Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Music Publishers' abbreviations

Could someone confirm how I decoded the orchestral instrumentation details near the top here on Schott's site. Elsewhere I have a list of performers of this work including flute, oboe and 2 clarinets, so does the "1(afl).1(ca).2(bcl).0" at the beginning indicate that flute doubles alto flute, oboe doubles cor anglais, and both clarinets double bass clarinet. the "-1.1.1.0-" thereafter means that the three brass instruments I already know about don't double anything and "pno(cel)" means that the pianist I know about also plays the celesta which I didn't know about? I can't work out all the percussion, but it probably would be going over to top to list them all.

I think it indicates 1 flute (doubling alto flute), 1 oboe (doubling cor Anglaise), 2 clarinets (one of them doubling bass clarinet), no bassoons, 1 trumpet, 1 horn, 1 trombone, no tubas, 8 percussion players (playing - crot [?], vibraphone, marimba, suspended cymbals, 3 gongs, tam-tam, bass drum, pedal bass drum, ratchet, claves, whip), 1 harp, 1 piano (doubles with celesta), 1 desk of first violins, no second violins, two desks each of violas and cellos and 1 desk of double basses. No idea what "crot " means. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Crotales, I'd wager. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both for the help with the decoding of the percussion. I have the programme from when I saw this in 1997, so I know there are only 16 instrumentalists. Indeed, they have single word descriptions (except for "double bass") in the programme. So, I knew the number of wind players but didn't know about the doubling until I saw the list on Schott's page for the piece. From the programme, I know it's one percussionist and single string players, not desks. But, it's the number of bass clarinets that's the real puzzler. If you (Jubileeclipman) had been right about the number of strings and percussion, I would have taken your word on the one bass clarinet, but I think I'm wanting another opinion still on that.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah! It's 1 player playing 8 crotales, 1 vibraphone, etc etc, which gives 1+1+2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+2+2+1=16 which is the exact number you cited. It's rare, but not unheard of, to have both clarinets doubling on two different bass clarinets. Perhaps they have to take turns passing the three instruments between them, eg first and second are essentially equal and either plays bass (as required) whenever that player is free? Does that solve it? It nt clr anwy fm t abrvtn...! (They are a nightmare at times.) --Jubilee♫clipman 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly doubt they would use the same instrument. Having both clarinet players play bass doesn't seem odd in a modern work for a smaller group like this, and very likely if they both do, they would at the same time. I'm guessing the lack of a '2' in the parenthesis means this is indeed the case. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Or rather the lack of a "1" to indicate only one bass... Actually your probably right, there are two basses used at the same time (therefore both are needed, obviously). --Jubilee♫clipman 15:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, its quite intreguing instrumentation: no bassoons (making it top-middle heavy in the woodwinds), and no seconds but two each of the violas and cellos (making it bottom-middle heavy in the strings). Presumeably the woodwinds are given most of the accompanying melodies and the strings and brass supply mid-low harmonies below them and the soprano? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Addendum - the fact that it's a mezzo is probably significant, too... --Jubilee♫clipman 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Having asked at WT:WPO and elsewhere and got an answer from an actual published composer who seems to lack a bio here, I cna say that the consensus is that there is just one bcl.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Ferry

This artcle is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Ferry for members who may wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange edits at Debussy and his preludes.../Skidmore College

Since this affects two articles, I posted it here, though technically one is a composer and the other a composition...but anyway. ZEN99999 (talk · contribs) made some odd, but potentially useful edits to Claude Debussy and Préludes (Debussy). The weirdest thing is that the person made this nonsense edit, which I reverted, before making the string of edits to that page, and at least on the Debussy article seemed to remove a couple refs. And other various things. I almost wonder if it's another assignment of some sort... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A class assignment would be a good guess. Pstrongw (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing for serenade -- editing the topic article, and then a specific composition, in this case the Serenade for Strings (Dvořák). The style of referencing (manually numbering them) is identical to Zen's. Antandrus (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing has been announced here. --Kleinzach 06:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It's Skidmore College in upstate New York. --Kleinzach 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the others that I think are part of the project so far:
Drpainosaurus (talk · contribs)
Aprickel (talk · contribs)
Kbohn (talk · contribs)
The assignment seems to be to add two new sources, and edit a general and a specific article on a topic (e.g. Mass (music) and then a specific mass; Rimsky-Korsakov and one of his works). There's probably plenty more, as my watchlist isn't enormous. The edits I've casually inspected look OK; it's not like, um, some of the ones we've had. Still I'd recommend people have a closer look if they have time. By the way there's a pretty good editor working on Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, which is fine with me since it's been on my to-do list for ages! I don't know if that one is part of this class or not. Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Pstrongw has asked his professor to announce their project. Students are also asked to add {{EducationalAssignment}} to the talk page of the articles they edit (see here). --Kleinzach 06:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow editors. My apologies for not announcing this assignment in advance. I have now announced it and described it at School and University Projects, listing the topics that students have edited. I have also gone through and tagged the articles with Educational Assignment. Although people will quibble with some of the edits and may undo some of them, I firmly believe that, on balance, this group of students and their work will enhance Wikipedia overall and many of the entries they have edited or created. They have learned quite a bit from the exercise, about research, about their topics, about editing, and about how Wikipedia works. They were expected to include a 'summary of edits' and some rationale on the Discussion page, but I am finding that not all followed that instruction. I have also asked them to be civil in their discussion, and I thank all you fellow editors out in the wider world of Wikipedia for responding to this with such equanimity. jonesville05 96.236.4.87 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck with your project. I see the announcement is here and it covers Mozart, Don Giovanni; Haydn, Nelson Mass; Sor, Variations on a Theme by Mozart; Rossini, Barber of Seville; Chopin mazurkas; Chopin nocturnes; Liszt, Sonata in B Minor; Tchaikovsky, Swan Lake; Dvorak Serenade; Rimsky-Korsakov, Sheherazade; Debussy, Preludes; Debussy, Suite Bergamasque. --Kleinzach 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've only just reviewed this and it appears to be far superior to the other one! Just shows how a proper set of criteria and good guidence can make all the difference. Good luck jonesville05 and thanks! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Diminished unison

Is this a viable article? I can see the rationale, but I don't think any theorist uses the term except in jest! --Jubilee♫clipman 15:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Augmented unison is a redirect. Also, technically this is theory, and not classical (though the theory project is basically dead). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
At least in theory augmented unison could mean something, whereas diminished unison is just a paradox (depending on whether you regard intervals as a scalar or a vector quantity). Since I don't have perfect pitch, I hear intervals in a scalar way, but I guess someone with perfect pitch might be able to imagine a diminished unison. Looking through the Google hits, this is clearly something people like arguing about, but neither term has any usefully applicable meaning. --Deskford (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's my take: if somewhere out in the world, there are professional musicians or music theorists who take this term seriously, then we ought to keep the article--but add language to it indicating that the term is extremely unusual. (We need to avoid misleading any music-theory newbies who read the article.) If on the other hand "diminished unison" is not seriously used by any legitimate musicians or theorists, we should delete the article. Opus33 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would say the Augmented Unison makes perfect sense. How else to describe c-c♯ (an "altered" unison) as opposed to c-d♭ (a minor second)? Move the article there, IMO, given that I just made up the term "altered" unison. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(I have copied this discussion over to the article's talkpage. We need to resolve this there, really. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum - I've contributed some more to this discussion over there. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

Chaos/Projects

I'm sure this topic is one that has been brought up thousands of times before. At least twice, perhaps.

What is the purpose of these subprojects within WP:CM? The existence of a WP:Wagner begs the question, "Why isn't there a WP:Chopin? A WP:Mahler?" There's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Haydn and Mozart so why not? I understand the idea of recognizing all the interests in classical music, but one has to draw the line somewhere. Will there be a WP:Ninth Symphony someday?

This has further led to banner messes. Guidelines should be set regarding what articles fall under which category, to avoid a slew of banners (as, for example, at Talk:Claude Debussy - not the worst, but close). All this contributes to the general lack of organization that characterizes our project.

I'm not here only to complain. I'm willing to help out – even make some compromises if necessary – if any action will improve the "cluttered-ness" of our condition. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream (Classical) Music is a large field. You will find discussions about the various projects in their respective archives. If you have any specific questions, I or someone else can point you to a particular archive. Please note that contributors on WP are free to start projects and then see if they can attract support. If they don't get support there are also ways of deleting them. --Kleinzach 06:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(Thank you for the prompt response.) I am well aware that users are free to start any project they please, neither do I have any queries/doubts that need to be clarified. Respectfully, that's far from my point. I only wish that these projects be consolidated somehow so that our work seems more unified. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 06:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Amen to that! (I've just been saying exactly the same thing at the Composers Project.) --Kleinzach 07:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I join in La Pianista's skepticism regarding these subprojects. It's not like there's a huge amount of traffic on the talk pages of those projects that would burden us with loads of discussion which was not of general interest. Altogether a couple of posts at each of the two daughter projects during the last month. Moreover, much of the discussion on the talk pages of those subprojects would, I believe, be of general interest to others on the project; yet if you aren't a member of the subproject, you are out of the loop. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's just really the way WP evolved. Over all there used to be a bunch of active project about smaller subsections of interest -- but back then, the articles under those project had yet to be written or at least developed. So a project like, say, Wagner originally had plenty of stuff to talk about as it were because at the time Wagner articles weren't in the state they are now. So over time they just got abandoned or folded back into the more main ones (possibly as a task force). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia has evolved into that, but inefficiency is still inefficiency. What should we do to remedy this? Where do we start? —La Pianista ♫ ♪ How's my driving? 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If they are essentially task forces or workgroups, then they should indeed be folded back in using the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Converting existing projects to task forces. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some facts: there are very few classical music-related projects, compared to those for popular music. See this list, where the inactive projects are grey. There are no inactive projects for classical music related subjects. The Gilbert and Sullivan and Wagner projects are under the Opera project not this one. (Note that they have both been very successful at developing good quality articles.) The only two smaller projects attached to this one are Contemporary music, (recently revived), and Haydn and Mozart. IMO the latter is the only project of any relevance here. --Kleinzach 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to that: the Contemporary music project decided not to become a Task Force. The archives are quite clear about why this was decided. Haydn and Mozart are such fundamental individuals that often get misrepresented that a project is very necessary. Beethoven could probably warrant one as could Bach but no-one has ever seen the need, AFAIK. However, we could communicate better and not only with each other but also with the related projects and especially with the parent Music. KleinZach appears to be the only liason at the moment and does a sterling job as far as I can tell! Perhaps I need to follow my own advice... hm. Thanks La Pianista you raise a timely point! --Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
*bows*
Now, as to course of action (one thing at a time, folks)...perhaps we can merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Haydn and Mozart with WP:Composers. Or is the Composers project too cluttered as is? —La Pianista ♫ ♪ How's my driving? 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, but you need to go to Haydn and Mozart and propose that there. --Kleinzach 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Done! —La Pianista ♫ ♪ How's my driving? 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment on the specific proposal to merge H&M with Composers over at the H&M talk page. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

New IRC channel

I have established an IRC channel for our WikiProject at irc://freenode/wikipedia-en-classicalmusic to speed up discussions somewhat - as well as to establish a "coffee shop" of sorts to ease communications. If this is your first time using IRC, please read WP:IRC before joining.

Thanks for your interest, and hope to see you there. :) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ How's my driving? 04:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Live chat... that is novel! Am I allowed to chat you up? :P Seriously though IRC worth looking into. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

School project - Longy School of Music

The Longy School of Music have just finished a class project. Their project page is User:Futureclass. These are the articles, they've produced/edited so far this term, in case members want to look them over. The first 3 are quite problematic.

– Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. I'll check those out alongside their project page. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Conductorless orchestra (new article, quite decent) is massively understating it! The article never even existed before this entirely new user came along and created this excellent offering. Hats off to SoundMusic! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I was impressed by that one too. Nice job! Maybe we can persuade SoundMusic to stick around ... :) Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I do hope so! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

(I am not sure how active the Theory project is so I post this here and at WP:WP MUSIC)

Diminished unison should be merged into Semitone. See Talk:Semitone#Merge_Diminished_unison for more. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Mathieu van Bellen

This article about a violinist is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathieu van Bellen. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Musical terminology

This important category, a sub-cat of Category:Terminology has been essentially depopulated by an editor using a script. See discussion on the Music project, here. --Kleinzach 23:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. Unlike the similar Category:Opera terminology which has 128 pages, Category:Musical terminology is now reduced to 21, most of them lists of terms. --Kleinzach 05:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Complement (music)

Request review of this article. I can't make head nor tail of the final section... See the comments on the talk page. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Bach cantatas - article names

I wonder if all of the articles on Bach cantatas should be renamed. For instance, Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern is a rather famous hymn, yet the page that bears that name isn't about the hymn, but about Bach's cantata that incorporates the hymn: Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern. I can't make the same argument for all of Bach's cantatas (since, after all, not many hymns are actually famous), but it works for quite a few, e.g. Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland, Gott ist mein König, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, etc. Furthermore, many of these hymns have been set in other works by Bach (his numerous organ settings), and still more have been set by other composers. For example, Pachelbel's cantata on Christ lag in Todesbanden is an important work that influenced Bach's, and the hymn itself is also somewhat known.

So I suggest renaming all of the Bach cantata articles in the following way:

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern -> Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern (Bach)

Or better yet, since some chorales also exist as organ settings by Bach,

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern -> Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern (Bach cantata)

Thoughts? If enough people agree, could a bot run be organized to do this? We'd also have to fix red links at List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, and perhaps elsewhere. --Jashiin (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should just be renamed to the numbers, since that's what most people know them by. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Melodia has a good point, actually. Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (BWV 140), at the very least, could cause some consternation if all the canatas were renamed as Jashiin suggested: the 4th movement is so stupendously famous that it alone is usually referred to as Wachet auf!. (In fact, the text is Zion hört die Wächter singen, but anyway...) In this case the clear winner for the undabbed name is the cantata rather than the chorale. There is also, of course, the even more famous chorale prelude on Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (BWV 645) (transcribed from that 4th movement and so named by Bach), but this doesn't even seem to have an individual article (though it should probably redirect to Schübler Chorales). If the numbers are used instead, though, Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (chorale) should be moved to the vacant Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme and a dab lead added directing the reader to Cantata 140 (Bach) (or whatever); furthermore, a redirect from say Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (cantata) would be unnecessary. This is because direct links take precedence over redirects. There is also Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd (better known—incorrectly—as Sheep May Safely Graze) which needs careful thought. For most of others, the fact that the Bach cantatas would be identified by number would justify the inclusion of a dab of some sort in any necessary redirects. (The redirects are still necessary because many people don't actually know the numbers. I didn't know that Wachet auf was number 140 until I looked at the article just now...) There is a slight problem, though: Bach didn't always call the works now called cantata by that name and most of these works are actually identified by litergical date rather than a number or name. However, the numbers are traditional and the names are based on the chorale used in each, so whichever of these systems is used will have clear historical backing. BTW, don't forget to update List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach and Johann Sebastian Bach etc, whatever changes are made! This might in fact be far more work than you presently think... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
There's also the template :P. But yeah, you make a good point about what Bach called them...but MANY composers didn't number/name things the way we do them today. Quite often composers didn't number things (Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, and even Dvorak wouldn't recognize the numbering we use today) and then you get into stuff like Fur Elise which probably wasn't the correct name, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation suggest that disambiguators are only needed if there is ambiguity. If there is, the better known title wins (no disambiguator) and the article gets a hatnote mentioning the other article(s) (e.g. Don Giovanni); if there are too many other articles, the hatnote refers to a disambiguation page (e.g. Carmen). As far as accessibility goes, I believe all of the cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach already have REDIRECT based on the BWV number, e.g. BWV 1. In short, I don't see a problem with the current naming scheme. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the present scheme follows the WP:NC "ideals" to the letter, IMO. The only things that may need to be added are redirects from other possible search terms such as Cantata 140 (Bach) etc (or maybe just Cantata 140 etc, given that very few cantatas are more famous than those by Bach). Might be worth just checking through all the possible search terms in user space just to see if any of these possibilities already exist (either redirecting to the expected article or used for something else) and check the sources to see if they are actually justified (eg BWV 140 might never actually be called Cantata 140) There may also be other possible titles that we have not even thought of (eg Cantata for 27th Sunday after Trinity the litergical date format for BWV 140) but that assumes these are widely used, of course. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to clarify. Sure, most people have no idea what a chorale is, and most of the cantatas that enjoy any considerable popularity are by Bach. Nevertheless, our readers should not be misled into thinking that Bach's cantatas are somehow unique and that it is proper to refer to them by chorale titles only. I can't singlehandedly create a hundred pages on all kinds of chorales and cantatas by other composers. It doesn't seem that anyone is currently interested in creating such articles, either. So while the situation is like that, the only way to somehow warn people that "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" is the name of a chorale, and Bach's setting is just one of many settings (cantatas, organ chorale preludes, etc.), is to put a little identification in the article's title. I'm not suggesting that we should create disambiguations, merely that article titles should reflect that the articles are not about the chorales, but about Bach's cantatas.
A suitable analogy, I think, is the "term" "Symphony No. 5" or "fifth symphony". Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is by far the best known of all fifth symphonies, and most people searching for "fifth symphony" are searching for Beethoven's work. (If in doubt, try a "fifth+symphony" Google search for "fifth symphony".) Yet the article on Beethoven's symphony is titled Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven), and not Symphony No. 5. --Jashiin (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well actually, I would say that Symphony No. 5 (Mahler), Symphony No. 5 (Schubert), Symphony No. 5 (Shostakovich), Symphony No. 5 (Sibelius) and Symphony No. 5 (Tchaikovsky) are also exceptionally famous, particularly the Schubert and the Tchaikovsky...

No, the way to explain this is by in-line explanation and wiki-linking if necessary (and possible). Usually,

This page is about the Bach cantata. For the chorale, see Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (chorale).

is good enough if the page exists and there isn't any in-line discussion of the cantata itself. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what if the page does not (yet) exist? Just keep things the way they are, even though it is somewhat misleading? --Jashiin (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
No, we make sure the article that does exist gives the proper explanation. Actually, we might need to check this in all the cantatas since this isn't always the case. However, if the chorale didn't have an article, the following (without the wiki link) would be enough:
BWV 140 is based on the chorale of the same name by Philipp Nicolai. This Lutheran hymn remains popular today both in its original German and in a variety of English translations. (From Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme.)
In this case, the undabbed article fully explains the fact that Bach's work is based on an earlier chorale (which itself is still popular). There are only two affected articles at present and the Bach canata (or rather one of its movements) is overwhelmingly the primary target. The fact that there are over 20 blue linked articles in Symphony No. 5 (plus a few reds) justifies that page being the dab, given that at least 6 of these are hugely popular works. Yes, the general public might only have heard of the Beethoven but to be quite frank I doubt if any of them have actually heard any more than the opening d-d-d-doooooooo.... Then again the melody of movement 2 of the Tchaikovsky is also exceptionally famous (to say nothing of the opening motif of that symphony). The general public are not a reliable source! --Jubilee♫clipman 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC) BTW, the Google search returned Beethoven, Shostakovich and Mahler on the first page alone; the next pages added Sibelius, Tchaikovsky etc. Admittedly, the Beethoven was more predominant than the others but the difference wasn't enough to convince me that it is clearly the primary target. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_26&oldid=1190134012"