Talk:Maestro

Ostad etc.

These terms have no direct connection to 'Maestro' so it would be better to give them their own article. --Kleinzach 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But those terms are synonymous with maestro. That's a direct connection. They need to be mentioned on the maestro page, in my view. Separate pages exist already for Pandit and Pangrawit. If you want to also create a separate page for Ostad/Ustad, go ahead.83.147.180.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kleinzach. The use of ostad and other terms is not warranted here for several reasons. One, the etymology of the words are completely different and therefore making comparisons or trying to establish the terms as synonyms is a fallacy as each word has a different history and cultural context unrelated to the other. Two, such comparisons are most likely the result of original research. Three, to my knowledge it is not standard practice to do cross language analysis in this way on wikipedia, but to create separate articles, largely due to differences in etymolog and philology.Nrswanson (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that the terms are randomly chosen. There are similar words in many, many languages. Listing them all would be ridiculous.--Kleinzach 04:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ostad, Ustad, Ostaz, Ustaz, Usta = Maestro for Music? Says who? Malay language for example, (taken from Arabic) uses that term for Guru for Islamic teachings. I dont speak Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Urdu and Hindi but I have many friends speaking those languages. I never heard any of them referring "Ostad, Ustad, Ostaz, Ustaz, Usta" as Music Maestro. I removed "Malay" language because I know my language well. - Jay (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. all this information is pretty dubious. It was first added by User:Rigadoun in 2006. --Kleinzach 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets give it a day or two. After that, i think we should remove the whole section. It has got nothing to do with "Western classical music and opera". - Jay (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, how then are master musician of various traditions adressed in Malay? Pangrawit is a Javanese honorific specific to gamelan musicians and added to a name as a title (as in Martopangrawit for pak Marto) but pupils address their music masters by the normal non-music-specific title of respect "pak". As to moving or deleting the section, where do we expect readers interested in nonwestern equivalents for maestro to look?Sparafucil (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution to this would be to put links in a 'See also' section. That's an established way of linking to similar articles without including a lot of detail. --Kleinzach 02:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe these terms even belong in a see also section as in reality they are wholely unconnected to the word maestro. A better approach would be to create an article entitled Names and titles for the word master (which could reasonably be put in a see also section on this page) or perhaps a List of names and titles for the word master with the intent to create articles on the individual words (which I believe to be the best approach). Appropriate categories could also be made.Nrswanson (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I had a look at the master article and these terms could easily be placed within already existing lists there rather than on this page. (which in my view would be more appropriate as this is an English encyclopedia and not an Italian/ Spanish one).Nrswanson (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Master is really a disambiguation page rather than an article, but it would be flexible enough to contain links to articles about 'equivalent terms in other languages' if they exist. However the point about 'maestro' is that it can be used in an English-language context. (In my experience, conductors, whatever their nationality, like to be addressed as 'maestro'.) On the other hand the various Asian terms are not commonly used in English.--Kleinzach 09:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as this article is about the use of the Italian word for master being used for "music master" in an Anglophone/international context, it makes sense to discuss equivalents from other traditions together, rather than separately on a dab page like master, or a see also list of links to articles that might not even mention music. I see no problem in principle with a separate article if an obvious title (Terms of respect for music masters of nonwestern classical traditions??) can be found, but it seems better to leave the section where it is for now. Sparafucil (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sparafucil, to answer the question, Maestro is “master” or “teacher” in Italian and Spanish while “Sifu” is master in Chinese, “Ustaz” (sometimes pronounced as Ostad, Ustad, Ostaz, Usta) is master in Arabic, particularly in Islamic teachings while “Guru” is master in Hindi. These terms have been adopted by many countries, but the problem is, some countries adopted it for other reasons – not necessarily master in all professions. In Malaysia and Indonesia for example, the term “Guru” usually use for School teacher while “Ustaz” for religion. For Hindi and Tamil, “Ustaz” sometimes also use for “Master” in Indian Classical Music. In China, “Sifu” is mainly associated to Martial arts but sometimes it is also used for other professions. Since this article specifically referred to “Master in Western Classical Music” i.e opera and classical music, terms like “Sifu”, “Ustaz-Ostad-Ustad-Ostaz-Ustaand” and “Guru” are not relevant at all. If we want to keep it, the best section is “See also” (for terms that are associated with Classical Musics from other countries). FYI, Ostad, Ustad, Ostaz, Ustaz, and Usta ARE THE SAME. It spells differently based on pronunciation in different countries. The one often use is “Ustaz” to refer to Islamic teachings teacher (by all Islamic countries in the world taken from Arabic) – hit the link to read the details. I still doubt Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Urdu use “Ostad, Ustad, Ostaz, Ustaz” as Master in music. Unless if someone could prove it, I would suggest for it to be deleted. This article is not about "Master" in other languages, but about someone expert in Western classical music and opera. Therefore, I do not see why we should keep other languages definition of "Master"! It should be in "Master" article - Jay (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about 'Maestro'. If people want to include Asian words for teacher/master in the English WP - and there many of them (we haven't yet mentioned Sensei (Japanese), Laoshi (the other Chinese term) and equivalent words in Korean, Vietnamese etc.) - then they should write the articles (with appropriate references) and link them to the Master disambiguation page. --Kleinzach 09:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just redirected Ostad from Maestro to Hindustani classical music - Jay (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to 15 July version and deletion of material by User:83.147.180.163

This has now been reverted to the version of 15 July - deleting the 9 edits of the past two weeks - by User:83.147.180.163 (location Ireland). Deletions include this paragraph:

"In the Italian opera world, the term is not only used for the conductor, but also for musicians who act as répétiteurs and assistant conductors during performances (maestro sostituto or maestro collaboratore). Even the prompter (maestro suggeritore) can be referred to by this title."

Also taken out is the {{Opera terms}} navigation box:

And the proposal to give the (tenuously related) middle Eastern terms Ostad, Ustad etc. its own article.

Can we have an explanation please. --Kleinzach 01:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kleinzach, you want to convert the article in a too-heavily opera-centric angle on the word 'maestro'. The article says "the term is most commonly used in the context of Western classical music and opera.... Composers, music directors, conductors, assistant conductors, and music teachers are all frequently given the title." You want to say in addition "In the Italian opera world, the term is not only used for the conductor, but also for musicians who act as répétiteurs and assistant conductors during performances (maestro sostituto or maestro collaboratore). Even the prompter (maestro suggeritore) can be referred to by this title." But I regard that additional as a repetition of what's already there, with additional and undesirable further empahasis on opera.

Anon: This is untrue. I did not 'convert' the article. I added content. I did not delete any content as the Irish IP User:83.147.180.163 did. Anyone is free to add content. What is objectionable is the deletion of content. --Kleinzach 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of {{Opera terms}} is harmless for an opera-oriented reader because the page still contains the Category Category:Opera terminology which links to a list of all the same terms and many more besides.

Anon: So should all navigation boxes be deleted as redundant? That is not in line with WP practice. --Kleinzach 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said already, if you want to create a separate article for Ustad, go right ahead. But regardless of whether you will do that, it's still appropriate and desirable to mention Ustad/Ostad, Pangrawit and Pandit as alternative terms for maestro.

Anon: I inserted a 'split' tag with request for discussion. User:83.147.180.163 deleted the tag. --Kleinzach 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In summary, a fundamental issue here is that you wish to make the article opera-centric, and I wish to resist that, but furthermore and equally fundamentally you haven't added any new content -- you've just reduplicated the content that's already there.

Anon: There is no such issue because I didn't remove any content to make the article opera-centric. On the contrary a paragraph was removed by User:83.147.180.163. That's called vandalism. --Kleinzach 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree once again with Kleinzach. The information presented was factual and well sourced and I did not percieve any undo weight given to opera. In fact, given the word's long association with that field in western culture, the information seems not just appropriate but necessary.Nrswanson (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

83.147.180.163: "Why an opera-centric presentation for 'maestro' should be resisted"

I just did a Google search for maestro + football, and Google returned 3.4 million pages. A Google search for maestro + soccer returns 1.9 million pages. The search for maestro + "Cristiano Ronaldo" returns 250,000 pages, and by contrast the search for maestro + "James Levine" returns 100,000 pages. Ronaldo is a soccer star, Levine is the musical director of the New York Metropolitan Opera.

Kleinzach wants to insert a navigation box for opera terminology at the foot of the maestro page. This is redundant because the foot of the page already has the Category "Opera Terminology" which delivers all the opera terminology with one click. There's another reason why the Opera navigation box should be deleted that I'll convey to you by way of an analogy. The chosen analogy is a little exaggerated -- the exaggeration is helping to make sure the gist of my point is unmistakable. Iranian classical music uses a bunch of music instruments whose names are rarely heard, such as tanbur, dotar, barbat, robab, kamancheh, sanj, etc. A navigation box connecting all iranian classical music instruments might be helpful (but arguably it's not, because the Category link at the page bottom is equally effective). Now Iranian classical music also uses the violin. But the violin is an awful lot more than an Iranian instrument. It would be inappropriate to put a bulky navigation box for iranian instruments on the Violin page (though a Category link to persian instruments at the bottom of the Violin page would be fine). Similarly, maestro is much more than an opera word and it's similarly inappropriate to insert the bulky and redundant navigation box for opera on the maestro page, although that navigation box would behttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp fine on pages with technical opera terms such as cabaletta, stagione, fioritura, da capo aria, etc.

Kleinzach also wants to insert the two sentences: " "In the Italian opera world, the term is not only used for the conductor, but also for musicians who act as répétiteurs and assistant conductors during performances (maestro sostituto or maestro collaboratore). Even the prompter (maestro suggeritore) can be referred to by this title." "

I argue that répétiteur, maestro sostituto, maestro collaboratore and maestro suggeritore are idle decoration words that add nothing of value to the maestro article, not just for the many people who are clueless about the meaning of those words, but for all people. For example the information that the répétiteur can be called a maestro is primarily a remark about répétiteur; it doesn't provide information about maestro beyond what the article already says, namely that conductors' assistants can be called maestros.83.147.180.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with your assertions 83.147.180.163. First of all, the inclusion of words from other languages is not appropriate here as the word "maestro' is an Italian word with an etymology rooted in the Italian culture and Italian language. These other words you have introduced are entirely un-related to this word as they come from different languages and cultures, and therefore developed seperately. Second, the close association of this word with European classical music and in particular opera is a well established fact and an important part of the history of this term's usage within Italian culture (again this is an Italian word). According to Historia De La Lengua Italiana (history Of The Italian Language) by Bruno Migliorini the word maestro has had a long history related to Western Classical Music and in particular opera (with the above répétiteur, maestro sostituto, maestro collaboratore and maestro suggeritore all mentioned in the discussion of the etymology of the word "maestro"). This association of the term maestro with the opera world persists today in Italian culture and to not present this fact would be a mischaracterization of the word.Nrswanson (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nrswanson. Maestro has a basic meaning in the context of music and Italian culture, it can also be used by extension in other contexts (just as diva, primadonna etc are used), however these other uses have to be rigorously explained with references if they are to be included in the article. The various other terms from other languages with vaguely similar meanings don't really belong here. If the words are important they deserve their own articles. Finally the anon. IP 83.147.180.163 should sign his/her messages or better still get an account on WP. --Kleinzach 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image requested

This edit requested an image to improve the quality of this article. RLY? --Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Humorous (ironic?) intent? Maybe Karajan in his prime? Muti storming out of La Scala? Kleinzach 01:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Usage

With respect, the nuances attached to the use of "Maestro" in US English are not by miles identical with those attached to its use in UK English, and generalised explanations of its use should, perhaps, respect, and include that. It's not instinctive for UK journalists in any field, let alone that of classical music, to refer to an orchestral conductor as "Maestro" either as a courtesy title or as shorthand to identify his or her (yes, her) profession for the reader. There are complex social and cultural reasons for that, and they are not always respectable, but they are real, nonetheless. It is significant perhaps, that in the notorious Morecambe and Wise sketch with Andre Previn the term "Maestro'. if used at all, was used with a sarcasm which dates back to the days of music hall, when the pit band leader was referred to as "Maestro" in order to invoke the perceived "pretentious" culture of those the occasion was designed to 'send up".Delahays (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What discussion of nuances between UK & US English in this article are you referring to? I can't see any. OTOH, the whole section "Usage outside music" has no sources and ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)