albums, I'm talking about magazines.

*Why do you people object to lists?*

Pitchfork - a site of lists.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> TC is the only place where people have objections to polls and sensitivity to proclamations of good taste and greatness. That is its distinguishing feature.
> 
> Have you visited rock forums? Rolling Stones has lists of the top 500 greatest songs, albums, etc, of all time. Can you imagine a classical music magazine doing the same? 100 greatest arias? I'm not talking about record companies who have "100 best X" albums, I'm talking about magazines.
> 
> ...


Because, ultimately they don't mean much.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> Because, ultimately they don't mean much.


OK, my question should have instead been, why do people here on TC object to lists but you rarely see objections to lists elsewhere?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> OK, my question should have instead been, why do people here on TC object to lists but you rarely see objections to lists elsewhere?


Because people on TC are intelligent and independent thinkers


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

violadude said:


> Because, ultimately they don't mean much.


I'm not sure what the lists are supposed to mean. Those of us who participate seem to say the same things over and over. We participate because it's fun. We participate to learn about new music. We know the lists can be useful to those who are exploring music because people have said so. For these reasons the lists have been quite useful and apparently continue to be.

As far as I can tell, those who enjoy the lists and get something out of them participate or look at them, and most of those who do not enjoy them and do not get anything out of them ignore them. In general the lists are similar to all the other threads on TC.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Since this topic has been re-broached and is the subject of a discussion that I'm having via PM, let me quote some of my recent thoughts on the matter, highlights from my blog post: http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/science/950-recommendations.html

-------

I've been reflecting on this, on the basis of projects on this site and even more because of projects on other sites. There is one, for instance, that recently chose Poulenc as the third "greatest" French composer, and is about to put Ravel in first place. Another project is probably going to have both Firebird and Petrouchka beat out Rite of Spring. I've seen Lutoslawski's 3rd symphony recommended more strongly than Beethoven's 3rd. On a recent project here, a bunch of people were recommending Brahms' - was it Nanie? - above the German Requiem.

So what is going on in this process?

It matters to me because a few years ago I needed recommendations. I didn't want to chase down relatively obscure stuff like Lutoslawski's 3rd until I knew the famous stuff like Beethoven's 3rd. If someone had recommended something like Nanie before the German Requiem, they would have most cynically betrayed my trust.

It is a matter of trust; and thus, of legitimacy - a word that I don't see anyone else use with reference to those lists.

The implicit, nearly explicit, attitude, is of course that someone who needs to have Beethoven's 3rd or Brahms' German Requiem recommended to them is too ignorant for our lists. Our list is a work of art: it's supposed to be interesting for us, we people who already know all these works. The goal is to create a list that we (who already know how it is basically supposed to go) can look at and say, "Well, that is certainly interesting. I really appreciate how much more Bruckner there is on this list than on others; and bravo for not putting the 1812 Overture in the top hundred. But goodness me, dearies, are we sure we don't want a little Enescu on the list? He's neglected, you know."

For the totally uninitiated - people who don't already know The Four Seasons or The Blue Danube, if we even acknowledge their existence, for (nose upturned) surely, my god, doesn't everyone already know those works? - there are supposedly lists all over the internet.

In fact, there is not even one that I know of, and I've looked repeated for years. The lists that exist are either

- not prioritized, so that a newbie cannot tell whether Beethoven's 2nd Piano Concerto is more famous/popular than his 5th, and cannot tell either of them relative to Busoni's or Rachmaninov's 2nd - rendering the list all but useless to a beginner; or,

- broken down by genres, such as "symphonies" and "piano concertos," and so on, so that a beginner has to guess whether to do symphonies or piano concertos or chamber music or whatever first, and then, how many symphonies he should know before turning to piano concertos, and how far along that list he should get before moving on, and then, how far along all the genres he should get before returning to symphonies - and further, if there is a work that doesn't clearly fit the genre categories, he'll never hear about it - rendering such lists all but useless to a beginner; or,

- a reflection of the arbitrary tastes of a single individual or a small group of individuals, whose qualifications are uncertain, rather than of the body of classical music fans or experts - rendering such lists all but useless to a beginner; or,

- short, rarely as long as 200 works - rendering such lists useless to anyone who's listened to classical music for a year or two; or,

- without any mention of recordings, rendering them only somewhat useful to anyone at all; or,

- a list of composers rather than works, which doesn't help anyone; or,

- a combination of these failures, or even all of them at once.

The assumption is that the novice can go somewhere for recommendations, just don't bother us while we're making our delightfully idiosyncratic lists! We don't care enough to know better; we were beginners once, perhaps we even despise our past selves who weren't already fully aware of (let alone fashionably disgusted by) the Radetzky March or Carmina Burana, and we're not about to do anything to help them. Lord, they should just know already. ...

I suppose I could just float around listening to random stuff. If that works, I suppose I should invest my savings in lottery tickets.

Now I want to speak in defense of snobbery. I believe in elitism of a certain sort. There is such a thing as expertise. I have none of it in music, but a fair bit in literature. I can give good reasons why The Catcher in the Rye or King Lear are great works of literature, whether you or I happen to like them or not. Further, it is usually fairly easy for me to recognize whether someone is a person from whom I should shut up and learn, someone who knows about as much as me and could enjoy mutually interesting conversations with me, or someone who should shut up and learn from me. Saying this (or even merely being aware of it) is a kind of snobbery or elitism - and I endorse it heartily.

There are other kinds of snobbery, and one of them takes place when a person admits they aren't familiar with something. If I say that I have never heard of Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony, well, you WILL regard me as something like an idiot. If I say that I haven't heard Gluck's symphonies, you probably won't judge me in the same way. That's almost so common that it may be wrong to call it snobbery.

Anyway, the question is, what will I be blamed for not knowing? You can call it "performance anxiety," and though the intent is clearly uncharitable, even cruel, the analogy is easy to see.

Another way of putting the question is, "What are the most famous works of music?" The answer to that might be so obvious to you that you scorn me for even having to ask, but all the same, I don't know the answer. (Well, I've got an idea now. Five years ago I was a lot more ignorant than I am now - and I still consider myself fairly ignorant.)

To be clear, I am not asking - and I've said repeatedly - what works are better. "To translate, 'which is the better'" is viciously unfair. But just in case you're actually unable to see the distinction, I'll try to make it clear with examples from literature. Which is better, We or 1984? That is an open question. Which is more famous? There is no contest. Which would I be more embarrassed not to know? Yup. Cut and dry. But the most famous works aren't necessarily the best. Atlas Shrugged, The Alchemist, and The Power of One are all a lot more famous than Loving or The Shipping News or Disgrace. Marx is more famous than Kierkegaard; Kierkegaard than Maximus the Confessor. It ain't right, but it's so.

What I seek is to educate myself, so that it will never again happen to me that someone says, "Isn't this the Radetzky March?" and I say, "I don't know. I've never heard of the Radetzky March." Along the way I anticipate enjoying a lot of good music, such as the Radetzky March. Admittedly, if enjoyment were the whole point then I could just wander into a CD shop, close my eyes and walk around with my hands out, grab a few things, and viola! I'd know Langlais but not Boulez, Takemitsu but not Messiaen, Medtner but not Brahms. I'd enjoy them, but enjoyment is not the whole point....

The entire point is that I am not supposed to be able to educate myself sufficiently. It is fine, you say, for me to flop around in ignorance listening to whatever comes my way, because, you imply, I will never be nearly educated about it all anyway. Your superiority to me, in this scheme, is not an accident of our educations or talents, but something essential to who I am and who you are. Your condescension is permanent and unalterable. You desire me to be unable to educate myself.

Perhaps I am, but portraying it that way is certainly and obviously a strategy for maintaining your position. So is leaving me with nothing but "enough for a good start." Well done, Johnny. That's a good start. We've done enough for today, huh?

So is pretending that there are "big lists common to wikipedia etc available to all." The point is to dump people like me at 200 works or so - if even that many - and then enjoy the fact that, unlike yourself, we're unaware of Lutoslawski or Medtner - or if by chance we happen to be aware of them, then to enjoy the (even more delightful) fact that, unlike yourself, we're unaware of Brahms. That is precisely and exclusively why you want some kind of "interesting" list with famous works removed to make room for something obscure (though you might love it ever so sincerely) and you do not want a list that would help us avoid the condescension you seek to bestow ever so graciously on our cute widdle heads.

This is the unacceptable kind of snobbery. ...

f you need to be told about the Rite of Spring, this list of recommendations is not for you. This list is a work of art, supposed to be interesting for us, we people who already know all these works. The goal is to create a list that we (who already know how it is basically supposed to go) can look at and say, "Well, that is certainly interesting. I really appreciate how the Alpine Symphony beat out all the usual suspects. It's neglected, you know."

Of course it is, but what do we tell a person who is new to classical music, looking for the most basic, famous, fundamental, influential works? Do we really tell them to listen to something that we consider neglected BEFORE we tell them about the most famous, influential works?

Again, I feel very strongly about this because of my own struggles in getting reliable ranked recommendations. There is certainly nothing at all wrong with voting for favorites, and calling the list something like "our favorite works," but if we call it "recommendations" then we take on a kind of pedagogical responsibility.

As a teacher, I face this kind of thing all the time. My favorite Shakespeare play is King Lear, but the first plays I read with my students are Romeo & Juliet (because it is dirty and funny and not at all the play my students expect it to be) and Julius Caesar, which I don't particularly like, but I read it for several reasons: it's good for students to read before they read Macbeth or the Henry IV plays, it's been a part of high school reading for so long and I want my students not to miss the classic experiences, and finally because several of the scenes and passages are so fundamental to an educated person, no one can consider themselves educated unless they know "Et tu Brute" and "I am armed so strong in honesty" and "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears," and "The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars" etc....

King Lear and Richard III and 1 Henry IV are better for me, but Julius Caesar is better for them.

In exactly the same way, I don't mind at all if someone likes The Alpine Symphony better than The Rite of Spring. But ten years ago, when I needed that kind of recommendation, I wasted too much time listening to Leyendecker and Berkeley and Enescu and Tavener and and Sculthorpe and Dvorak's Mass when no one had told me about Rachmaninov's piano concertos #2 and #3, or Bach's sonatas and partitas for solo violin, or Bruch's violin concerto #1, or Elgar's cello concerto, or Schubert's string quintet, or Vivaldi's 4 seasons, or the Radetzky March or the Blue Danube.

The thing is, no one told me about the Radetzky March because of an implicit snobbishness: if you need that recommended to you, you're not worth my time.

I don't want to make recommendations in that spirit. I do feel very strongly about this - especially because I'm not really sure that there's not something really basic out there that I still haven't heard. Less than a year ago I heard Copland's 3rd symphony for the first time, and less than two years ago I heard Offenbach's Gaite parisienne. And I didn't know about the Radetzky March until last December.

I would like to save other people from that kind of thing. And then, when we do get around to something like the Alpine Symphony - or, one that I will recommend more highly than most other people would, From Me Flows What You Call Time - I can rest assured in the knowledge that I'm not forcing my own favorites on someone for selfish reasons.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I should clarify that the comments following the first ellipsis were in response to a suggestion that we should not hope for good lists of recommendations.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> Because people on TC are intelligent and independent thinkers


There we are!

And by extension, since we're all classical music lovers .... it must mean that...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> There we are!
> 
> And by extension, since we're all classical music lovers .... it must mean that...


Hmm I don't follow. That's kind of like saying all Nazi's were racists, therefore all Germans are also racist.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

I don't understand this obsession with our obsession with polls, lists and ranking. 

If you don't want to participate, don't. If you don't want to read that kind of threads, skip them. 

We poll, list and rank for fun, out of interest, to socialize, to learn, or simply to please our inner OCD demons. 

And when we are done, others can browse the lists and explore away. I don't think we're hurting anyone.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I prefer the tameness of the lists though to the raging debates about modern music.


But this is supposed to be about debates, although certain types seem to think debating is about bullying people into their way of thinking.
Lists are pretty pointless because you need to have heard a lot and seen a lot before it makes sense for you to take part.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> I should clarify that the comments following the first ellipsis were in response to a suggestion that we should not hope for good lists of recommendations.


I think that every word you've said is absolutely spot on and I have been of a similar mind all along'


----------

