# on recommendations



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

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 _some_where 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.

The project I created, whose second version is "the classical music project" on this board, was supposed to meet this need. I didn't have the knowledge myself, of course, and I had a high opinion of the knowledge of the participants on that board and this one, and I was trying to find a wikipedia-like way to get them to compile their knowledge and make it useful to me, and people like me. It was an utter failure, from that point of view. My fault of course, I didn't design it well enough, and what it turned out to be is itself worthwhile and interesting, but it is very much another list for the literati, not what I wanted it to be.

The second try, on this board, has gone a little better - the mandatory negative vote and using the word "recommended" in the description both helped - but I've been too lazy and cynical to follow up the recordings part, and of course it is no more a list carefully crafted by experts than anything else - experts dare not risk their reputation with other experts to condescend to do such a thing. (We've seen at least 3 people assert their superiority to such lists, merely on this forum.) It is the product of an arbitrary community of people using an arbitrary methodology pursuing our own agendas (me as much as anyone). Most obviously, we have only a little more consideration for the guy who doesn't know Fur Elise than anyone else on the internet does - we recommend they start with Tristan und Isolde. Still, it's the best thing of its kind that I've ever seen on the internet, and I deeply appreciate the people who've worked on it with me. I also appreciate the people who contributed to the other list, though it wasn't exactly what I needed it was nevertheless very helpful.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

it's kind of trendy and cool to put lesser known works above better known ones. for some people taking part in building these lists/canons, etc.

i just do it the old way, if i want to access various parts of the repertoire. read books on music, a variety of them. magazines like grammophone can be good too in this regard. also things like going to concerts where you get a spread of different types of musics in a particular genre/area. & of course, word of mouth and this forum as well.

i do like a variety of works, and it takes time to sift through things to find things that most connect and resonate with you. lists can be part of this process for sure, esp. for newbies or people who didn't grow up with classical music. on the flipside, lists on these forums can become a turf war.

having said that, i find that most things by big names - and in that i include guys like lutoslawski - connect with me in some way. more often than obscure composers or those doing rehash (my ultimate bugbear). so whether it's brahms requiem or that other work, it's bound to connect. but on the whole i prefer his instrumental, esp. chamber things, so personal taste comes in again...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm new, and when I saw these list projects was both puzzled and stunned at what they seem to be about, and wondered if there was any objective at all (they seem to be more self-servicing than 'helpful,' a possibility to pretend the participants get to be like an expert authority contributing to a respected tome on music history or literature.

I thought the lists were a reprehensibly sloppy and dreadful reproduction of the most popular classical music, with only a few delightful and less than centric pieces and composers on them, which I would applaud. 

Being of my own time and relating to my century, I was also severely disappointed that the last one-hundred and twenty years of great musical literature was barely represented. If it is a list of one hundred or five hundred pieces, it is really (really) time to drop several of those multiple works by the same great composer off those lists to make room for later other equally great composers' works. To not do so is irresponsible: it only further perpetuates a mistaken notion that all of classical music is a museum piece instead of a living art.

Though you were looking for something perhaps methodical and reliable, scholastic / academic to pinpoint, 'these are the great works you should know,' it is art, after all, and I would think steering an inquisitive into one or two galleries of the museum and giving them a map should be enough for a good start. After that, the person who directed you to the gallery might be available to answer further questions, one at a time.

You seem hungry for a grand plan all at once, rather tasting of the current wave of people expecting a quick way to 'master' something or a full and instant gratification in lieu of something which is cumulative and takes years.

I hear a bit of almost something like performance anxiety about your wanting to know which Beethoven Symphony to listen to first, or translate, 'which is the better.' To that, a contextually impossible answer is all that could be forthcoming. 

Too, I see no need to wait to go from or to concerto vs. symphony.

Where lists fail is in being a one-size fits all. As you say, those 'big' lists common to Wikipedia, etc. are available to all, and on those are the most commonly recommended: a similar list here is merely redundant.

This site has neophytes who prioritize Metdner over Brahms due to a personally new and immediate fascination with Metdner. They / we are a mixed lot, some with credentials, some without. Sometimes those without have more and better information than a conservative academe-bound smaller mind in possession of a PhD. Here too, is anonymity - and teenagers keen to share, and those of all ages and stripes, some of whom are given a rare opportunity to 'have their opinion count.’ For some, perhaps, it is the only place in their lives they get some chance 'to perform.'

The best guide is someone who has no ego about impressing with their choices, gets no special thrill out of a pretense at being one of the cognoscenti who contribute to the Larousse Encyclopaedia, and can remain relatively neutral in wishing to 'influence' you in one direction or the other - that neutrality next to impossible, but at least some people consciously try.

That means individuated recommends from individuals, only after getting some sense of what an individual is not only seeking, but what they are most suited to grasp, enjoy, and it is to be hoped excites them enough about the 'new discovery' that they will want to come back for more.

A good guide should also be able to accommodate a neophytes tangential curiosities, going off in a direction not necessarily chronological or within one particular era or style.

That is why classroom music appreciation classes fail: unless you fit the program and are willing to be processed like semi-synthetic cheese, or perhaps are 'average' enough to agree with the canon of great music -- which is nonetheless categorically now 'chestnuts,' you then need one or several individuals to guide you as an individual.

That takes a particular sort of experienced and qualified individual who will also recommend works for you which might be just what you need but in which they have no personal caring or belief whatsoever. That is called teaching, and serving both the pupil and the craft being examined.

Find about three of those, because even then there is the natural bias within the most ethically 'detached' of teacher-gurus; with three different souls you might find an array apart from one sensibility, taste, or aesthetic preference.

The forum members, as a group comprised of a rag-taggle assemblage of professionals, amateurs, dilettantes, eager teenagers, etc. are a good and fun group for many reasons, but not for good specific tutelage for an individual.

I'd recommend abandoning all attempts at 'a list' from such a group. Consult other lists made by academics and music professionals, field a question about a particular piece, say "which of These TWO (not twenty-five) pieces should I listen to first, and why? Always predicate it with a bit of your background or desire, try and think enough about your present sensibility to describe it to others; that is an enormous help in deciding what to recommend to you. Then assess, which, for you are the most suitable answers. Then if those individuals can be approached and or willing, they might become one of those several people who do guide you as you are best guided -- as an individual -- through some of this repertoire. There are oceans of it - no one person, truly, knows it all or favors it all equally.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Thanks for your responses.

(You know it's going to be bad when it starts like that, don't you?)

One thing I agree with Sid James about is "most things by big names... connect with me in some way." That matches my experience; moreover, it is my goal to have that be my experience. Nothing human ought to be alien to me. If only I had time.

But I don't, so I have to prioritize. 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.

Reprehensibly sloppy and dreadful" - maybe so, but "the most popular classical music" - for God's own stinking sake that is the whole dag-nadding point!

But here's what's really going on. Let's drop the pretenses. Civility has been off the table since "performance anxiety" anyway.

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.

One last word on the "classical music project." For good or ill, at least 1/4 of the works are from the past 120 years. (For the top 100 it was exactly 25%; for #301-#400 it was exactly 35%. I didn't check the others.) Of course few of those are from the past 70 years, let alone the past 50 years, let alone the past 20 years, so your point was valid but exaggerated. Fortunately for my purposes, some of the most famous works even of the past few decades are on the list. Paradoxically perhaps, it is much easier for me to educate myself on the past few decades than on the 19th or 18th centuries. I knew of Crumb and Glass and Cage and Adams more than a decade before I'd heard of the Radetzky March; knew of Lutoslawski and Reich and Ligeti and Reimann and Schnittke years before I'd heard of Rameau or Gluck.

It might be hard for you to imagine that kind of ignorance. I hope that in 25 years it will be hard for me to remember it. Unfortunately for you, I'm on pace to succeed. You will probably still be superior, but not so much so.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

Thanks for your thoughts and insights into this phenomenon that had troubled me greatly. I am also in need of help to build up a collection, but when I turned to many sources on the internet, I was perplexed by the prevalence of "unorthodox" choices, which were also presented in rather unsystematic ways.
Speaking of the genesis of recommendation lists, I am wondering if weighing the voters' opinions by their identities would improve the outcome. Maybe for a 500-item list, there are just not enough voters to even out the biases. Someone just have to work out a method, though.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Saw another example recently: the recommendation of Strauss' Alpine Symphony as the first orchestral work a person should hear, above Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, Debussy's La Mer or Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. The selection was defended as "not a basic recommendation."

In other words, another example of: if 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.


----------

