Talk:String trio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon String trio is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 

Edits[edit]

I have changed the list of works so they are classified by scoring. I have deleted the reference to the Mozart Trio as being for two violins and double bass and added the comment that, while early trios are usually by 2 violins and cello, the latter instrument is usually called "bass", as it could also be played by a viola da gamba or other bass instrument (hence the misleading name of the Mozart trio). --Joris Peters (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant work on the whole, and your observation about the early Mozart trio is probably correct. I have however reversed one change, since the viola da gamba was no longer a serious presence in the early Classical era. I have also clarified this time-frame, which is very plain in the cited source (the New Grove article on the string trio).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unnamed section[edit]

List of works -- could someone add a list of works to this page, similar to that on the Piano Trio article?

The word "terzetto" is given an internal Wikipedia link, but clicking on it re-directs to this page. Not very helpful. Escoville (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. The "terzetto" link is even more problematic, as it was mis-defined on this page. The Grove article makes it clear that while that word was applied by Dvorak to his, it is not used for any particular combination of instruments; indeed, it is more commonly applied to three voices rather than tree instruments. That "terzetto" doesn't mean the Dvorak instrumentation is further reinforced by the parts of the first edition of Beethoven's Op 9 trios (for the usual instrumentation; avialble at http://imslp.org/wiki/3_String_Trios,_Op.9_(Beethoven,_Ludwig_van) ) calling them terzettos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosirrom (talkcontribs) 04:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Haydn?[edit]

I'm aware of maybe one composer who wrote string trios for violin/viola/cello before Mozart's (Vaclav Pichl, I think...) (throwing caution to the winds- surely there were others, with so many composers around...) but I thought "Haydn's string trios" were later arrangements of works by Haydn by other people? Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim is cited and, though it is only to The New Grove, this may just pass the "reliable source" requirement for Wikipedia where, of course, truth is irrelevant. Or words to that effect. Tilmouth and Smallman (the authors of the New Grove article on the string trio) include Barry S. Brook's 1983 Current Musicology article in their bibliography, and it appears they may have confounded Brooks's authentication of some of the 2-violin/cello trios with the violin/viola/cello scorings. The exact quotation at this source is: "Although the trio for two violins and cello was not wholly abandoned even during the 19th century, that for violin, viola and cello began to take precedence. Haydn seems to have been the first to use this combination, soon followed by Simon Le Duc (op.1, 1768), Boccherini (op.14, 1772) and Giardini (opp.17 and 20)". Although it looks like one of those embarrassing lapses that we have come to anticipate with glee when perusing New Grove, the tricky bit in this kind of situation is to find an adequate source to rebut so plain a statement in such a widely accepted reference book.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Jorge Grundman[edit]

There have been some questions about the notability of Spanish composer Jorge Grundman. People inserting, removing, undoing, etc. Unpleasant. We don't like to see this in Wikipedia, do we? The Brodsky String Quartet who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page have recorded some Grundman works, so apparently Jorge Grundman has got some notability. However it is up to the person who includes the works in lists (such as the lists of string trios, lists of flute sonatas, etc.) to prove notability. This can be done most easily by creating a Jorge Grundman page in Wikipedia. You'll have to justify notability for Jorge Grundman to create that page. But you'll only have to do it once, instead of arguing with other editors about every single inclusion. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are more comfortable with some other language, you may create the page on some other Wiki and make the link point to that page. For instance, if the page is created on the Spanish Wiki that would be (look at the source) Jorge Grundman. For the moment this link is blue but only because the Jorge Grundman page was created on the Spanish Wikipedia but has since been deleted (see reasons for deletion on the Spanish wiki; by the way, to show such links in blue is a bug if you want my opinion). Grundman is mentioned though in several articles of that wiki. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 07:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think you will find that anything at all will appear as a bluelink if you use that format—it is not necessary for there to have formerly been an article of that title. There definitely is a bug in it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This observation means that editors who watch a page and are alerted to the appearance of a new bluelink should always follow the link. There's no substitute for that, since, even if that bug is fixed (and I don't know how easy it would be to fix), nothing could prevent a dishonest editor from including a fake bluelink that would trick any editor who would rely only on a superficial visual inspection. Here the shade of blue is not quite right but an enterprising and dedicated spammer wouldn't have much trouble obtaining the exact shade, either from documentation or by trial and error: here for instance is something closer though not quite right yet either. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually for fooling a superficial visual inspection there's much easier even: this link Jorge Grundman is a legitimate link on the English Wikipedia and it's got the right shade of blue. Except it doesn't lead to any Jorge Grundman page, but to the Main page. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are any number of ways of creating fake bluelinks, though as far as I am aware only the {{:la:foo}} template (where "la" is any two-letter code for a Wikipedia in some language) will produce an apparently valid connection when you float the cursor over it. Personally, I always check new bluelinks of names I do not recognize. Sometimes this uncovers an article with doubtful credentials; other times I learn of an interesting and notable figure of whom I was previously unaware.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)