Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Genres

Some of us are working on lists of compositions involving making decisions about genres. This is not always easy because we don’t have any lists defining terms. Category:Lists of music genres has a number of articles but there is no 'List of classical music genres' as such. We do have a long List of music styles, which starts well and then dwindles, but that is really for pop and folk music. We also have an article on Music genre, with a good introduction that approaches genre in an intelligent way, but that also is incomplete. Should we attempt a 'List of classical music genres'? One approach would be to agree a definition — distinguishing genre from style, form and instrumentation — and then divide up the work by category or period: maybe voice, chamber, symphonic, choral, Baroque, Classical, Romantic etc etc. Any interest? Any ideas? --Kleinzach 00:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support and willing to help. Some initial observations:

• Initiative has overlap with earlier initiative User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types that was born out of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Improving "List of compositions" articles.
• We have to take into account that compositions may sometimes belong to multiple genre's or its genre may be ambiguous or controversial.
• Hopefully we can align these genres with categories as well and vice versa. For example, I would expect that all articles in Category:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have an entry with Genre Psalm in List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. (interestingly this random pick already appeared to be an example of inconsistency, see talk).
• Some other relevant articles: List of opera genres, List of musical forms by era, Category:Song forms, Category:Musical form, Category:Western classical music styles. LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply: The articles in Category:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have now an entry with Genre Psalm in the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. In addition, I have set a link to the wiki page on the individual psalms in de column "Notes" (see talk). I think that it is, as we say in Belgium, "Un compromis à la belge" (a quite good political compromise).

Some genres, which are relatively specific to a country, have currently no link to a wiki page, e.g., Weltliches Chorwerk, which could be translated as "Secular choral works". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. I will put up a list on a user page next week, probably based on existing WP material, and we can see what it looks like and how we can take it forward. Kleinzach 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The genre "Psalm" with a link seems a bit strange, - could it be at least "Psalm composition"? For Bach, someone created a category even more cautiously named Category:Psalm-related compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, including works that set not a complete psalm but only part of a psalm within a larger work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I noticed that. Some attention is needed to sort out these church-related genres and categories, but then there are problems across the board. No one has done much systematic work in this area. Good editorial cooperation would be needed to address all these matters, but that's difficult if not impossible in the present climate. Kleinzach 13:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Psalm could perhaps be replaced by Psalm set to music. See section Psalms set to music in page Psalms. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'set/setting' is better in this context than 'composition'. --Kleinzach 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. But doesn't the addition "set to music" sound a bit like something that is already implicit in the term being used in the context of musical genre? You would not use it in a sentence, e.g. "Bruckner composed a beautiful psalm set to music.". And for the psalm example there might be many others that would potentially need such addition, some examples from the Bruckner list: Mass, Requiem, Offertory, Magnificat, etc LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Gerda's point relates to categorisation rather than text. You are right about not saying "composing . . .set to music". --Kleinzach 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We have Mass (music) and Requiem (music). Could we have similar constructions, such as Psalm (music), Magnificat (music), etc.? Could we perhaps list both, the composer's name ("If a composer calls his work a aubade then it's a aubade, even if it's all about the dark side of the moon.") and a more common term? Respect the composer but still have it in one of our categories? Say that the composer called Tristan and Isolde "Eine Handlung" (An action) but also say "opera"? Recent example The Company of Heaven, it started as incidental music to a radio feature, our article cantata lists it as a cantata, with justification. - Did you know that the article is a collaboration of three editors typically seen on different sides of the infobox controversy, - I see a climate change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition of genre

IMO a list is only worth doing if it’s done properly, based on (1) an agreed definition and (2) reliable sources. I’m offering the definition below. If this is accepted — of course with rewording as necessary — we can proceed to the next step.

This is a List of European musical genres used in art music from medieval to modern times.

A 'musical genre' is understood, for the purposes of this list, as a conventional category or description, usually given by the composer, for an entire work that is composed in a particular form, often in a distinct style. A music genre is thus different from a 'musical term' (which can include, very broadly, any word or words used in a special musical context), a 'musical style' (which can refer to a part of a work or multiple works) or a 'musical instrument' (even if certain genres are exclusive to particular instruments or voices).

The ultimate authority for genre will always be the composer (usually the first published version of his work). If the composer calls his work a aubade then it's a aubade, even if it's all about the dark side of the moon. (Some composers are notable for inventing fanciful names). If there is any ambiguity about usage, original languages names (again as used by the composer or publisher), are preferred to approximate English translations.

Incidentally I’m now inclined to divide the list by category — orchestral, chamber, voice, keyboard etc. — rather than by period, as I think the latter would involve repeating too much information. Kleinzach 03:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The first half of the final paragraph reads very much like original research. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

About the definition of 'musical genre' for the purposes of this list, I'd expect this would not be different than the one in Musical genre. If that one doesn't suffice that article may need change?

About the division of the list, a solution could be a sorted list, see example User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types.

In such format both category, period and maybe even other data could be held and sorted.

And it could be useful to have a look at this list anyway for some reuse as I have already looked up all possible Wikipedia genres I could find based on the parallel IMSLP genre list. LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Musical genre — quite rightly in my opinion — notes there are different definitions of genre. The first authority quoted is Green, whose definition is similar to the one I've suggested, but there are others. If the list to be created tries to follow each theory/definition of genre simultaneously, we will just get a incoherent mishmash of terms. I'm not going to attempt that. It would be a total waste of time and it would be no better or even worse than the List of IMSLP work types. As for sorting, this is for fact-based lists where you need to see data arranged in different ways. I don't think this applies in the case of a genre list.

This would be a big undertaking. I'm not going to take it on without getting everybody's support. Recently a lot of bona fide contributions have been reverted by certain editors. If this trend continues then it's just not worth attempting a major new page. One could spend hours and hours referencing a list and then find the whole thing had been deleted or subverted. Kleinzach 22:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Putting this back on the shelf

Given the conditions we are working under, I am not going to continue with this. A good list of music genres would IMO be invaluable, not just for itself, but to underpin all the related articles. However genre is a difficult (and often controversial) subject in the real world as well as here, and without support and good will it would be a waste of time trying to attempt a coherent article. If at some time in the future we can get back to the kind of collegial approach that used to characterise the music projects, we can dust this off and have another look at it. P.S. In case this is also hacked, I have posted it under the heading "Putting this back on the shelf". Kleinzach 06:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Alkan.....

Now up for FA review here. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Major discussions page

During the recent ANI about alleged stalking, I contributed a reference list of classical music-related box discussions. Today I moved it to a subpage of the project as an updated list linked to the guidelines page. Unsurprisingly, someone closely connected to the ANI got to it very soon afterwards, renamed it and made changes. Nevertheless I hope it is still useful. It is now at Major discussions. --Kleinzach 10:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My attempt is called Infobox, it aims at understanding, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When you discuss my edits, Kleinzach, please feel free to mention my name. If you wish to create pages that no-one else may edit (or "get to"; how charming), there are plenty of free web hosts available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor note to Andy: I'm not going to undo your renaming of the section because the name of the page under discussion is simply "major discussion" without the word controversy (though you were the one to rename it), but I'm not sure NPOV is something applied to talk or project-space pages. Brambleclawx 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW says "Keep headings neutral". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As everyone here probably already knows, the editor involved here follows me around Wikipedia reverting and refactoring my edits (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Unlike this individual, who reports people he thinks are stalking him to AN/I (see the link above), this is something I have learned to live with, but it's also the reason why I am not more active working on articles. The title of this section before it was hacked was Major discussions and controversies page, like the page itself [6]. I chose this as a neutral title. 'Controversy' is not a pejorative term, it's a common English word merely indicating disagreement — a common element in all the discussions listed. I avoided the word 'infobox' both to make the scope more general, and to avoid the impression that we were targeting anything. So I think I'm entitled to say that Major discussions and controversies page was a good faith attempt at providing information. Taking out the word controversies IMO makes it less noticeable, which I guess was the intention. --Kleinzach 01:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And the reason I'm not more active in this project is that so many of the most prominent editors here accuse other users of being uncivil, sarcastic, or the like, yet find the need to do so in a manner to bite back. I thought just this once, I'd say a little something, but it just seems that every time someone says something, people here find a way of using it to demonstrate why they're right and those who are against them are wrong. Everyone claims they're being civil, yet I see concealed jabs by both sides nonetheless. So, before I back out of this talk page again, I have a few words for all involved, not just in this discussion, but those which previously brought up a lot of controversy:

Just because you feel someone's not being polite to you, doesn't mean you should hit back. Remember to be polite, keep the wording friendly, and assume good faith (and if I see someone say "oh well, of course I'm doing these, but everyone else isn't", I think I'm going to scream). I'm now stepping off this talk page to remain a spectator again. Brambleclawx 01:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your claim, repeated here having being made previously elsewhere, that I am stalking you ("follows me around Wikipedia reverting and refactoring my edits") is both false and unacceptable. If you feel otherwise, take it to ANI. Your smear of a perfectly reasonable edit as "hacking" is laughable; as is your unsupportable and bizarre insinuation of the page being made harder to find. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And on top of this, my comments are now being deleted by this individual! [7]! What has Wikipedia come to: anarchy or farce? --Kleinzach 00:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer your last question, Kleinzach. Why do you seem so surprised that Andy reverted you (with the edit summary: "Don't remove others' contributions (feel free to reinstate your own)") when/after/because YOU deleted part of my comment. Double standards? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Haydn Concertos Navbox

There is now a Hayden Concertos Navbox available. I've linked it to all the existing concerto articles including the Sinfonia concertante article which I'm currently editing.Graham1973 (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)