Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Well done

Well done to the creators of this page. I'm wondering, though, how it sits with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). I'd have thought that all stylistic matters relating to music articles would be found in the one place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment there are 92 pages of guidelines in Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. Many people prefer to work collegially at project level rather than beat their heads against the MOS wall. Also the scope in the project guidelines is quite a bit wider (and more flexible) than the MOS. Perhaps the guidelines will eventually migrate upwards and become part of the MOS? --Kleinzach 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Opus numbers: one of my greatest bugbears

There's a list of the main various alternative cataloguing systems, which is fine as far as it goes, but there's no stylistic guidance provided. I'd like to add the following points:

• It should rarely be necessary to include an opus number in the title of an article. Reason: Readers by and large don't know or particularly care that Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony was his Op. 64. Symphony No. 5 (Tchaikovsky) does the job perfectly well. When they find the article, they can then read that it has opus number 64 or whatever.

• Exceptions: Where there are different articles on different sets of similarly named works by the same composer, it may be necessary to include the opus number. Example - Mazurkas Op. 6 (Chopin) and Mazurkas Op. 17 (Chopin)

• But even in those cases, there's lots of room for different styles. Is it:
  • Mazurkas Op. 6 (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas, Op. 6 (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas (Op. 6) (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas op. 6 (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas, op. 6 (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas (op. 6) (Chopin)
  • Op. 6 Mazurkas (Chopin)
  • Opus 6 Mazurkas (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas Opus 6 (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas, Opus 6 (Chopin)
  • Mazurkas (Opus 6) (Chopin)
  • Chopin's Op. 6 Mazurkas
  • probably other variants?

• My strong preference is highlighted.
  • The use of the comma before "Op." is consistent with the standard way of referring to a numbered piece of classical music. For example: Symphony No. 5 in E minor, Op. 64.
  • I acknowledge we see many variants on this too (most commonly Symphony No. 5, Op. 64, in E minor), but we need to come to a firm position about the preferred way we do things around here. I've just been through Violin sonata and made a huge number of edits to introduce a measure of consistency. I've done similar things with other music lists and I'll continue doing so. But if editors were all on the same page about these things, life would be so much better for all of us. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO it would be good to add a guideline along these lines. I've noted this discussion on the project talk page here. --Kleinzach 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Key signatures in titles

Necessary? Again, rarely.

One case that's at the front of my mind is the Chopin Waltzes, which all have separate articles (where they exist at all). There are 3 of them in A flat major, Opp. 42, 64/3 and 69/1. They don't have a standard numbering system such as Waltz No. 5, so we can't use that. Just using the opus number would be no good (for the reasons I stated above). Just using the key is ambiguous. We have to use both the key and the opus number in such cases. That means we have 3 waltzes in the form Waltz in A-flat major, Op. <##> (Chopin), while the other waltzes are just Waltz in <key> (Chopin). Is this a good solution, or do we need to make the title format consistent throughout this group of works by this composer? Similar considerations apply to Chopin's polonaises, mazurkas, and other works. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to propose the wording for a guideline? --Kleinzach 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A possible solution to both the above concerns

Jack raises some good points and I agree with Klein that this needs to be clearly explained in the guidelines. The format Mazurkas, Op. 6 (Chopin) is probably the best given that this is the way most authorities actually format such information. Key information rarely needs to be used, though, and just confuses the reader, IMO. Regarding the actual naming, however, I think there needs to be a heirarchy. Here is a possible solution based on WP:NCDAB and WP:MUSTARD:

1. First, try the most usual name used by authorities
2. If that fails, use the actual title of the work used by the composer
3. Failing that, add the subtitle or number to 2 (Symphony: Mathis der Maler)
4. Failing that, add the name of the composer in brackets to 2 (Piano Sonata (Berg))
5. Failing that, add the form of the work in brackets to 2 (if it is not already part of the name) (Macbeth (opera); note this is rarely needed except for operas which have their own guidelines)
6. Failing that, try a combination of these (but enclose all dabs within the same set of brackets) (Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven))
7. Failing all of the above, try adding the Opus number as Op. (or the catalogue number) after a comma to 2 (Concerto Grosso, Op. 3, No. 1 - here's one for someone!)
8. Failing even that, add the key in full words without a comma to 2

Keys should be used only in extremis, IMO, as it is rarely necessary to confuse the reader with such information and rare that a Symphony in B flat minor will not need to be dabbed further.

There are probably other ways and the way I suggested could be refined and better explained perhaps, but at least this is a start to help guide us. It should also be pointed out that this is not prescriptive but rather that it is an aid to help editors make titles consistant. The most widely used method within any particluar group of articles should be used, where possible. Thus, it is Serenade No. 13 (Mozart) as the main title, which redirects from Eine kleine Nachtmusik rather than the other way around. Also, all of Bach's cantatas are given the full name of the chorale as their name and also redirect from the BWV number, eg Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme and BWV 140.

Hope this helps? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 42 (Chopin) is somewhat over-dabbed: did someone else write a Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 42? Not that I can see... This is probably better as Waltz, Op. 42 (Chopin), though even there the Chopin dab is unnecessary unless we insist on consistant naming for all the waltzes. This one also happens to have a nickname: 2/4 waltz... --Jubilee♫clipman 05:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor point; Let's keep opera out of it! They have their own article title guidelines (actually very good ones). --Kleinzach 06:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! I was actually looking for a different example but failed... hence my addition at that point above. --Jubilee♫clipman 06:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Jubilee. So, you'd favour simply Waltz, Op. 42? I must say that seems over-minimalist. As I said above, the opus/catalogue number of a piece of music is likely to be the least known fact about it, for most readers. Opus/catalogue numbers should be disambiguators of last resort, to be used only when all else has failed to do the job. Yet, here we have it being promoted to the other extreme. What guarantee does a reader have, even a reader who knows their opus numbers, that Chopin was the only composer ever to publish a waltz as Op. 42? What confidence does a reader have that the link they're being asked to click will give them anything written by Chopin at all? The things they're most likely to know about the waltz are (a) it was written by Chopin and (b) it's in A flat major. I really think we need to start there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm probably being very helpful here, but for what it's worth the first page of a Google search for "Waltz op. 42" turned up one by Glazunov, albeit in D major.Drhoehl (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, we seem to be covering much the same ground as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). Which is why I still wonder why we cannot have one set of guidelines, conventions, consensuses, rules, laws or what-you-will, rather than recreating the wheel in various different places. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's say I want to start an article on Dvorak's 7th String Quartet (in A minor, Op. 16). I don't know what to call it and I'd like a simple rule to check to tell me. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) does help me much. Actually it's confusing. "The title should refer to the work in whatever way is most common in other publications."' — is too vague. (I don't possess lots of publications about Dvorak's string quartets etc.) It also seems to suggest that we give up on editorial consistency — unlike the opera project etc. — which I don't think is desirable. (It also has a bizarre use of italics.) So I'm hoping we can make a good, clear guideline. After that then, by all means, let's port it over to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) as an established guideline. --Kleinzach 08:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.

OK, the title I would use for the Dvořák piece is String Quartet No. 7 (Dvořák). No need for key or opus number because there was only 1 work with this title by this composer. But there's definitely a need to identify the composer, because many composers wrote a String Quartet No. 7. Getting around this by use of opus numbers and/or keys might have appeal to cognoscenti who happen to know that the only composer whose 7th String Quartet was in A minor and had an opus number of 16 was Dvořák, but it would be useless for the general reader. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Dvořák qtet is fairly clear cut, actually. However, as Jack has pointed out the Chopin is not at all clear cut. Before I get back to that though, I would point out that a dab in brackets is only necessary if another article with the same name already exists, not if it might exist. Furthermore, the actual title of an article is (almost) immaterial given that we can create dabs (eg {{about|this|that|other}}) and redirects to point there and use [[piped|links]] inline to help readers of any other article. However, I take your point about the Chopin: perhaps my last three steps should be transposed?

1. First, try the most usual name used by authorities (though they all use conflicting systems so this will be hard to determine)
2. If that fails, use the actual title of the work used by the composer
3. Failing that, add the subtitle or number to 2 (Symphony: Mathis der Maler)
4. Failing that, add the name of the composer in brackets to 2 (Piano Sonata (Berg))
5. Failing that, add the form of the work in brackets to 2 (if it is not already part of the name) (Somework (symphony); note this is rarely needed since descriptive names are usually either enough on their own or dabbed with the composer's name as per 4; operas have their own guidelines)
6. (+2) Failing that, add the key in full words without a comma to 2 (though this is likely to need further dabbing since I suspect all the keys have been used as the tonic for pieces in every conceivable musical form)
7. (=) Failing that, try adding the Opus number as Op. (or the catalogue number) after a comma to 2 (Concerto Grosso, Op. 3, No. 1 - here's one for someone!)
8. (-2) Failing that, try a combination of these (adding each new item in the order shown one at a time and enclosing all dabs within the same set of brackets) (Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven))

Going through this we get (from both 1 and 2, but see below) Waltz in A-flat major (this redirects to the same composer's Adieu waltz but probably ought to be be a dab page); (step 3) there is no official number or subtitle; (step 4) Waltz in A-flat major (Chopin), but that is not helpful, obviously; (step 5 is irrelevant); (step 6 is redundant); (step 7) Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 42 which actually gives us the correct waltz (and is the typical name used by authorities when they need to talk about the other waltzes by Chopin in A-flat major, though they might just talk about the Op.42 Waltz or use an unofficial nickname like the 2/4 Waltz etc); (step 8) I would argue that adding (Chopin) at this stage would be pointless since in this case there are no Wikis on other waltzes in A-flat by other composers. Just plug Waltz in A-flat major into the seacrh tool and press <space> to see what pops out! Both waltzes could with impunity be moved to Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 42 and Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 69, No. 1 respectively. Also, a new page should be created for Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 64, No. 3 and the Waltz in A-flat major page turned into a dab. If any one else writes an article on yet another Waltz in A-flat major then they can go through this same process (and add it to the dab page). If that Waltz happens to be the Op. 42 of someone else then I would expect them to dab it with that composer's name but leave the Chopin as it is, opening up a dab discussion if they feel strongly enough. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum - Waltz in A-flat major. Op. 1, No. 3 by Sergei Lyapunov would probably give Waltz (Lyapunov) given that there don't appear to be any other Waltzes by this composer; either that or it would be a part of an article on his Op. 1 ie Three Pieces, Op. 1 going through the above process (as opposed to Three pieces, Op. 40 and Three pieces, Op. 57). --Jubilee♫clipman 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the principle you're proposing. I just wonder at its usefulness in practice. Let me take this to its logical limit (a good place to think about principles). Potentially, we could have a dab page with 40 waltzes in A-flat major: 3 by Chopin, and 37 by up to 37 different other composers, who would be named only if they did not employ an opus number. That leaves the poor reader up the creek - he's come here looking for that waltz by the prolific but obscure composer Otto Manfred von Sachsenhausen, but he doesn't know which opus number he used, so he has to click on potentially 37 links before he finally finds the correct one (Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 138, No. 13) - by which time, he's probably given up in disgust.

No, I really think that, when it comes to symphonies, sonatas, concertos, preludes, mazurkas, impromptus, waltzes and other commonly-used titles, the composer's name has to be there in the title unless it has a unique title (e.g. A Sea Symphony vs. Symphony No. 4 (Vaughan Williams)). Why else would we have an article on Piano Sonata No. 52 in E-flat major (Haydn), even though nobody else wrote that many piano sonatas? In that case, I'd agree with shortening it to Piano Sonata No. 52 (Haydn), but certainly not to Piano Sonata No. 52, and never, never to Piano Sonata, Hob. XVI/52, L. 62.

For me, an article titled Three Pieces, Op. 1 just does not work. It might be uniquely different from any other article in Wikipedia, so it meets the logical test, but it does not meet the ... readability/browsability test, for want of a better expression. For the general reader, it could be about music written by any one of literally thousands of different composers; no reason to suppose it has anything to do with Lyapunov. So, it will be ignored by many of the article's potential readership. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I re-iterate that within Wiki we have several techniques to avoid this problem (dab leads/pages, redirects, pipes etc). But outside of Wiki (Alexa, Google, et al) you may have a point... You also have a point about series of works (which is pretty much where we started) though I note that the VW symphonies are not consistant This is quite unlike Mozart's Serenades: Serenade No. 13 (Mozart) which is "more commonly known as Eine kleine Nachtmusik"... No: almost always, everywhere, and by everyone known as Eine kleine Nachtmusik" while very, very few even know it is a Serenade let alone No. 13... Perhaps we ought to widen this then: groups of articles are taken through the process as a group so that the most basic part is dabbed (ie the form in most cases) and the other identifiers are added as necessary (ie number then key then cat/op). This would give: (steps 1 and 2) Waltz; (step 3 no use); (step 4) Waltz (Chopin). (Return to beginining and add in info for the specific pieces) for the three A-flats that would give: Waltz in A-flat major (Chopin) x 3 -> (eventually) Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 42 (Chopin), Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 64, No. 3 (Chopin) and Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 69, No. 1 (Chopin). How's that? I agree with the addition of the commas, BTW, but suspect this nuance might be a lot of work to deal with. Also Waltz in A-flat major really should be a dab since the two waltzes with articles are equally well known. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - I decided to add Serenade No. 13 (Mozart) to WP:RM. I broke my own logic regarding series of works but I think there is a strong justification in this case. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whew, that was a tough read! My concern is to make it easier for the editor to get it right, and easier for the reader to find it. I agree with Jack that so-called 'generic titles' ('Symphony No. 67', 'Piano Concerto No. 27' etc.) even if unique should have the composer's name in parens. So-called 'true titles' (e.g. Enigma Variations) obviously come under the normal rule and don't need disambiguation. I also have a question: how often will we encounter anomalies if we opt for series numbers (e.g. Symphony No. 7 etc.) over opus numbers etc.? --Kleinzach 23:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is getting a bit over-technical!...how often will we encounter anomalies if we opt for series numbers...? Very rarely, I suspect, which is why I put ...or number in step three rather than later. The more I think about it Op. 1432 No. 56 or QWV 4553256 ends up getting silly after a while and Jack is quite correct that few people know works by Opus or cat, anyway. There are rare exceptions (eg Opp. 109, 110, 111 of Beethoven), but even in these cases people have opted to use the series number. Actually, I take the point about adding the (composer) dab in all cases of generic titles (whether series or single works): this makes everything consistant, across the board, makes titles as specific as possible, and helps avoid future edit wars over a particular undabbed name. So rule 1: always add the name of the composer in brackets where the article title is in generic name plus series number format. What are the other priorities? If you read my list as a list of priorities we get (leaving out (composer) and form as givens): most typical name then composer's preferred name then generic name plus series number/subtitle then generic name plus key and finally generic name plus opus/cat number. I think these will cover 99.999999% of cases and we will rarely need to add further dabs. We also still need to address the stylistic concerns ie do we insist on commas and other nuances to make everything consistant? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Quick) yes. It's essential to get the whole format right, commas and all. --Kleinzach 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent again] If I, as something of a bit player in such discussions, may be so bold as to offer my opinion, I also agree that the composer's name should always appear in parens for the "generic" titles, and I'd extend that to "name" titles, too, out of both practical concerns and an aesthetic preference for a certain level of formality--an "encyclopedic" look, if you will. I'd also always opt for the more "formal" "Serenade no. 13 (Mozart)" over "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," with the proviso that a redirect page be established taking one who enters the latter to the page headed as the former (as I assume must be the case presently for EKN). For what it's worth, in my own record catalogue I list my various EKNs as "Mozart: Serenade no. 13 in G, K. 525 ("Eine Kleine Nachtmusik")." The nice thing about the formal title is that you never need worry about problems with works that are known as different things in different places--say, the "Moonlight Sonata," which evidently is, or once was, sometimes also known as the "Arbor Sonata." As to the composer in parens, not only does it make for what I consider a more informative title, it also avoids problems in 10 years when Heinrich Meingott writes his Prepared Player Piano Sonata no. 359 in Dual A-Flat/B Natural Duality ("Pastoral") and an enthusiastic fan promptly contributes a detailed analysis to Wikipedia. Drhoehl (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Drhoehl: Although we seem to be in general agreement however I would caution against adding the composer to 'true titles', e.g. changing Enigma Variations to Enigma Variations (Elgar). This would contradict the normal WP rule in a direct way and be incompatible with opera titles. --Kleinzach 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be Prepared Player Piano Sonata no. 359 (Meingott) then? I'll look out for it! That example neatly points to a slight problem in my proposed system: which do we put first, number or official subtitle? I'd prefer the number as it sidesteps the subtitle issue altogether (i.e. what exactly is official?) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Just going back to Chopin again, I don't know if he numbered his ballades, scherzos and impromptus, but everyone's happy to refer to them as No. 1, No. 2 and so on. Not so with the mazurkas, waltzes, nocturnes, polonaises and some other genres. These are known by key signatures and to a lesser extent opus numbers, not as, for example, Mazurka No. 37 or Waltz No. 11. But it doesn't really matter, because actual usage trumps composers' intentions. We follow what authorities out there do. If necessary, we can say that the composer did not allocate a series number to the piece in question, but others have done it on their behalf. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we've discussed this enough? Can I suggest we ask Jack to draft the guideline? (From past experience I know he is good at this.) We can then look at the draft . . . --Kleinzach 01:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good idea! Jack may wish to review Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Bach_cantatas_-_article_names and my RM of the Mozart first, though, which are both also pertinent to the question at hand. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Before the liberal addition of the composer's surname is recommended, it might be worth considering the effect on using such a page name in lists or narration. It seems to me that such a scheme will always require the use of pipes to hide the name of the composer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

True, however we are already doing this in many places, and I would regard it as an acceptable price to pay for getting the composition article titles in order. --Kleinzach 05:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think anyone's proposing anything radically different from what we're already doing, and doing with good reason. It's just that our practice hasn't been described particularly well so far, that I can tell, anyway. When we can say fairly clearly and accurately what we do (and, importantly, what we do not do), then we can use that to formulate some guidelines for the future (as well as perhaps making some adjustments to a small number of existing titles). It is a non-trivial exercise that will involve more work than might appear on the surface. Thanks for your confidence in me; I'll try to see it's justified. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, ...the first page of a Google search for "Waltz op. 42" turned up one by Glazunov, albeit in D major.... I guess most of us missed Drhoehl's comment above but by saying that he has answered this objection quite eloquently! I retract my own previous objections: we clearly do need to add the composer's name in parens where we are entitling an article about one of his/her generically named compostions. We also do need to be more explicit about commas etc as Klein points out above: WP:MUSTARD, WP:NC, and WP:NCM—any others?—are not clear enough about such nuances. I like what Klein has done to the main project guideline page already but does this answer all the objections raised in this discussion? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and my belated apologies for not having noticed the quite sensible navigation break that you attempted earlier until after it was too late (you may have made it while I was writing an edit, or I may have been obtuse--either way, didn't mean to upset any apple carts). I'd like to raise one point for consideration; it may not make any difference, but I think we'd do well to make sure that we've addressed it. Much of the discussion so far has centered around composers, particularly Chopin, with nice, orderly catalogues. Have we made sure that we are adequately covering those who don't? Thanks to the shenanigans of music publishers, Dvorak's symphonies, for instance, are a numerical mess; while a less extreme case, much the same can be said of Schubert's, with the "Great C Major" having been no. 7 for a long time and then having been no. 9 for a long time and now, if I correctly remember something I read not long ago, considering changing addresses yet again. The numbers, series and opus, for Schubert's piano stas. aren't any bed of roses, either. At least Schubert has the good ol' D. series to help sort things out, but the corresponding catalgoue for Dvorak doesn't seem to have caught on so far. Anything that we devise here should be capable of handling such messes. Not saying that the foregoing isn't; just suggesting that we need to give everything a hard look to make sure before setting anything in concrete. Drhoehl (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

K numbers, convenience numbering, catalogues in disarray etc

Drhoehl makes some good points in the comment immeadiately above. One particulary problematic system is the Köchel catalogue. Do we refer to the famous A minor sonata as K310 or as K300d? Of course, in Mozart's case we can generally sidestep the cat numbers, anyway, but there might be times when an editor has no other choice than to use a K number in a title. There are other problems, however. Is Schubert's Great C-major symphony number 7 or number 9 these days? Or should it in fact be number 8?! (See the lead in Symphony No. 9 (Schubert).) How on earth do we number that composer's Piano Sonatas? Do we include the fragments or only the full works? What about Reliquie? Do we include the spurious works? What about the Sonata-Fantasy? I note these are all listed by D number but what happens if this listing is extensively revised? There are also some works by Schubert which have opus numbers: do we explicitly forbid the use of these in preference to the D numbers? Dvořák's works have also gone through extensive recatalogging (and also have both Burghauser and Opus numbers) There must be plenty of other composers whose catalogues are in a state of flux and even a few that are simply uncatalogued. How do we address all of this? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Totally agree that rushing in where angels fear to tread is contra-indicated. Just a few other comments.

• Chopin's catalogue seems "orderly" enough, but I'm currently working on a list of other works by Chopin that are unpublished, fragmentary, spurious, doubtful or lost. It's quite a long list (including works for the aeolopantoleon, and works for chorus). Even for the existing Chopin canon, the catalogue numbers are all over the place for the posthumously published works. Some were given posthumous opus numbers. Others have only KK, B, P, S, or A numbers, depending on whicvh catalogue(s) they appear in. In our article on the list of Chopin's works, in some cases they're given one catalogue number in the list sorted by genre, but a different one in the list sorted by opus numbers etc. It really is more of a mess than it might at first appear to be.
• Dvorak's symphony numbering seems to have settled down now, but I can still remember LPs of the New World Symphony shown as "Symphony No. 5" (and I'm not that old). It will certainly appear this way in a number of older sources, many of which have possibly been overlooked because editors are looking for material on "Symphony No. 9". Likewise for all the symphonies: "Symphony No. 4" has been the title of the works we now know as the 4th, 5th and 8th Symphonies, and on it goes.
  • Just on Dvorak, I recently finally tracked down a cite for the first performance of the Symphony No. 1 (Brno, 1936, conducted by an obscure Croatian opera condcutor) - but it was heavily cut, and I'd like to find a record of the first complete performance. Anyone? (It didn't get its first complete uncut recording till 1966!)
• Schubert: there are many imponderables. The numbering of his piano sonatas is a perpetual nightmare, as so many of them were incomplete, unpublished or both. Some works now classified as sonatas by some writers were published under other titles (Drei Klavierstucke, etc). I keep on seeing new and supposedly authoritative listings with new and supposedly authoritative series numbering, but whether any one of them has gained general agreement is another question.
• Mozart: If Kochel were constructing his catalogue today, some things would definitely be different. All his piano concertos are numbered sequentially as if they were all for solo piano and orchestra - yet they include the concertos for 2 pianos, and 3 pianos. Some of the early concertos were just pastiche arrangements of sonata movements by others, not original Mozart works. Concerto No. 27 in B flat is really something like Concerto No. 18 - but the numbering has stuck, and it would be OR to renumber them now. Likewise for the symphonies - there are quite a few more than 41, but we cannot change that set-in-stone numbering. Pity the Kochel calalogue was not set up as a Wiki. I foresee a day when opus numbers, D, K, S, Hob, and all the rest will be old-hat, and all musical works will be referenced by their "W number" - Wikipedia Catalogue number. How's that for visionary. :) Until then, however, we have to be faithful to the usages employed by the "experts".

I wrote the above in response to Drhoehl, and it goes very little way to answering any of Jubilee's questions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about the Drei Klavierstucke. I also (purposefully) avoided the Wanderer Fantasy... The two sets of Impromptus are occasionally seen as sonatas, too. You are probably right about Dvorak and Mozart, though: they have generally settled down even if the numbering is illogical in certain cases. Chopin does indeed have several works floating about that are not systematically numbered, however, you are quite right. There are (at least) three posthumous Nocturnes (E minor, C♯ minor, and C minor), several posthumous mazurakas and walzes (many of which are spurious), the nightmare of the Polonaises—what number is the Polonaise-Fantasy and what about the 8 or 9 posthumous ones?—and all those other works you pointed out. BTW, what one earth is an aeolopantoleon and what did Chopin contribute to its repertoire? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Google asked me if I meant aeolopantalon, BTW. Note the lack of e in the last few letters. It appears to be a sort of Piano-cum-Organ according to WikiSource. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know about the KK IVa, Five Polonaises by Chopin and I am a pianist...! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's apparently an aeolopantaleon, sometimes seen as äolopantaleon (hence my mispselling). What I can tell you is that Chopin wrote 2 unidentified works for this instrument, both now lost. They're catalogued as KK.Ve/1-2.

Yes, the 5 KK. IVa polonaises are very beautiful, particularly the one in B flat minor "Adieu à Guillaume Kolberg en partant pour Reinertz" (1826). All 16 polonaises have been published in Urtext by Henle Verlag for many years now. (That doesn't include the Andante spianato and Grande Polonaise brillante, which would make 17 if it were included). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yet another spelling... aeolopantaleon, äolopantaleon, aeolopantalon. See here and look carefully at the last few letters... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another case of note is the numbering of the Hungarian Rhapsodies by Franz Liszt. The original piano solo versions are OK, but Nos. 14, 2, 6, 12, 5 and 9 were orchestrated by Liszt and Doppler and published in that form as Nos. 1-6 respectively. Fortunately, the most famous of them all, No. 2, is "No. 2" in both piano and orchestral versions. But that is true for none of the others. What were they or the publishers thinking when they did this? If they were deliberately intending to bamboozle us, they couldn't have done a better job. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, Ravel cut two movements out of Le tombeau de Couperin when he orchestrated it and changed the order. This kind of thing has happened several times, in fact—almost certainly to alienate everyone I suspect, your probably right! :P --Jubilee♫clipman 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I could go on at very great length. But just one more: Bizet compiled a suite from his incidental music to L'Arlésienne. After his death, Ernest Guiraud came along and put together a second suite. But there are parts of the 2nd suite you will never hear in a complete performance of the incidental music, because the 2nd suite includes music from the completely unrelated The Fair Maid of Perth, even though it is known as "Bizet's Arlésienne Suite No. 2" (with usually no mention of any contribution by Guiraud). Work that out! -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on to drafting?

Thanks for a most erudite discussion. (Reminds me I could never understand those Schubert piano sonatas numbers . . .) Maybe we should now move to the drafting stage — when Jack has had proper time to consider all the issues — and then test the draft against the anomalies? Perhaps we will need additional 'exception rules' named after composers, e.g. the 'Schubert Exception Rule', the 'Liszt Exception Rule' etc. Is that a practical way of dealing with special cases? Just an idea. --Kleinzach 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, to what would these be exceptions? Are we talking about the entire set of rules for naming articles on classical works, or just the way works are numbered, or the usage of catalogue/opus numbers, or what? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions to a general rule(s) on article titles for compositions? Perhaps it would be easier if we did rules on general usage within the article afterwards? But I'm happy to see you lead the way on this. --Kleinzach 11:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Any more on this? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment that's a bit off topic (on work titles and opus numbers) here. I wasn't sure where to put it (and I had not yet seen and waded through all of the above). Sorry! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have guidelines yet. I think JackofOz is working on them. I see he's been working on Chopin. Maybe that's a preparation? --Kleinzach 08:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was volunteered for the job. Don't rush me, OK. Genius takes however long it takes (as Lucy from Peanuts once wisely said, "A true work of art takes at least half an hour"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language capitalization

Unlike the Opera Project we have never had explicit rules on foreign language capitalization. The Opera guideline explained here follows the practice of leading publishers such as Grove, Oxford and indeed the Chicago Manual of Style. I suggest we adopt the same style, if necessary referring directly to the Opera guideline until we have a customized version ready. --Kleinzach 12:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree – Admittedly, I'm biased by descent and by this current discussion, but the opera guidelines seem sensible to me and have worked well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Kleinzach 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I changed the RM for EkN to conform with this obvious stylistic guideline. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Update the serenade has been moved - twice! First to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik then almost immeadiately to Eine kleine Nachtmusik after the mover spotted the discussion and change of case in the prop. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Section: Opus numbers and catalog numbers

Can we incorporate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Abbreviations here? (This original text was Jack's, I think.) --Kleinzach 05:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Mustard is a general guide for all music. We do need a specific guide for each project incorporating all the elements of each relevent general guideline. Each project can then decide if these elements need changing for their specific needs and change the wording according to consensus arrived during debate. I'll have a go at specifying the guidelines over at WP:CTM this week coming drawing from WP:MUSTARD and WP:MUSIC, as well as the various relevent project-specific guidelines highlighted on that project's SG page. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not convinced that WP:CTM needs its own guidelines. One of the reasons for bringing CTM and Composers under the CM umbrella was to avoid duplicating (and triplicating) these rules. (Of course if there are special, unique issues at WP:CTM that need attention then appropriate guidelines will needed.) Another point I'd like to make is that we hope these rules will migrate upwards (not downwards). If our guidelines are well drafted then we hope other projects will adopt them, and the style of the encyclopedia will thereby become more consistent, more harmonious etc. --Kleinzach 03:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll have a look anyway at all the guidelines we use over there. There are 5 listed, one of which (Composition task force) simply points to the CM guide; however, others are possibly also relevent, such as WP:MUSIC and MOS:MUSIC. One slight issue is that with all these guides to read, an editor might get put off reading them at all. We at least need to decide which is the main one to use and explain that the others are specific to certain things. You are right though, we actually need one giant guideline covering all classical music projects: that way we are at least all playing in the same general ball park—if not actually playing the same specific game! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Composition task force guide is the same thing as the CM guide. IMO it will be a long time before we have a good top level MoS. In the meantime I think we should concentrate on the job here. The better the guidelines, the more authority they will have. --Kleinzach 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True: if we get this right we are most of the way there. Migration can wait, I guess. I assume this explains why Mustard is so big and MOS:MUSIC is so (relatively) small (and often overlooked): no one can agree on moving all this stuff up? There do seem to be a bewildering number of these: MOS:MUSIC, WP:MUSTARD, the present guidelines, and the project-specific guidelines for Opera and Composers—any more? Good luck with this cleanup, anyway. There is certainly a lot to sort out going by the debates all over the main CM talk page at present! Integration with other MoSs can indeed wait, I guess. I won't add yet another over at WP:CTM (though I have added some info on each guide we follow). I have other things to get on with over there anyway... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

I recently contributed an article Marie Luise Neunecker which includes a discography table. The guidelines for capitalization do not make clear to me whether I should write "Trio for violin, horn and piano" or "Trio for Violin, Horn and Piano" ? Likewise: "Concerto for violin, horn and orchestra" or "Concerto for Violin, Horn and Orchestra". I have browsed various classical music articles to find some guidance, but to no avail. Could someone pls advise ? Francesco Malipiero (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Score order - saxophones

I know saxophones have to be listed among the woodwind (despite the material they are made of), question is: where?

• at the bottom of the woodwind section (as one book on score reading I own suggests)
• in between the clarinets and the bassoons (as e.g. the score of Alban Berg's Lulu suggests)

--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Score Order - General

There are differences between the band and orchestral worlds when it comes to instrumentation order, but a hybrid is probably achievable. Would it make sense to include a fairly detailed list of instruments (in order) merging the two ? This could be done in outline format with Saxaphone broken into soprano, alto tenor and bari and so on. I've had to order by instrumentation across ensemble format for a few projects over the last 30 years and could put that together, but I'm new to this stuff an not sure who should edit pages such as this. --Rwberndt (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New structure guideline

Wikipedia does not like inconsistency, which is evident in most Classical works. So I'm proposing a new structure guideline based on the current ones

Old version

All articles should begin with a sentence that clearly identifies the piece, with the following suggested format:

[Piece name] is a(n) [work type], [opus number] written by [composer] in [date] during the [musical era].

Example: Caractacus is a cantata, Op. 35, written by Edward Elgar in 1898 during the Romantic era.

After this, a brief account of the piece in the context of the composer's life should be given (composer had just got back from... etc.). Further paragraphs may be used to describe the political, social, historical, and musicological context of the piece (e.g., "At the time the Napoleonic wars were raging in Europe..")

If an oratorio, or other dramatic work, a plot may be given - scene by scene preferably - followed by Dramatis Personæ. Preferably, the piece should have an in-depth musicological analysis hereafter - dynamics, performance quirks, instrumentation, key, etc. Where appropriate, include a listing of the movements.

A paragraph on the legacy and impact of the piece - how it has perhaps altered genres, began new styles, introduced new methods.

Finally, notable recordings and references - with links, so as to allow the reader to buy or obtain further information.

Keep in mind that all pieces are different; this is only a very loose and general guideline. However, one very firm point may be added: if something is not relevant to the piece, don't put it in.

My version

1. Introduction (no heading): contains first sentence, context of composer's life (composer had just got back from... etc.), other important situtations at the time (at the time the Napoleonic wars were raging in Europe... etc.), premieres (orchestra, conductor, year), dedications (dedicated to Prince Lichnowsky... etc.), significant thing (short-short-short-long motif; uses poem from Schiller
2. History: history of the composition itself (if possible, include influences from other composers, and major edits/revisions by performers/other composers), how it has perhaps altered genres, began new styles, introduced new methods
3. Structure and Orchestration: numbered movements (tempos and/or names, approximate time duration), orchestration in an organized fashion (soprano singer, 2 alto singers, 2 flutes, 2 clarinets, 1 bassoon, etc.), detailed musical analysis of movements in respective paragraphs
4. Plot (vocal works only): Dramatis Personæ (name, voice range, brief desrciption of relationship to main character); main plot in acts
5. Cultural References?
6. Recordings: notable recordings and references - with links, so as to allow the reader to buy or obtain further information

• External Links should contain a link to the score (IMSLP, CPDL) if it is public domain only (i.e. non-copyrighted pieces within the IMSLP; blocked ones don't count)

--Toddlertoddy (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose change I don't see any need to change this guideline. I don't think we need to adopt a rigid checklist approach to articles. Some flexibility is desirable and the original text looks good to me. (There are a large number of articles involved, so there is also the practical problem of applying any significant changes.) I'd also recommend looking at the MoS Music pages, and the guidelines of the related projects (Opera and Composers) before asking for any changes, as these pages are all more or less inter-dependent. --Kleinzach 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose change, primarily on the grounds that rigid guidelines like this are counterproductive, but also in that it is contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The lede, which you call the "Introduction (no heading)", should be a summary of the article's contents and should not contain information which isn't already in the article. Note also that many vocal works are operas and those articles already have their own format guidelines which are considerably different from these, although I emphasise that they too are only guidelines, and articles will differ on the optimal order of topics covered depending on the individual work. This is especially true at Featured article level. Re Recordings sections, they are not meant to be buyer's guides and links to online stores or even the record company are not appropriate. Reviews published in reliable independent sources are fine, and indeed highly recommended. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose change, for same reasons as others stated. HOWEVER: in the interest of providing some optional framework, could someone create a Classical Composition Infobox ? Many of the "standard" data proposed in this could also be sumarized in that format (Composer, Composer birth/death, date composed, date premiered, first premier location, first conductor, subdivisions (movements, etc.), Ensemble type, solos, dedication, Historic event composed/premiered for, variations/derivitives, derivitive from, musical period, publisher(s) (if in print), label(s), etc.) --Rwberndt (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Oh you're gonna get tarred and feathered for that... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have no real care too much outside of agreeing that the lead needs to be a summery of the rest of the article except that I do, however, think that recordings need to be an "all or none" situation unless there's a GOOD number of reliable sources to back up that a specific recording is somehow special. A composition that's been recorded thirty times shouldn't have five listed "because those are the notable ones". Also, if time is added there needs to be sources for it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Guideline for just the orchestration and structure of the piece/song

What if we just create a guideline for just the orchestration and structure of the piece/song? I understand that every piece is different and has a different amount of sources, so the history and other stuff will all be varied. This guideline probably only applies to non-vocal music (integration with plot, etc.) and it probably doesn't fit programmatic music (integration with symbolic and analogical parts) as much as it does fit absolute music.

==Structure and Orchestration==

Orchestration

• a list
• a table...etc.

Structure

list of movement names (if there are any) and duration?

First movement name

Detailed analysis includes:

• form (if there is one)
• key (tonal or atonal)
• metre?
• analysis of the sections (of the form)
• other pieces of info (eg. this string quartet is nicknamed "Quinten" because the first theme of the first movement is based on a series of intervals of fifths, or )

Second movement name

etc. I might write an example later.—Toddler _toddy... 23:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note we use 'Instrumentation' rather than 'Orchestration' for section titles. --Kleinzach 05:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

References: expansion of guideline

Wikiproject Opera recently rationalized and expanded their References guideline. I suggest we also adopt the new format, adding the following text:

==References==

References, notes and sources are all contained within one main section called 'References'. There are a number of optional subheadings:

• ;"Notes" designating footnotes or direct in-line citations (using {{Reflist}} coding below the "Notes" subheading)
• ;"Cited sources" (including specific articles or books appearing in the notes)
• ;"Online sources"
• ;"Other sources" (including those which are not directly cited, but which provide further information)

• ;Note the use of the semi-colon to provide bold-face (without the item cluttering the table of contents).

Example:

==References==

Notes

1. Becket 1981, p. 171
2. Borchmeyer 2003, p. 9
3. Kennedy 2006, p. 299

Cited sources

• Beckett, Lucy (1981) Richard Wagner: Parsifal, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0694835193
• Borchmeyer, Dieter (2003) "Drama and the World of Richard Wagner", Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691114972
• Kennedy, Michael (2006), The Oxford Dictionary of Music, 985 pages, ISBN 0-19-861459-4

Online sources

• e.g. Grove online if not cited

Other sources

• Gregor-Dellin, Martin (1983) Richard Wagner — His Life, His Work, His Century, Harcourt. ISBN 978-0151771516

Is this OK with everybody? Any rephrasing etc. needed? Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the guidelines at WikiProject Opera were changed with no discussion on the Project's main talk page or any notice there that they had been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats, a page with very few watchers. At that page, there was no discussion of the actual final format which was then changed two days two after being proposed. As such, the "new" guidelines do not necessarily reflect a wider project consensus at all. Having said that, they are probably an improvement, apart from retaining the extra complication of distinguishing online from paper sources. There's no reason for it and it's confusing to the reader. An "Other source" is an "Other source", i.e. one not used in online citations, regardless of the medium, and it's obvious from the live link whether or not it's an "Online source". Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you weren't personally informed about this? But this is not the Opera Project. The subheads would be optional as stated above, but consensus is certainly desirable. We could remove 'Online sources' from the guideline if necessary, though the distinction it introduces looks useful. 'Other sources' reflects an existing problem we have with heading inconsistencies ('Further reading', 'Bibliography' etc). Suggestions appreciated. --Kleinzach 07:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is not the Opera Project, I was simply stating that the change was made there without a real discussion. As I'm not a member of this project, it's up to you to decide the format guidelines here. But if you want an "outside" suggestion, I think the separate Online Sources is not a particularly good idea for the reasons I stated above. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you all seem to like this new format, and the write up looks very nice. I think I agree with Voceditenore that a separate section for "Online sources" may not be necessary. Perhaps there are certain articles where it might be advantageous. It might depend on the particular situation, but it may be a case of over-categorizing. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a strike out on 'Online sources' above to indicate the reservations expressed by the two of you (and its possible/probable omission). Let's see what other people say. --Kleinzach 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done This has now been added to the guidelines. --Kleinzach 05:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Incipits on lists of compositions

If I was able to provide incipits for the lists of compositions (I am especially thinking of the long lists of Mozart and Haydn Symphonies and String Quartets at the moment), would that be something that would be welcomed or is it liable to be thrown out straight away?

Op47 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In the works themselves, I would think they might be useful, but in the list of works it'd be a bit much, I think. But thinking about it, I wonder if the fact that incipits are often reductions of some manner, that some of them might be considered copyrighted (for those published in still-in-copyright thematic catalogs, that is). I don't know the answer to that, but it's a consideration as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Musical incipits? This is not really a guidelines issue. How about asking the CM project? --Kleinzach 00:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kleinzach that is is hardly a style issue. On the substance of the question: I think incipits are enourmously helpful on lists of musical works (see Inventions and Sinfonias and Fantasiestücke), and I don't see how copyright restrictions apply to the works in question. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael, thankyou, that answers my question perfectly i.e. I now have a precedent. Kleinzach, I only asked because it would be a lot of work to be thrown out on a technicality. In the event CM project objects then I will ask them. It will be sometime before I can do anything anyway. 212.183.140.21 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation guidelines

I propose another guideline, this times for disambiguation pages. This is directed at numbered pieces (eg. Symphony No. 1, or Piano Concerto No. 2).

-Page name- may refer to:

• -composer-'s -page name- (-nickname- in italics is there is one)
• -composer-'s -page name-, -note that refers to something different from the others (eg. hypothetical symphony no. 10, or this is actually a ballet even though it's called a symphony)

etc.

There could also be year composed, opus, etc. Thoughts? —Toddler _toddy... 00:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you give an example? --Kleinzach 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Symphony No. 3 except with italic nicknames, and "Symphony No. 3 may refer to:" —Toddler _toddy... 18:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should this be a guideline? Perhaps I'm missing something here? --Kleinzach 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Compare: Symphony No. 1, String Quartet No. 1, Piano Concerto No. 1, and the style I'm proposing, Symphony No. 20. Also, there are a lot of missing disambiguation pages, which will need a guideline to follow. —Toddler _toddy... 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but disambiguation pages normally come under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. --Kleinzach 22:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:G&S Infoboxes

Editors are attempting to require us to add infoboxes in several articles in the WP:G&S project. Does anyone wish to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Two easy (?) questions about instrumentation

1) Immediately above Ravpapa's excellent new "Recordings" section is a section on "Score order". Might it be useful to add a link here to Shorthand for orchestra instrumentation? I'm not a musician, and on first encountering examples of this shorthand it was beyond Greek to me. (I'm also not an experienced wikipedian, and wouldn't know the best way or place to add it.)

Done. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2) Quoting from a discussion at User talk:Jerome Kohl#Alan Hovhaness question,

• (me): "... unless I'm confused, I had been under a general impression that the instrumentation called for or used in an orchestra is referred to as "forces", but I'm not finding that definition anywhere at all, either here or in any dictionary I've tried." [n.b., including not at Force (disambiguation), nor at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force.]
• (JK): "How extremely odd. I had expected to find the term "forces" defined this way in the OED, but it's not there in this sense—at least, not exactly. It does show an American usage of the singular form, "force", to refer to a body of labourers, and at a little greater distance, in the military and police sense. However, dictionary.com supplies this definition as sense 10: "any body of persons combined for joint action: a sales force." Other terms are also used for the makeup of an orchestra, such as "instrumentation" or "scoring", but I would say that "forces" is the better choice, regardless of the shortcomings of Wikipedia and the OED."

Anyone up for tackling this? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a note at Talk:Force (disambiguation), but have the impression no one ever looks there. I'm not about to wade into this sort of thing myself, when I'm completely unfamiliar with WP's procedures. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've now added redlink "Forces (music), the instruments used in a symphony orchestra" as a See also to the Force (disambiguation) page, so at least for now the concept is displayed there. My phrasing the instruments used in a symphony orchestra may itself be ambiguous, if anyone cares to word it differently. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the informal and vague term "forces" is a suitable replacement for the current usage of "instrumentation" in Wikipedia articles; that's what the style guideline calls for. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO 'forces' is an ordinary English word that can be used very broadly, not a technical (or musical) term. Also 'forces' in a musical context could include singers (as well as conductors, narrators etc.) in addition to orchestra. --Kleinzach 05:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not as a "replacement" at all, but simply as a clarification that the term is used, and readers may be looking for it as such. There was no thought of either changing or going against the guideline. One not infrequently finds references to "forces", such as at

• Orchestra#Beethoven's influence: The so-called "standard complement" of double winds and brass in the orchestra from the first half of the 19th century is generally attributed to the forces called for by Ludwig van Beethoven, or
• Orchestra#20th century orchestra: ... Mahler pushes the furthest boundaries of orchestral size, employing huge forces.

A simple disambiguation was all that was intended. And Wiktionary probably ought to include this usage as well - we can't edit OED, etc. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the abbreviated "definition" (the instruments used in a symphony orchestra) I left at the Force (disambiguation) page, the musical term forces should properly include any vocalists, whether soloists, or chorus or choir; but I was trying to give as brief a description there as possible. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone back and changed it to now read the orchestral instrumentation (and voices) used in a musical production. Is this better? (Of course this is still a redlink, because the "Forces (music) page does not exist" - but at least this serves to answer the basic disambiguation question.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

About Wiktionary: Can anyone think of a better/fuller/more concise/etc proposed definition to submit? Also, is the term always used in the plural, such that no one would ever speak of a force in this sense? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, off topic, I have an open User:Milkunderwood/sandbox Hovhaness discography under construction, in case anyone might be interested in taking a look at it. (Some of the information at the top is now obsolete, because Jerome Kohl has very kindly suggested that he can verify entries in his New Grove.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Recordings

In light of recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, I suggest that we add the following section to the guideline:

Articles on recordings of classical music

The general notability guidelines apply to recordings of classical music, specifically as they have been explicated for books (with minor modifications):

1. The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish notability. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the recording itself have actually considered the recording notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it, beyond only reviewing it.
2. The recording has won a major award.
3. The recording has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to classical music; for example, it is a recording of an historically important performance or has influenced the interpretations of other performers.
4. The performer in the recording is so historically significant that any of his or her performances may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the performer is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, that he or she is of exceptional significance and the performer's life and body of work would be a common study subject in music classes.

Titles of articles on recordings of classical music should include the name of the album (if it has a name), the name of the performer, and the word (Recording); for example, Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould) (Recording).

Comments? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it all except number 4. It doesn't seem to me that there'd be any recordings that would fit it that don't fit one of the other 3. With books it's a bit different for various reasons. The issue of recouplings, etc., is especially problematic in such a case. For instance if Horowitz was considered in #4 (not a bad choice I'd think) would one still really need an album page for the "Discovered Treasures" album which is just a bunch of previously unreleased recordings in a compilation? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

1. The 1st sentence: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself - huh? Did you just copy this from Wikipedia:Notability (books)?
2. I very much like your concept of a critical review - "information beyond a mere critical review" - bravo.
3. I'm very happy you call these recordings and not albums.
4. Based on your no. 4, that means that every recording by Toscanini and Furtwangler could merit an article? What about Bernstein? But overall it's very nice. -- kosboot (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, three of us trying to post all at once here. Here's mine, unless I've lost it:

Gould's Goldberg Variations is both a "recording" and an "album" - that is, in its incarnation as LP or CD, it takes up the whole thing. If we define "recording" as consisting of a performance of a single composition or complete group of related compositions normally performed together, we are left with the puzzle that what is likely to be reviewed is a specific issue/release constituting an "album". What I'm trying to get away from is allowing articles on albums containing multiple unrelated compositions, or selections of compositions, whether or not by the same composer, but especially when representing multiple composers. If anyone agrees with this distinction as defined here, can it be easily incorporated into this proposed guideline? Milkunderwood (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree. The Goldberg Var. happens to fit neatly on one LP or CD. But I'm thinking mostly of recordings/albums of sundry works rather than those works that take up a single (or double) more album (like that album by Hillary Hahn from which this discussion seems to have emanated from). -- kosboot (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Hahn Mozart sonatas that was AfD'd, plus the three others that were PRODded, as well as the three random collections that Robert.Allen brought to our attention. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, I would restrict it to major full-length compositions (or a complete group of related compositions). Perhaps something like the Orff-approved Jochum Carmina Burana, if it would otherwise pass Ravpapa's other hurdles - (I haven't even looked it up here.) Milkunderwood (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah! The last statement is even better: "restrict it to major full-length compositions (or a complete group of related compositions)." -- kosboot (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Or Chopin's two concertos together; or nearly any opera; etc. This sort of thing. Nikolayeva's Shostakovich Op. 87 Preludes and Fugues. Kashkashian's edition of the four Hindemith viola solo sonatas plus the three accompanied sonatas. Michela Petri's BWV 1030-1035 on recorder with Keith Jarrett. (Personally I would also include in this category something like Emil Gilels's unfinished cycle of Beethoven sonatas, left incomplete when he died. He very nearly got them all recorded, but this is a different situation from someone picking and choosing some sonatas. Just my own thought on this exception - others may disagree.) Milkunderwood (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have become a case of WP:STICK. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Some people are trying hard to accommodate your point of view (not because they believe in it at all, but wanting to come to a near unanimous consensus). But as others have stated, yours is a minority view and it's not necessary to accomodate it. -- kosboot (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, let's consider for a moment if classical album pages COULD be made simply on the basis that they've recived a couple reviews in RSes. Take that Hahn album that was deleted. It's a recording of her playing four Mozart violin sonatas. Now, what could be said in an article like that? The tracklist is reletively pointless, as it's all just Italian movement names, which duplicates the articles about those pieces, but even say that could be added in for completeness purposes. Some discussion of the what the reviews say -- of course. Maybe it got an award or two that deserves mention. But...what else? Discussion about the music itself belongs in the articles about the pieces. There's likely to be little info available about the 'production' and even if it is, would it be in any way unique? It's very unlikely such a disc made any sort of impact on anything. So that leaves us with an article that can never even really hit GA because there's simply nothing to write about. THAT is why we need a guideline to limit these articles. There's simply no real USE in having a separate article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to make clear that I'm certainly not advocating for articles to be written on the specific examples I've mentioned above; I was trying to think of things that might have articles, assuming they pass Ravpapa's other tests. I fully agree with Melodia's explanation. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that a guideline that limits articles to recordings of major, full-length works is too restrictive. There are, after all, recordings that are iconic, and perhaps deserve articles: Joachim's recording of the first movement of the Bach G minor violin sonata; Horowitz playing his arrangement of Stars and Stripes Forever; Heifetz playing "La fille aux cheveux de lin" or his Gershwin arrangements; Casals playing Song of the Birds. Of course, the problem with these is that at least some of them appear in several collections, issued over the last few years. I don't really have a solution to this problem, but would not like to see the guideline ruling out a solution if one should pop up. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT may be relevant here. Sections of biographical articles that deal with recordings may grow to the point where they can be split off. (Many discographies originated in more general articles and then were separated.) BTW 'iconic' and 'notable' are not quite the same thing. For example, Casals' Song of the Birds might be difficult to expand into an article, while it would be important in relation to the biography. --Kleinzach 14:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Are you not showing a preference here (which I agree with) for listing recordings under the artist (or composer) rather than create separate articles? Why can't the guideline recommend that recording be listed under the artist if that is the major theme of the recording? (or has that been disagreed upon enough?) -- kosboot (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes (in case it's not clear) I do agree with that, hence I think WP:SPLIT should be mentioned in the guideline. --Kleinzach 23:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Copying this over from where I had posted it (actually in two different places), might this suggestion or some tweaked form of it have any utility in writing our guideline?

• classical music:

• composer: article
• composition: possibly an article if unique or distinctive; more frequently just a listing or separate discography under composer
• performer: article
• performance/recording: almost always only a listing or separate discography under performer, and composition

Milkunderwood (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, just to confuse the issue, I return to a remark I made above, that while we distinguish between recordings and albums, virtually all reviews are going to address specific albums - that is, CD releases. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose if I really try, I could confuse it further. For instance, the 1968 Pavorotti/ Freni/ Gavazzeni/ ROH recording of Mascagni's L'amico Fritz as issued on LP by Angel was excellently engineered. But in its transfer to CD on EMI, there are several places where Freni's high notes are badly distorted with screechiness. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We've seldom covered matters of recording transfers, documentation, formats etc. but these surely belong (if anywhere) in discography articles. They are not directly relevant (in this case) to Freni, Mascagni or L'amico Fritz. The opera doesn't currently have a discography article, but could do if someone wanted to work on it. (There are of course a lot of opera discographies, see Category:Opera discographies). --Kleinzach 23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does (have a discography - but not an article). But I was just tossing a spanner. (I hardly ever look at reviews - I know of the problem just from listening to the two formats, not from any citeable source.) Milkunderwood (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, not really a spanner - what I've meant to be doing is tossing chaff, to hopefully raise some issues that the project may want to consider in finalizing the wording of this proposal. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Recording article titles

Titles are a separate issue — hence this new subsection — and I think it should be a separate guideline. I like Ravpapa's suggestion above, but we need to clarify punctuation and name forms (full or surname only) both of the composer and the performer, and singular/plural of 'recording'.

Assuming the recording passes notability, I'd recommend: Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording), Beethoven Piano Sonatas (Artur Schnabel recording), Der Ring des Nibelungen (Georg Solti recording), i.e. no composer name unless it's ambiguous, in which case only the surname is used, full name of artist, and singular 'recording'. --Kleinzach 02:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Regarding the word 'album', this seems to be an old fashioned, redundant word to me, though others may disagree. We've avoided using it in connection with the discographies. --Kleinzach 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right - this is much neater. My concern has always been Searchbox confusion, as when I was looking for mozart violin sonatas and up popped that Hilary Hahn thing as its top suggestion. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New version

---

Recordings

In general, recordings are included in a Discography section of the article on the artist, or on the work. If the artist's or work's discography is extensive, it can be split out to a separate article. If a recording is exceptional, you can add a description, and critical reviews.

On rare occasions, a recording or album is so exceptional that it merits an article of its own. This can occur when one or more of the following general notability guidelines apply:

1. The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or composer. Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article.
2. The recording has won a major award.
3. The recording has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to classical music; for example, it is a recording of an historically important performance or has influenced the interpretations of other performers.

Titles of articles on recordings

Titles of articles on recordings of classical music should include the name of the album (if it has a name), the name of the performer, and the word "recording"; for example, Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording). Do not include the name of the composer, unless the title would otherwise be ambiguous (for example, Beethoven Symphony number 5 (Chicago Symphony Furtwangler recording)).

---

More comments? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it! As to criteria, you say "one or more of the following" - don't you mean (or: shouldn't you mean) "at least two of the following"? -- kosboot (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful to give 1-2 examples of these "exceptional" recordings. I've actually never seen an article that's just about a recording, so I'd be interested to see (and might even help bring it up to quality as an exemplar). -- kosboot (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, examples would be useful. They should be of existing articles: Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording), any others? --Kleinzach 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I would consolidate #2 with #3 - that is, reword #3 to say or has won a major award - and change to say both. You could give Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording) (presently The Goldberg Variations (album)) as an example. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just changed the GG recording name. --Kleinzach 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The more I think of it, the real criteria is just #1 and #3. If the only criteria is that the recording has one an award, that doesn't mean there will be enough reliable information from which to create an article. So yeah, I'm with you Milkunderwood - combine #2 with #3. -- kosboot (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. --Kleinzach 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Again thinking about Searchboxes, are they pretty infinitely expandable in width? I was thinking not - such that your example of the CSO Furtwängler #5 might truncate. This is why I had initially thought recording should come at the front. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not. Try typing this into a Searchbox, and see where it truncates: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Or, just type Beethoven Symphony number 5 (Chicago Symphony Furtwangler recording). To put the question another way, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a reader is looking for a recording to start with in his/her search leading to a specific recording? Milkunderwood (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Recording coming last makes sense to me. Also we have to consider disambiguation. Beethoven Symphony No. 5 (Chicago Symphony Furtwängler recording) would be fine if Furtwängler also recorded it with another orchestra which is the subject of another WP article. Otherwise it should be Beethoven Symphony No. 5 (Furtwängler recording) --Kleinzach 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Then the other problem would be every title begining with Recording, crowding out the clarification of composition/performer. -- kosboot (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well, perhaps not. We need some way to experiment with long titles. Suppose you're looking for Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and just plug in 5th Symphony. Thereupon you get a choice of (Beethoven), etc. If a title is (Recording): Beethoven Symphony No. 5 (Furtwängler: Chicago Symphony), then hopefully this will pop up fairly high - but I don't know that.

Response to kosboot: I don't know how Search would handle something like that - that's the problem, unless we could experiment. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe your concern over searches is exaggerated. I think it highly unlikely that someone will look for an article on a recording of classical music in the Wikipedia. There are much better places to look for such information. I believe almost all hits on classical recording articles will be via links from the artist's or discography article. On the other hand, what we want to avoid is having recording articles cluttering up search results, when what the user is really looking for is information on the artist or the piece. That is why it is important to have the word "recording" in the article title. It is not important where in the title the word appears. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. My only concern about where the word appears is whether it would appear at all in the search box, or be cut off because the title is too long. Sorry, I just haven't been thinking this through very well. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Ravpapa, I don't think search is really a problem — and we have links and 'see also' etc to connect the articles. --Kleinzach 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest changing this text "Titles of articles on recordings of classical music should include the name of the album (if it has a name) . . . ." to "Titles of articles on recordings of classical music should include the name of the piece of music (as used in the main Wikipedia article) . . . .". Famous recordings will be released in a series of different formats (78s, LPs, CDs etc) and under different titles (for single issues, compilations etc.). These could be covered in a series of redirects but I think it would be tedious to try to do this, and in practice it wouldn't be done. --Kleinzach 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - it gets away from the name of the album (which I've always argued is extremely mutable, so not a reliable point of reference). -- kosboot (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Brendel example

• If we are going to delete the article Alfred Brendel – Unpublished Live and Radio Performances 1968–2001, where would it be appropriate to add the recording dates and venues as well as the reviews? I don't think that information will fit easily into the discography table. In fact, there have been some legitimate objections to adding review quotes to those kinds of tables. (The track timings and numbers I don't think are important and were a nuisance to add.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no suggestion to delete that article; if there was, I for one would oppose.
    Adding the track details might have been simpler using {{Track listing}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, this template does not seem to allow for grouping tracks for individual movements under a work title. I think maybe that's why I opted for a different method. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But it does not appear to qualify as notable under this guideline. It only cites two reviews. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that all existing articles with only two reviews should be summarily deleted. Red herring? --Kleinzach 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's seems rather inconsistent. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Classical music guides like Penguin or Gramophone

• What about listings in classical music guides like Penguin or Gramophone? Are these in the same category as reviews? After all, the guides are supposedly recommending only the most notable recordings. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just use our common sense? I don't see this as an issue. (Obviously Penguin or Gramophone are respected publications.) I don't think we need to go into unnecessary detail here. We are trying to finalize the wording of the guideline. --Kleinzach 06:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What one editor thinks is common sense is not always what another one thinks is common sense. It is not clear to me whether a mention in one of these guides would qualify an album as notable or not. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The last version of the proposed text says: "The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or composer." I am sure Penguin or Gramophone would qualify, though note that multiple references are needed. --Kleinzach 06:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Penguin (like Fanfare) is not as big a fan of Brendel as Gramophone. I doubt they give him their highest recommendation. So that would likely just be one qualified source under the guideline. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The key, I think, is that there must be something about the recording to recommend it beyond the reviewer's opinion. So the recommendation of the Penguin or Gramophone guide would not, in itself, be sufficient to kick it over the notability bar. If, on the other hand, the review cited some unusual fact about the recording ("It was played on instruments made entirely of recycled materials", for example), that would render it notable.

You are, of course, absolutely right when you say that "what one editor thinks is common sense is not always what another one thinks is common sense." The guideline is an attempt to impose some modicum of order in a hitherto anarchic realm, but it is not an attempt to stifle free speech. We are not Zhdanov. There will no doubt be editors - you, perhaps, among them - who will believe that some recordings are exceptional enough to meet the guideline, while others will disagree. I wouldn't have it any other way. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nor even Khrennikov. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Other matters

• This is not a style guideline, but a notability guideline. Shouldn't it be on a page with a name like WP:Notability (classical music)? See Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hear! hear! – the page Wikipedia:Notability (music) is clearly insufficient and a more specific guideline is needed for composers, compositions, musicians (the majority of Category:Classical composers would fail WP:COMPOSER). As for recordngs: this seems to me to be a discussion about a solution to a non-existing problem. So far, articles about non-notable recordings got deleted, notable ones didn't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • To the extent that this issue has come up here and people have opinions about it, I think it's worth completing the job. --Kleinzach 06:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We have been trying to group these guidelines together for convenience, so they are easy to find. As the scope has become wider it may be appropriate to rename it simply 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines'. But this is a separate matter. --Kleinzach 06:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The page, if it is going to be created, should be named similarly to the other guidelines in that category and should also be added to that category. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only one guidelines page here. --Kleinzach 06:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I second Robert, and Michael - I suggested branching off classical music from other types a while back, but as I recall it got shot down. However, I think everyone posting so far has tried to assure Robert that his three articles are pretty much sacrosanct - unless Michael, who hasn't so far committed himself - yes, he has, above - wants to play tug-of-war over them. And yes, Robert is right - this is really a notability guideline, where we want to separate ourselves from the Pink Floyd people, as Ravpapa put it. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Robert and Michael, but with a proviso. There probably should be a separate notability guideline, which covers composers, performers and works; no question that our unwritten criteria range far afield from those at Wikipedia:Notability (music). On the other hand, I say: let's finish this issue, then look at the others. When we have two or three such notability guidelines, we can break them out into a separate page. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there agreement at least that #2 gets folded into #3 with the word or, and that This can occur when both of the following general notability guidelines apply:? Milkunderwood (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, When I saw your suggestion above. I agreed because I thought #2 (The recording has won a major award.) was a weak criteria. There are lot of major awards, but most of them come short of the (WP) level of notability. (After all they are generally organized by the recording industry itself.) --Kleinzach 13:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so much agreement. The general notability guideline in its original considers any one of these criteria alone to be sufficient for establishing notability, and I am loath to stray too far from that. Moreover, I can imagine a recording that meets 1 but not 3: for example, a recording of the performance of the YouTube orchestra, whose players are scattered across the globe and participate via Internet. This recording would have that extra je ne sais quoi which makes it notable, but makes no particular contribution to the furthering of our art. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Does "Editor's Choice" qualify as an award? And how about end of year critics' ten best? --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are precisely questions of the type about which I expect there to be healthy disagreement and discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best procedure for anyone to follow is essentially what I have usually tried to do, as in this discussion - which is, when in doubt, ask first, before posting. That way you don't spend hours creating something that's likely to be questioned and removed. In cases where I've had a question on an already existing article, I first look for editors who have posted to it. But for a proposed new article, there's no reason not to raise the question right here on this project talkpage. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done!

--Ravpapa (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bravo. -- kosboot (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

One or a number of awards?

I recently amended the new guideline. I don't believe it's the intent of the people here that every album that has won a major award should have it's own stand-alone article. For example, the "International Classical Music Awards" is arguably a major award. Every year, they give out over 10 awards (in various categories). 2011 award winner are:[1] I don't believe the people here feel that all these award winners should have their own stand alone articles. LK (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence, you're absolutely right. The reservation was, as Ravpapa said,

• The general notability guideline in its original considers any one of these criteria alone to be sufficient for establishing notability, and I am loath to stray too far from that.

So probably the question now becomes whether your change, though agreed here, may become "a stray too far". No one seems to like the idea, but I still think the most satisfactory solution would be to cut classical music free from undifferentiated (music), not so much because we're being overwhelmed by the "Pink Floyd" crowd, but simply because the basic issues are entirely different. As we understand "classical" music, only the note-for-note written composition is original. With other types of music, it is primarily the specific interpretation/ performance and its setting that is original and unique. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I explained above that I didn't think "The recording has won a major award." was a strong criteria. LK's edit is an improvement, though frankly I'd prefer to see it removed completely. --Kleinzach 07:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I agree - but that still leaves us with the same problem of going our own way while remaining officially tethered to the general (music) guidelines, in which we are already in violation. See Moxy's immediate revert, with comment, of your revert of the essay banner at the top of the main page. (EDIT: As it is, we seem to be in gross violation of WP policies, and will continue to be unless and until classical music can be broken off as a separate category or whatever the proper terminology may be. Otherwise we're just blowing smoke - LK, Kleinzach, me, MistyMorn, kosboot, and everyone else who has argued to this effect, including Ravpapa. All of these points have already been made, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), to no avail.) Milkunderwood (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The essay tag is irrelevant. There is absolutely no violation of WP policies. See Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects for an explanation of project guidelines. At least 100-odd other projects have guidelines. These are not marked as essays.

Essays are expressions of viewpoints (usually personal) about aspects of WP editing etc. Antandrus (a member of this project) has written some examples, e.g. Observations on Wikipedia behavior.

The editor who placed the essay tag (Moxy formerly known as Buzzzsherman) was involved in the Classical music infobox controversy of early 2010 from which this project has (arguably) never fully recovered (see Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion etc). I recently participated in Mfd discussions about some projects that had been set up by this same editor without going through the normal processes including WikiProject Santana. These projects were deleted etc. If I had not been involved here, the ability of the project to make guidelines would not have been questioned. --Kleinzach 14:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we are taking this issue too seriously. For the time being, there is not a posse of editors out there rankling to write articles on the dozens of recordings that receive awards every year. In fact, the only editor who is interested in writing such articles is Robert Allen, and the one article he did write is a perfectly fine article. While it is, in the eyes of most of us, superfluous, it is certainly more innocuous than the hundreds or thousands of articles about cartoon characters, computer games, and toy airplanes.

So I think: we've had our say in the matter, it's time to let it go. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not a posse rankling, but Robert is simply the only such editor who has joined in these conversations, not the only one who has posted superfluous such articles. I did stumble upon the four Hilary Hahn articles just by chance, and have no idea what else may be sitting out there now, or whether anyone has ever tried to go searching for them, if that's even possible. I sympathize with your suggestion to just let it go, but in effect that is just sweeping it under the rug. I have to return to my original problem, where these things clutter and confuse searches, by sending people to specific recordings rather than to articles on the compositions themselves. I am convinced this does WP users a terrible disfavor. For this reason alone I can't consider them to be "innocuous". I suspect the same problem does not arise for cartoon characters, computer games or toy airplanes.

And for those inappropriate articles that are found, trying to get rid of them is a great nuisance, when by rights the original posting editor has the "law" on his/her side. The four Hahn articles were easy to delete, because they had been abandoned by their author(s). When such an article is being monitored rather than abandoned, it's a much more exhausting process. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(EDIT: I'm striking the following from my original post, both because of Robert's response, below, and mostly because this is really a side issue that detracts from what I think is the much more important problem, above, and also my earlier response, with present edit, to Kleinzach.) Milkunderwood (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a correction, and/or a different viewpoint, is also called for here with regard to Robert.Allen. He has told us that he had posted three, not one, articles; and I disagree that they are "perfectly fine". They are relatively innocuous; but are still basically not much more than track listings. Again,I have no intention of trying to get any of the three deleted. But I do think they could still be improved with more and deeper discussion of their consequentiality.

I think there is a bit of a misperception here. The articles I wrote were mainly to provide supplementary details about two albums for the Busoni discography I was working on at the time. I really have very little personal interest in writing more such articles. I just feel that if editors create them, and they meet the general Wikipedia notability guidelines (by citing two or more appropriate sources) and have Wiki-appropriate titles and formatting, we could let them be. I do NOT advocate the writing of such articles. And I agree with Ravpapa, that it is probably time to "let it go." --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally am more than willing to accept this clarification of your position. From your arguments posted at the very long "Notability" debate I had not understood this. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to end this discussion with some kind of resolution — and hopefully the removal of the irrelevant and misleading 'essay tag' — because sooner or later someone will come along and create another series of minimal articles based on recordings. (I note this recent discussion related to what may be potential recording articles.) --Kleinzach 15:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)