Talk:Wind quintet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Wind quintet 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.


Why does a "woodwind" quintet contain a non-woodwind horn?

Also, I was not able to get to the page (the database of quintets). I suspect a broken link. Thanks Littenberg 14:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is because the horn is supposed to be an English Horn, but because oboeists (they play the english horn) have always been really few in numbers, and because composers want their pieces to be performed, the french horn has replaced the English. Satúrnus 13:04, 18 July 2006 (GMT)

Is the above statement really true? The french horn and the english horn have nothing in common with regards to timbre and idiom. The transposition is the same and the practical range is somewhat similar, but this doesn's explain why a non-woodwind instrument would be brought to a woodwind ensemble, why not just use another clarinet? Besides, if oboeists were so few, why not leave out the oboe too? I always thought that, even if the french horn is functionally a brass instrument, its versatility of dinamic and tone color, which can go from brassy to soft and smooth in an instant, makes it function as a brass instrument or a woodwind instrument depending on how the composer treats it. It adds a completely new timbre to the wind quintet but blends in very well, thus creating an ensemble that is both timbrically complex and dinamically balanced. I'm sure there must also be a historical explination, so if anyone has anything to add or cross out of my comment, please do! Cha! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .


Lists are pretty much all this article contains. Not exactly helpful when you're being made to compose a wind quintet for Music A-level and you have no idea of any key features, and have no access to Youtube to look any up. Help me out a bit please? Amzi (Talk To Me) 10:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are now audio samples of wind quintets, found in articles about their composers (e.g. Anton Reicha). All the wind quintet audio is from the [Soni Ventorum Wind Quintet, whose website has several audio and video files related to wind quintets and other wind ensembles. Graham87 06:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with links[edit]

It's not clear how to fix this, but the name of the wind quintet Carion automatically links to the wp article for the word "carrion" :) (the wind quintet isn't even on the disambiguation page, much less the main article that it links to) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To properly fix this, someone has to write an article about the Carion Wind Quintet. Graham87 06:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bobesch, Constantin ?[edit]

I suspect that "Bobesch, Constantin" is a typo for "Bobescu, Constantin". There is certainly a composer of the latter name. Could someone with access to the relevant source check this out? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and the date "1970" is a typo for "1958" (as a matter of fact, the score was only first published in 1970, twelve years after composition). Also, since this page seems to favour original-language titles ("Fúvósötös" instead of "Wind Quintet", for works by Hungarian composers, "Quintette" for French composers, etc.), the title really should be given in the original Romanian: Parafrază pe motivul "Horei Staccato". I shall attend to this immediately.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

VaIjean, Paul ?[edit]

Another puzzling one. It's spelled wrong anyway, as it's been given as V-A-I-J-E-A-N. Could it be a reference to Paul Juon? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On reflection I think it's probably this choreographer, so I've just corrected the spelling. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Or even Victor Hugo? ;-) Well, the published score (Portland, OR: Editions VIENTO, 2000) of the Dance Suite (1955) gives his name only as "Paul Valjean". He is a mysterious figure, though. A number of wind quintets list him in their programmes as an American, but when I look for recordings of other pieces, I find mostly Danish children's-theatre works (a TV-ballet titled Tobias og englen [Tobias and the Angel], Gåsemors eventyr om Den bestøvlede kat [Gåsemor's Fairytale 'Puss in Boots'], etc.). There could be two of him, of course (not to mention the fictional one).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Prominent wind quintets[edit]

The majority of the entries in this list are redlinks, and very few have external links, so it is unclear if the quintets listed are, in any way, "prominent", or, in Wikipedia terms "notable"

I propose that, in common with most Wikipedia lists, all entries should either have a Wikipedia article, or should have a link to a reliable source (not the quintets own PR, but an external source) to show that they are notable.
-Arjayay (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Concur. Hurrah, and about time, too! What mechanism do you suggest using, in order to give reasonable notice to editors who believe some of these redlinks can be certified as notable?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, this proposal should stay open on the talk page for at least a week, as some editors only edit at weekends.
Secondly, having done several Wikipedia:WikiBlame searches, other than User:Jerome Kohl the only other named editors who added more than one name appear to be User:Psychomusicianuk who last edited in November 2009 and User:Cariocaingles, who last edited in October 2011. The rest of the additions were from IPs, the majority of which had their addition to this list as their only edit.
Thirdly, having done a contributors search [1] only 8 editors have edited this page more than 5 times, and Jerome Kohl is the only one of these to have edited it this year. I will notify all the editors with 5 or more edits to the article, of this discussion.
I therefore suggest that, unless an objection is received within a week, we are WP:BOLD and just make the deletions. If an editor is aggrieved, they can follow the WP:BRD procedure and revert, and we can discuss it further, here.
Arjayay (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur. I have just edited to make the use of references clearer. All the external references except the Zagreb one are to the quintets' own sites, and even that is not independent (Croatian Association of Orchestral and Chamber Musicians), so with that possible exception none count as WP:RS. The only other factor worth considering is that in at least one case there is an article in the wikipedia of another language (e.g. German, for de:Philharmonisches Bläserquintett Berlin) and there may be others. Perhaps we ought recognise these if we find them? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
A fine point, perhaps, but a good observation, Samuel. Does an article on a non-English wiki confer notability in the same way that a bluelink to English Wikipedia does?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The strict answer to your question is probably no. I can think of more than one case where a WP:AfD has succeeded on an article which has undisturbed counterparts in other wikis, so it is clear that standards of notability can vary. If it is apparent the other article has good sourcing, that's good evidence, but most of those I've just flagged up are poorly sourced. Nevertheless the fact that such an article exists is usually persuasive, more so than just a link to the quintet's own web site, and I propose that their presence should be sufficient for retention of the entry in this case. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I can live with that. It just seemed to me that this question ought to be straightened out before making a formal declaration. My own experience with other wikis resonates with what you say. Some are exemplary on the whole, others less so, and of course individual articles on any wiki are bound to vary. Certainly the links to quintet web sites smack of self-promotion, and utterly fail every test as reliable third-party sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • OK after 10 days, it is time to be WP:BOLD and delete all entries without a reference, be that internal, external or another Wiki and include an explanation of entry requirements. Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wind Quintet Works[edit]

Why the distinction between composers of wind quintets and "notable wind quintet repertoire?" Who decides which quintets are notable? And is a list of composers with no works helpful to anyone? I notice that in the 18th and 19th century lists, there is at least a comment on a composer's output, but there are no comments in the 20th and 21st century lists. If one compares this article to the articles on Brass Quintets (Brass quintet repertoire), where the works are listed with the composers and String Quartets (List of string quartet composers), where all compositions are mentioned with dates and links where appropriate, it seems that this article could be better organized and more helpful to the reader seeking comprehensive wind quintet repertoire. Nerdypoo (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)nerdypoo

I couldn't agree more. Having two separate lists like this is inefficient and confusing to the reader (not to mention editors). There is absolutely no criterion offered for notability, unless it is "any wind quintet anybody can come up with". I see no reason why the composer and quintets list should not be merged. As to the issue of notability, it might be draconian here, but one criterion often used in such cases is whether the item has an article on Wikipedia—in other words, a "no red links" policy. This is used, for example, in List of flautists, and the various composer lists. The List of composers by name is perhaps the most liberal in this respect, in accepting names that have an article on any Wikipedia, not just the English one. Another ridiculous problem with the list of quintets is the insistence on retaining foreign-language names for generic quintets, and then translating them (e.g., Fúvósötös [Wind Quintet], Bläserquintett [Wind Quintet]). I don't find a specific prohibition of this on WP:NCM or the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music, but it is certainly not normal practice in music writing generally. I do not mean true titles, of course, though even a few of those are a bit marginal, such as the very first entry, "Öt könnyű tánc [Five Easy Dances]". Of course, a great many of these will disappear if a stricter basis for inclusion is adopted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)