Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jordi Savall[edit]

Our article on Jordi Savall has long described him as "Catalan". This is the national identity he adopts, and by which he is generally known, but an IP editor recently changed this to "Spanish" without explanation. I reverted, but another IP editor, or perhaps the same one with a new address, has repeated the change, again without explanation. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but would welcome the opinions of others. --Deskford (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your reasons for calling him Catalan seems entirely sufficient to me, especially when the practice of telling Catalonians that they are really Spaniards has such an ugly history, particularly before 1975. So I reverted again. Thanks for bringing this up. Opus33 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

MGG Online[edit]

For those of you with access to major research libraries, MGG Online has announced its availability since Nov. 7 (available through RILM if the institution has paid for it). From personal experience, I note that MGG often has much better worklists of second-tier composers than available in Grove. No word on individual subscriptions but I suspect they'll be financially prohibitive. - kosboot (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Classical music Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - Chamber Music of Beethoven Template[edit]

I noticed that someone recently created a unified template for Schubert's Chamber Music and thought that it might be a good idea to create something similar for Beethoven. Any thoughts on whether this would be a good idea or not? Graham1973 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Beethoven wrote fewer works than Schubert (if one counts each song not from a cycle an individual work). To me, it would seem more practical to have a navbox of all Beethoven's works. That said, I have nothing against one devoted to B's chamber music, assuming that it will eventually be subsumed into a larger "works" navbox. - kosboot (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Graham1973:@Kosboot: Actually, Beethoven wrote a ton of chamber music. There are the string quartets plus the Große Fuge and 2 preludes and fugues for string quartet (see {{Beethoven string quartets}}), the piano trios and the Trio for Piano, Flute and Bassoon (Beethoven) ({{Beethoven piano trios}}), three string quintets and other bits for that grouping and the Quintet for Piano and Winds (Beethoven), plus the string trios, and numerous other things like octets and septets... Not to mention the sonatas/movements for piano and violin/cello/horn/flute/viola, if they are to be included. 85 works according to List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven § Chamber music... a lot more than Schubert. This might work, actually, and I encourage you to do it! BTW, a unified template for all of Beethoven's work would be enormous! — Iadmctalk  16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Page on Bach's unaccompanied keyboard concertos?[edit]

Bach wrote concertos for one or more keyboard instruments, with an accompaniment of strings and continuo (BWV 1052–65, 1044 and 1050). These concertos are at Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach.

I'd like to start a page on the concertos Bach wrote for keyboard instruments without such accompaniment (BWV 592–7, 971–87 and 1061a). Discussions on whether that is feasible are at Talk:Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Link to List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach from this article? and Talk:List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. In that discussion it has been suggested to bring this here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


I have become one of the main contributors to the article Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. I have recently created detailed content on BWV 1052, 1053, 1055 and 1044. I have created similar content in articles on Bach's organ music (several articles, two ongoing); on his six sonatas for obbligato harpsichord and violin (BWV 1017 and BWV 1019 so far); and on one cantata BWV 39 (the article BWV 105 was also first created by me a long time ago). I have created audio files like

The article on Bach's harpsichord concertos had no proper references before I arrived and was full of errors. Many of those references are in German, e.g. the multivolume series by Siegbert Rampe published by Laaber in 2013, and are only available in university libraries. As far as I am aware Francis Schonken (FS) has no access to those references. There is also a large literature on the keyboard concertos of the Bach family, with the bulk of the concertos written by Bach's sons (WFB, CPEB, JCB). Again FS seems largely unaware of that literature. The principal contributors are David Schulenberg (one of the main editors of Urtext editions of C.P.E. Bach) and, for the keyboard concertos, Jane R. Stevens. Her book "Keyboard concertos and the Bach family: evolution of a genre" was published in 2001. It charts the development of the keyboard concerto and its influence on composers like Mozart. FS does not seem to know about this book, yet has claimed to have mastered the literature in the field. He has made the assertion that Concerto transcriptions (Bach) cannot be an article. These works form two sets composed in Weimar around 1713–1714. FS has said they belong in the article on Bach's own harpsichord concertos BWV 1052–1058, compiled in Leipzig around 1738: his latest "reasoning" is that all these works are transcriptions, although he has not explained why that applies to works like BWV 1055. I have not understood his reasoning at all; he seems to be using ideas that he invented himself, a.k.a. WP:OR, which lack any coherence.

There are three main sources for this material. Richard Jones discusses the history of these concerto transcriptions in the first volume of his "The Creative Development of Johann Sebastian Bach". He uses the term "Concerto transcriptions": he explains why these arrangements, mainly of Vivaldi concertos, were made by Bach in Weimar in 1713-1714 and the influence the Venetian school had on Bach's own concerto writing. Peter Williams discusses each of the organ transcriptions in detail in his book on the Organ Music of J.S. Bach. David Schulenberg discusses each of the keyboard transcriptions in his book on the Keyboard music of J.S. Bach. The Neue Bach Ausgabe refers to these two sets of works as "Concerto arrangements" in the Bärenreiter editions.

FS has militated against an article called Concerto transcriptions (Bach), but has not given any coherent reasons.[1] A glance at his editing history in the last few months reveals that he now spends most of his time following me around to articles. I don't know why he has been doing so, but he is repeating the disruptive conduct which was first witnessed on BWV 4 and Orgelbüchlein and which resulted in his editing being restricted. At present he is arguing that we should ignore the main sources and not differentiate between Bach's keyboard reductions of the concertos of Vivaldi and others for organ (BWV 592–596) and harpsichord (BWV 972-980) and Bach's original compositions such as the Italian concerto, BWV 971 and the harpsichord concertos BWV 1052–1058. His conduct and relentless outpourings on talk pages resemble what happened on BWV 4 and its talk page. I cannot see how FS's "ideas" help the reader. He has not added any substantial useful content to wikipedia recently; and now seemingly is trying to prevent others doing so based on his own semantic sophistry and faux Bach scholarship.

So far wikipedia has drawn a clear distinction between Bach's organ and harpsichord transcriptions of other composers' works and Bach's own original compositions. That is what happens in the literature and I can see no reason to change that. Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive fork articles/essays[edit]

Having had no response here, Francis Schonken (FS) has created a series of fork articles, pushing his own point of view. Two of these fork articles concerned the content of Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. They have been changed to redirects back to the main article. Apart from pushing his own point of view in ledes, hardly any new content was added. It seems that FS is not interested in adding detail about individual concertos, but instead about making unsourced statements in the lede. These statements seem to be his own individual point of view and are not a summary of modern Bach scholarship. By creating these fork/essays, FS is acting as an amateur untrained musicologist, presenting his own home-brewed theories in wikipedia's voice. FS has consistently made no effort to research the current literature, much of which is not available on the web but only in specialist (university) libraries. FS has for example written direct commentary on Forkel's 1802 biography as if he were a musicologist himself. The topic area—the concertos of Bach—has been written about in great detail by trained musicologists: because of lost instrumental works, it is known to be an area of uncertainty where conjectures are made on the grounds of reasonableness; apart from stylistic analysis, these hypotheses have also been based on circumstantial documentary evidence. FS in general has ignored contemporary contributions of Bach scholars and instead used primary sources and invented titles (e.g. "Weimar concertos") to push his own point of view in wikipedia's voice.

Regarding the original question raised here by FS, instead of creating an article on concerto transcriptions, FS wrote an essay article on the "unaccompanied keyboard concerto," again pushing his own private theories (that Bach's 1713-1714 transcriptions of concertos by other composers and the 1735 Italian concerto, an original newly composed work, belong to the same genre). The article has now been moved to Concerto transcriptions (Bach). It was disruptive to label it otherwise.

That topic—transcriptions for harpsichord and organ of concertos by other composers—has not so far been covered on WP. All the transcriptions are covered in a comprehensive way by Richard Jones (history), Peter Williams (organ transcriptions) David Schulenberg (keyboard transcriptions), as well as a long preface by Pieter Dirksen (the editor of Breitkopf's 2010 Urtext edition). The Bach scholar Robert Marshall has written a long article suggesting that the keyboard transcriptions might originally have been intended for organ (in "JS Bach as Organist", eds Stauffer & May). Based on his contributions so far, FS is not interested in researching or adding detailed content on these works. He has chosen to create a series fork articles to push a rigid viewpoint which does not represent Bach scholarship in any way at all. Any contributions should be added in the main articles which now are:

The evolution of the keyboard concerto in the compositions of Bach and his sons is discussed in the book of Jane R. Stevens, "The Bach family and the keyboard concerto: evolution of a genre". FS has so far made no attempt to write about the purpose of the transcriptions. It is stated quite clearly in various sources—sources of which FS is aware—that Bach probably wrote them partly at the request of his employer and partly to acquaint himself with the contemporary Italian concerto, particularly the compositions of Vivaldi. As pointed out by commentators, Bach would have been able to extemporise renditions of the concertos on the organ (or other keyboard instrument) directly from the original scores. As regards the history and purpose, Marshall explains that Bach's employer in Weimar returned from a trip to Amsterdam where he is likely to have acquired the scores of the concertos and where there was an established tradition of performing transcriptions on church organs. There is a large amount of content on the transcriptions and Bach's original concertos, that is missing from wikipedia. This is valuable content for the reader. Adding fork articles to push abstruse theories, not represented in Bach scholarship in not the purpose of wikipedia. These fork articles are just misleading and confusing to the reader. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's disruption has been more widespread than I understood. He created about seven or eight new list articles to spread his own views about Bach on wikipedia. He did not create any new content. He did not bother formatting references in the standard way. He mechanically copy-pasted content into several different places.
There is a lot of valuable content missing from wikipedia on Bach's compositions. It concerns Concerto transcriptions (Bach). There are detailed accounts of each concerto transcription in the books of Schulenberg (harpsichord) and Williams (organ): not one iota of that content was transferred onto wikipedia by FS. Instead of trying to improve wikipedia and help the reader, FS created a series of list articles to hammer home his own personal views on the concertos of Bach. He has disrupted wikipedia in a major way in so doing. He decided to label the Concerto transcriptions for organ as "Organ concertos" by creating Organ concerto (Bach). He is well aware that this terminology is not used. Similarly he attenpted to write another fork article Concerto (Bach). Again it was a list with the lede an unsourced essay by FS. All of these articles—forks/essays written by a non-expert which are misleading, inaccurate and confusing to any reader—have been redirected to standard articles. I see no rationale for creating Organ concerto (Bach), beyond disruptiveness. Similarly Concerto (Bach).
It is true that an article by Christoph Wolff was published in 2016 with the title "Did Bach compose organ concertos?" in 2016. Through an article title, FS has used wikipedia to reply "yes" to that rhetorical question. Wolff's question, however, did not concern concerto transcriptions. It was an intelligent question. Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mathsci, I appreciate that you have communicated here in a neutrally worded manner, avoiding hyperbole and attack. I also appreciate that as a practicing expert in this overall subject matter (the keyboard works of Bach), you are likely much more qualified than many of us, including Francis Schonken, in discussing and writing about this material. Given Francis's behavior which has spanned many many months and which necessitated editing restrictions at one point and which continued after the editing restrictions expired, I consider that you deserve assistance and a hearing on this matter, which you have not as yet gotten here, perhaps because of the holiday season, or perhaps because of the technical and academic nature of the subject which is your expertise. I'm not taking sides here. I would like to invite two level-headed editors, Voceditenore (who edits music articles here) and Johnuniq (who neutrally opined in the early ANI thread which led to Francis's editing restrictions), to opine here if they can. I believe if these two editors (Francis Schonken and Mathsci) cannot at this point edit collaboratively and respect each other's respective expertises, then another ANI, or even an ArbCom case, may be in order. It sounds to me as if Mathsci may have legitimate accuracy and NPOV concerns about Francis's activities in this subject area. It also does sound as if Francis is targeting Mathsci's activities/expertises. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Music template - time signature images.[edit]

There's an anonymous editor who is changing a lot of time signatures to their music template images. So when it said 4/4 before, it now says 4
. See the Haydn Symphony category for lots of example articles. I'm not as active an editor as I used to be so I may be out of touch with the latest norms. It looks a bit odd to me. The text seems more readable. Do we like the way this looks?DavidRF (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it was clearer and more legible before the change. Opus33 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not see a lot to choose between them, myself. If the template was not created for this kind of situation, what is it for? If it really is no improvement over the usual plain-text method, then shouldn't the template itself be challenged or its use deprecated?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed those edits and decided not to revert them because I agree with Jerome's sentiments. I would, however, like some improvement to the time signatures produced by {{music}} (don't force bold serif), and I said so earlier this year in a discussion at Template talk:Music#Time Signatures. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Further to my comment, above, I notice one small formatting problem, in the List of musical works in unusual time signatures. When the template is used in the section headers, the "divisor" numerals are often cut off by the underscore (at least in my browser: Safari 10.0.1, running under OS X 10.11.6). This seems to be because the chosen (oldstyle) font has descenders for numerals such as 3 and 4. I suppose there must be some way of getting around this problem by manual editing, but it ought to be automatically compensated for in the template.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

We would like to wish everyone on the project a very happy holiday season! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This England nominated for Featured article status[edit]

I've nominated This England (album) for Featured article status. Project members are invited to participate in the Featured article candidate discussion. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

and for deletion....[edit]

I've nominated the same article for deletion here. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion. Smerus (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Full format for discographies[edit]

Looking at Turangalîla-Symphonie#Recordings, I see that Jerome Kohl added a {{Full}} tag to each entry (over 4 years ago!), and asked for format and catalog number, among other comments. Fair enough, and I was about to add the two in my collection, but what's the preferred form of punctuation, parenthesis, or font? The Guideline/Recordings section links to three style guides, none of which are prescriptive or applicable. The examples cited in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Discographies don't have format or catalog number anyway. Is there a consensus or even an external style guide for how to present format, label, and catalog? Something like:

  • Myung-Whun Chung, Orchestre de l'Opéra Bastille, Yvonne Loriod (piano) and Jeanne Loriod (ondes martenot) – Deutsche Grammophon 1990, CD (431 781-2) (supervised by Messiaen, and first recording of the revised version)

(or DGG, or Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft?)

If the "label" is someone like BMG re-issuing another house's original, then how to specify that? And I'm not sure why the conductor is bolded anyway.

If the answer is "no need for consistency", that's OK too. David Brooks (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked the literature lately, but the last time I was paying attention to such things there was general agreement that discography formatting was still a wide-open area. The Chicago Manual used to make the point (and perhaps still does) that the important thing is to be consistent within any particular discography, and to provide whatever information is essential for accurate identification. This includes medium (CD, MP3 file, Edison cylinder, etc.), publisher, any sort of identifying numbers (catalog number is usually the easiest, though matrix numbers and the like may be necessary for archive materials). I have not myself been consistent about formatting from one article to another, but I tend to follow the Library of Congress layout, mainly because the LoC WorldCat is a convenient source. Depending on the type of article, it may be more convenient to make album titles, author (composer) names, record label, or some other feature the primary entry. In the Messiaen case, where the subject is a single composition, it makes sense to use conductors' names for this purpose, though they might instead be listed chronologically by recording date. Catalog numbers should be of first issue, though reissues can be noted at the end of the entry. Just my opinion, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jerome Kohl:: That sounds good, but can you, or anyone else listening, point to or transcribe the LOC layout, either by specification or by example? Perhaps we can even make it a suggested format, while still honoring the current "your choice, but be consistent" rule. About catalog numbers - I actually have no idea if the random set of digits plastered on the CD case is the same as the catalog number, and I suppose for full credit you'd have to go to the publisher (hopefully, the publisher's website). David Brooks (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The current LOC layout is a bit elaborate for use in discographies, since it now displays in table format, under a global title or author-title entry. The basic idea is composer-title (or album title); contents; performer(s); medium/specifications (e.g., LP, 12 in., 33⅓ rpm, stereo); label and catalog number. To this I often append location:publisher, year, which in the LOC entry appears at the beginning of the entry, in its current form. For examples of some variants I have used myself, see Violin Sonata No. 3 (Enescu)#Discography (full listings, with author name treated as part of the album title); Quatre études de rythme#Discography (chronological, non-italicised author entries mixed with album-title entries), Zeitmaße#Discography (chronological, with catalogue number given first, with composer and work title taken for granted and shortened data for recorded medium). As I said, I tend to adapt my formatting to the needs of the individual article but, as you can see, I am not consistent from one article to another. When doing chronological lists, I usually insert the venue and date of recording between the performer information and the medium, though LOC puts such information in the miscellaneous notes at the end of their tables.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I use a table format, see for example Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which, btw, needs a FAC review or two, - much appreciated as 2 February is the date hoped for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the inputs. The table structure seems heavyweight to me, although good for standalone articles like The Dream of Gerontius discography. But I'll note that neither that article, nor Mit Fried, has catalog numbers. I'll experiment with my own layout. Jerome Kohl, you seem to have incorrect italic markup on the 5th bullet under Quatre études. David Brooks (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks:fyi {{Ping|Jerome Kohl}} for @Jerome Kohl: Iadmctalk  00:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You can use {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, etc to help with formatting which they handle automatically. They are found in the editing tools under "cite" but have different interfaces in the visual editor and the old code editor. Hope this helps — Iadmctalk  00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
OTOH, I should have looked at what you were actually trying to do... These templates may not help you much. And there is no Template:Cite recording even though everything else under the sun has a cite template. No idea, then.
I'd just shove the stuff in and let others quibble about formatting. The important thing is to have the info. Formatting is pretty low on the list priorities for now, IMO — Iadmctalk  01:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks: Thanks for alerting me to the markup error in the Quatre études discography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

cleanup assistance needed[edit]

The current listing of WP:VA included only two composers without navboxes that seem to be in need of them. Based on List of compositions by Robert Schumann and preexisting templates, I have cobbled together {{Robert Schumann}}. This entailed preparing the preexisting templates for transclusion and creating {{Schumann choral works}} and {{Schumann vocal works}}. These two templates that I created could use a once-over from people who understand both music and WP.

The other composer without a navbox was Hector Berlioz. I have added a line to {{Berlioz compositions}} and transcluded it.

I am not sure how close either of these efforts is to what would be desired, but am receptive to any changes by people with greater understanding than I.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your great efforts. Both of these composers are difficult—Schumann more than Berlioz—because both wrote many works which don't comfortably fit into the typical compositional or instrumental genres (and oy, those songs....). Nevertheless, it's brave to start such navboxes for which I commend you! - kosboot (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Those boxes look good. Thanks — Iadmctalk  01:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oboe-bassoon-piano trio[edit]

I just came across this article, Oboe-bassoon-piano trio. Strange title, strange content, with the works commissioned by one particular ensemble listed first, while the work after which they name themselves, Poulenc's, appears among others, in no apparent order. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say this a candidate for AfD. Firstly, there is no source given (and I know of no source) for the term used as the title. Secodnyl, its clearly aimed as a promo for the Poulenc Trio ensemble, listing a lot of non-notable works by not very notable or non-notable composers. Poulenc's Trio is the only notable work in this format it appears. Maybe it should be a redirect to Trio (music) with a mention in that article of Poulenc's trio and that other composers have written works for that ensemble?--Smerus (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, met the thing when I wanted to enter Poulenc's work to Piano trio repertoire where it doesn't fit because that list is only for the standard scoring. What would you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the article exists to promote one particular group and the works they have commissioned. Several of the works listed are apparently not for the stated oboe-bassoon-piano line-up, but for variants of it with added or substituted instruments. Of the works listed, only those by Poulenc and Glinka seem to have any claim to notability, and the Glinka is actually for clarinet, bassoon and piano. So yes, I would support either deleting or redirecting to the Poulenc. --Deskford (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice also that Piano trio clearly includes combinations other than violin-cello-piano, so I think this should be added to the Piano trio repertoire in a separate section. Probably just one: "Other combinations", because there are very few I think (but I might be wrong). Poulenc's also desperately needs translating from Frenglish. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mozart, K. 491, Featured Article candidate[edit]

Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) is a Featured Article candidate. An approver has suggested that a music specialist review the article. Here is the link, in case anyone has the time and inclination, in which case I would be most appreciative: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)/archive1. Thank you. Syek88 (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Signpost interview with User:Graham87[edit]

Regular visitors to this page will recognize User:Graham87. What many of us may not know is that he's blind. He's interviewed in the latest edition of The Signpost. - kosboot (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Great interview. Great editor — Iadmctalk  00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, guys! Graham87 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting article, and good to read a little background on one of our valued editors. --Deskford (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, well said, Deskford, and thank you, Graham, for all your help, beginning with avoiding links to the German Wikipedia, then all these page moves of Bach cantatas and hymns. I also remember smiling together about Gerlinde Sämann's (Google translate alleged) "tea rodent age" (Tee-nager-alter) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sidebox for IMSLP?[edit]

Currently, links to IMSLP are made via {{IMSLP}}, which adds an inline entry under "External links." I think it would be a good idea to create a sidebox instead to give it more prominence, just like {{Commons}} or {{Wikiquote}}. Although it is technically not a sister project, it is a free-content wiki of material that fills a void in the Wikimedia family, and it's even so well integrated on Wikipedia that we have a scores: interwiki link for it, e.g. scores:Piano Sonata No.16 in C major, K.545 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus). What do you guys think? -- King of ♠ 04:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – IMSLP is not only not a sister project, it has become infested with advertisements and has made access a bit more difficult now, (almost) requiring paid registration. Interwiki links exists for many sites (see m:Interwiki map) and their mere existence doesn't make them sister projects. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Sounds like a good idea, but as Michael Bednarek points out, IMSLP is run by a benevolent dictator (arguably the best form of government yet discovered, if the most fragile), and is not a community project. There are also other such projects, such as CPDL, the Choral (not-restricted-to) Public Domain Library, which would also have a case for appearance. I think it might be better to consider a generic "Get scores" box. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I have no opinion one way or another. I think Michael's claim that IMSLP is "infested with advertisements" is unfair - I have not seen any advertisements on IMSLP. On the other hand, its new policy requiring paid membership could well be a showstopper. I am a contributor, so I get free lifetime membership, and maybe that's why I don't see any ads. Also, Imaginatorium is right about the site being run by a benevolent dictator. On the third hand, you have to weigh all that against the fact that IMSLP is an incredibly valuable resource. Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm also a contributor (both of content and monetarily) so I don't see advertisements. But IMSLP is still an external link. Since WP takes great pains to clarify what's part of the encyclopedia and what's not, I think that should be preserved. - kosboot (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone with Imaginatorium's suggestion and created {{scores}} which allows you to add one or more boxes, where you pass in the page name as an arg keyed by the name of the website (imslp or cpdl). -- King of ♠ 06:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-introduce assessment[edit]

Hi, I may be beating a dead horse (WP:STICK), but what are the reasons for not having an assessment system? Ideally, all articles should be assessed so that they can be included in Version 1.0 (whenever it comes out). Since WP Classical music is for classical music articles that are not under the scope of any other WikiProject, articles under this project don't have a rating and thus can't be included in Version 1.0 (which would be a shame considering the rich history of classical music). Any thoughts? Icebob99 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you could get an answer to your question by using the Search function on this talk page; search on the word "assessment". I hope this helps. Opus33 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Or read Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Assessment Iadmctalk  18:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate the advice. It looks like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 25#Assessments redux has the origin of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Assessment. I still think this deserves some discussion, because my reason wasn't mentioned in the original discussion. That reason as stated above was that articles which fall under this WikiProject don't currently have a rating, so they can't be included in Version 1.0. We could in theory make a subproject for every single article, but that would defeat the purpose of this particular project. Icebob99 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Editors who didn't already know what "Version 1.0" is may find out at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs.
The earlier discussion on Archive 25 includes what I thought was a really good comment from Drhoehl, which I repeat here:
To be honest, I'm not sure that assessments really have much value. Different projects routinely assess the same article differently, and, like the overgeneralized claims in information boxes, the assessments strike me as more misleading than useful for the general reader. Moreover, at least I as a newcomer found the biography project's routine assessment of everything I contributed, no matter how extensive, as "stub class" (essentially, "little or no useful information") to be discouraging, and I can't help but think that others might have a similar reaction [O33: yup] and, if less butt-headed than I am, just give up on contributing. So my vote, given that we don't have elaborate assessments already, would be not to go down that road at all. Drhoehl (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Not clear to me that the (unproven) benefit of Version 1.0 outweighs the cost that Drhoehl describes. Maybe if Version 1.0, once released, turns out to be a great success, we should get on board? Opus33 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that if others are. The reason I advocate for assessments is that it gives a good overview of the general state of a WikiProject. People often decide to contribute to WikiProjects because they see that the project has a low average WikiWork score, or that the project is really nailing the destub process, because those are indicators of a thriving project. I gave the Version 1.0 example because it was the original basis of assessments. I would say I don't have much skin in the game since I don't contribute regularly here (I'm WP:MICRO), but I'm interested enough in classical music and assessment in general to give a good push on the assessment if it comes about (I've assessed large numbers of articles in WP:MICRO before). Icebob99 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with others who are in favor of having a project assessment. - kosboot (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A couple of things to consider... There are about 20,000 articles under this project's banner. How many people here are willing to assess them? Given that most people here are content creators and not interested in doing that kind of stuff, a huge number of these will remain permanently unassessed. Not necessarily a bad thing, but then it begs the question of why have assessment? Alternatively, you could "hire" a bot to provisionally assess them by inheriting the assessments from other projects. Not fab, and I'm sure there are many articles which are only bannered by this project, so they would remain unassessed. However, at least you could keep track of how many FAs, FLs, and GAs are within the project's scope as well as how many are classed as stubs (rightly or wrongly) which might be useful. Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
That is something to consider, but to me it seems like it should be said after an initial assessment and to-do list has been done and drawn up. I think I've come across many articles that have some kind of assessment (probably because they're under the aegis of more than one WikiProject). It might be that only 2 of us will actually want to do assessments. I still think that puts us in a better position than having no assessment at all. - kosboot (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to assess articles under this banner if it turns out to be useful. It would be good to have a few FAs and GAs to show to prospective participants. Voc's bot might be a good idea initially as it will deal with quite a number of articles; other articles can then be dealt with at leisure. O33's and Drhoehl's objections to Stub class are noted, though this is really used to point out that an article just needs expanding. Perhaps we just avoid assesing things as Stub and concentrate on A, B, C, GA, FL, and FA? Or even just A, GA FL and FA? The others also seem to give a negative impression of articles...
Regarding Wikipedia:Version 1.0:

If Version 0.8 goes well, we will probably aim to release Version 1.0 in 2013.

Note: The original page for Version 1.0 Nominations has been suspended, for reasons noted on Version 1.0 Nominations and its talk page.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs

2013 was 4 years ago and the whole process is on hold as far as I can tell...
Also Ping: User:Icebob99 and User:Kosboot
 Iadmctalk  20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what is going on with Wikipedia Version 1.0. Their bots still run, e.g. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Composers articles by quality log, but I'm not sure what the purpose of the bot's results is. I think if you decide to re-start assessment, it should be done because it might help the project in its stewardship of articles. Wikipedia Version 1.0 is pretty irrelevant. Ditto, "WikiWork scores". The score approximates how many classes or "steps" a project's articles need to ascend for all of the project's articles to reach Featured status. Supposedly the lower the score, the more "successful" the project is. (More about this dubious concept in this Signpost article from 2013.). Re using a bot to inherit ratings from other projects, the primary source of completely unassessed and therefore "unbotable" articles will be the ones on classical compositions. The ones on classical musicians and ensembles, conservatories, festivals, etc. generally have multiple project banners on them. Incidentally, WikiProject Composers still does assessment in theory but currently has almost 1000 unassessed articles and over 4000 stub class articles, many of which I'm sure are not stubs at all. Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll check the major articles through and make sure they have some sort of assessment: Wikipedians generally expect them to be assessed, I guess (e.g. Classical music, Baroque music, and of course my own 21st-century classical music). Then I'll check the composers (via WP:COMPOSERS). Finally, if I could be bothered, the quadrillion or so composition articles... OTOH, that latter might just not be worth the effort. I'll see how I feel. May be the biggies like Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) should be checked. (I'm not feeling the love for this idea...) — Iadmctalk  15:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm... Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Composers articles by quality log is great for a laugh at least... Watch Marcos Coelho Neto go!!! — Iadmctalk  15:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah! There were two Composer banners: one saying stub, the other unassessed... hence it flip-flopped daily! Well a bit of fun but now the real work starts... BTW, I just completed an AWB scan of all composers in the 21st-century category and fixed a ton of errors. These should all now be good better articles (BAs?) — Iadmctalk  15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
One issue:{{WikiProject Classical music}} didn't support the class= field so I added it back in. Hope that's OK? (I'm still working out how to make it work so I can see the assessment on Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)...) — Iadmctalk  17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah-ha! Just found the discussion from 7 years ago which is basically me and Kleinzach bashing the proposal out with a little input (mostly ignored) from others. That doesn't really count as genuine consensus to drop assessments to me (5 editors) and I a was one of those agreeing to drop them. So... I think I can go ahead an assess? Once I've tweeked the doc file that is to assess... Thoughts? Am I way out of line here? — Iadmctalk  17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Opus33 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Opus33: I've reverted my edit to the doc page as there is still obviously a lot of opposition to the idea of assessment. The full functionality needs a template editor or an admin anyway so I couldn't go any farther. Probably just as well... — Iadmctalk  21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah...I need to turn assessment on in the template not just the doc page, but no can do: "This page is currently protected so that only template editors and administrators can edit it." So unless the edits by Kleinzach to remove assessment and quality scale are reverted we cannot do assessments any way. Or we can but they don't display on the talk pages — Iadmctalk  18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no clue how to turn on the assessments feature, but I'll get to work once it's possible. Icebob99 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I do like the provisional bot idea. I think there is also an option to check for a stub tag on a page and assess it that way as well. Icebob99 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This will likely be opposed by quite a number of the established editors here once they turn up. I think we should hold back until we get further input, though Opus33 is representative of the quorum of editors working at this project so I don't hold out much hope. I'll work on composers in the meantime if you wish to help me? — Iadmctalk  21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
If you think that "quite a number of the established editors" might object to bot assessment, could the bot be programmed to work on a select group of articles so that editors could see and determine whether to go forward with more bot assessment? - kosboot (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I know how to turn on the assessments, but I need to see consensus here before I will do that. I also need to know if both |class= and |importance= are desired, or just |class=. Once firm consensus has been reached, leave a note at Template talk:WikiProject Classical music, linking back here - since I am watching that page, but not this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Will do. Though I suspect the horse has long since petrified and we're using its femurs to flog another... — Iadmctalk  00:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Kosboot: I meant they will probably object to the entire proposal to turn assessment back on... Hence fossilized horses beating other fossilized horses... — Iadmctalk  00:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Voceditenore that arguments to establish assessment based on WP V-1.0 and WikiWork Scores are irrelevant. Further, as the process of assessment is, politely, a very inaccurate science, I can't see any benefit. To the contrary, I've seen quite a few well written articles that suffered badly when taken through the wringer of A/GA/FA assessments. Some suggested partial assessments, but I think the huge number of articles will create a meaningless division between assessed and unassessed articles – sad. Bottom line: Oppose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I too oppose assessments. The Good Article and Featured Article processes depend entirely upon having well-qualified reviewers who are willing and able to do the work, and both processes seem to be barely but manfully managing to avoid drowning. Having other forms of assessments would either distract reviewers from these more important processes or suffer from the involvement of less-qualified reviewers. I see every week on my watchlist damage caused to articles by editors who are not musically literate. Opening these articles up to review by these editors would clearly be a problem. I do not understand the WP V-1.0 and WikiWork Scores issue, but make the following point: systems should be subordinate to quality articles, not the other way around. Syek88 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for my over-zealous actions in attempting to re-enable assessments in the Project's banner. I did this because quite a number of articles do have assessments (e.g. see our banner in the edit page of Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)). However, I reverted after Opus33 correctly pointed out that I had overstepped the mark. I am still willing to do assessments—I have recently assessed two for GA under our banner: one passed (National Repertory Orchestra), one failed (Experimental rock). (Not sure if the latter is really ours, actually... I suspect it is such only because the genre is influenced by classical music.) — Iadmctalk  02:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps another option is to farm out a number of categories to [new?] daughter projects, e.g. classical performers—though I assume they are normally covered by WikiProject Musicians already and should thus be removed from our roster per "... all articles related to classical music that aren't covered by other classical music related projects". Indeed, I'm sure that a great many of the 20.000 articles should be re-bannered, anyway, as they are already covered by other classical music related projects. Also, moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force to WP:COMPOSERS would make sense as that is really more the logical place for it, IMO. That way, compositions could be assessed alongside their composers. Thoughts? — Iadmctalk  02:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


I have placed everyone who has expressed an opinion in one of the sub-headings below to get a better picture of where we are. If you disagree with my placing you or where I've placed you, please remove yourself or change your position. Perhaps others could place their !vote here, too? Thanks — Iadmctalk  02:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)




  • Voceditenore (Commented several times on practicalities without committing either way, as far as I can tell.)
  • Iadmc (I'll just go with whatever is decided.)

Uninvolved admin[edit]

  • Redrose64 (Willing to help with templates etc. if we decide to start assessing again.)

Consensus achieved?[edit]

Perhaps another day (for seven days to have elapsed) and close as opposed? — Iadmctalk  18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I was invited here with a view to closing the discussion as an uninvolved editor, though I'm not entirely sure I am neutral enough. Although I haven't commented myself, I have been reading the comments of others and trying to form my own opinion. I don't have strong views either way. I can see that introducing assessment would bring this project into line with most other Wikipedia projects, and there are benefits to unity across Wikipedia. This project often feels to be at odds with the general wikiflow, though that's not necessarily a bad thing - it indicates that there exists a group of editors with the dedication and enthusiasm to work together on improving articles in this subject area, editors who have established views on what works best for their co-operative work and editors whose work I much respect for their knowledge and commitment. If assessment is introduced, but most articles are assessed by bots or drive-by editors who don't spend much time with each article, then I don't see the assessment as offering much by way of value. I think Syek88 (talk · contribs) puts it well in a comment above, and we may be better concentrating on GA and FA assessments. Sorry, am I rambling? If you want my opinion I think we're best leaving things as they are. If you want me to be neutral I would say that the consensus of others would appear to be against introducing assessments. --Deskford (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Deskford! (I invited him, BTW.) Displaying only FA, FL, and GA might be useful as these tend to be assessed independently by those who understand the requirements and wish to improve the encyclopedic quality of articles. IMO, "encyclopedic quality" with regard to any article dealing with music and musicians does require an understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music, so perhaps we should make that point in the appropriate places? Whether or not we decide to reintroduce assessment, that is. — Iadmctalk  20:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Camilla Kolchinsky[edit]

Can anyone help with the article for Camilla Kolchinsky? I saved it from speedy deletion, but I don't really know where to look for sourcing and I'm not really interested enough to do any true digging. There's a bit of a barrier here as far as time and possibly language goes, as she seems to have been most active pre-Internet. She's worked with a number of notable orchestras, so I figured that it was worth asking here to see if anyone can find anything. I'm getting hints here and there that she should be notable, as I see her name come up in various snippets. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: I'll check it out. Thanks! — Iadmctalk  14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm... "This is camilla's page" was a little without context! However, well done for finding the genuine article, I'm using Yandex to search more for her — Iadmctalk  14:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Then again, her Russian Wikipedia article is being considered for deletion: ru:Кольчинская, Камилла Александровна... Still, I'll pinch the translation and see if I can work on it in user space — Iadmctalk  14:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice also that ru:WP says she died last year, while the "Official site"* makes no mention of this. (* Is any evidence required to show that something claiming to be an "official site" is, well, whatever it is supposed to mean exactly?) Not difficult to find her searching on "Kolchinsky conducting", and she's one of six featured in A Woman Is a Risky Bet: Six Orchestra Conductors. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up(s)! — Iadmctalk  15:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem - I was initially going to just speedy it, but something about it made me kind of take another look. If you can find enough to justify an article, great - if not then I figure that we can either PROD it or take it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


Inspired by Francis Poulenc as TFA on his birthday, I translated - with the help of LouisAlain without whom that would not have been possible - the French catalogue of his works to FP (Poulenc). Now you can link to any piece he wrote by its FP number, which should be helpfully for the many pieces without article, - example: [[FP (Poulenc)#11|FP 11]] = FP 11. - The article was moved to FP (catalogue), which I think is less precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, LouisAlain. It looks great! Thanks for this. BTW, I don't think there are other "FP" catalogues so FP (catalogue) is fine, IMO: the article explains whose works it catalogues and Francis Poulenc#Music helpfully links to it. I see your point about precision but no need to revert. [[FP (Poulenc)#11|FP 11]] should probably now be [[FP (catalogue)#11|FP 11]], though, to avoid possible future double redirects — Iadmctalk  18:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! The one who moved said I could still use the former, so I do as I still link Max Reger works (in a similar manner, by Op. number) and not List of works by Max Reger, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
True enough — Iadmctalk  10:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Re. FP (Poulenc) vs. FP (catalogue):

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Francis!
  • Go ahead, move to some longer name, as long as we are not requested to code (and first remember) something like [[List of compositions by Francis Poulenc#11|FP'11]] everytime we link to a single piece.
  • Crosslinking: in the bulleted list, we have links to articles (from the titles) and links to the catalogue (from FP #). In the catalogue, we have a link to the list by genre from the navbox, but no links to individual sections (as the catalogue has the same information, and linking sometimes to an article, sometimes to a list section, looking identically blue, would be confusing to reader). We could, however, link (for example) not chamber music, but more specifically to the chamber music section in the list, but that would need a link to chamber music where it lands, for those who don't know what chamber music is. (Not long ago, I was requested to link Sacred music, to avoid the impression that the music was sacred.)
  • In the navbox, I'd prefer both catalogue and list in the footer, but then it would not show because it's generally collapsed. Should we perhaps go (to a village pump) to have an option "collapsed but show footer"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved FP (catalogue) to The Music of Francis Poulenc per my first proposal above (and seeing no opposition to that idea). Not convinced whether we need two pages in this case: combining the table with the "by genre" list on one page seems like a viable option too. But unless there's some encouragement here I'd leave the launching of such merge proposal (with appropriate tags, and a discussion in the appropriate place) to someone else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Poulenc's Violin Sonata[edit]

Please look at Template:Did you know nominations/Violin Sonata (Poulenc): someone who understands French, English and music is needed to improve the article which was translated from fr. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


Like Poulenc: We have a List of compositions by Max Reger and a List of works by Max Reger, with a history too long to explain. Should they stay separate or be merged? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We had a List of compositions by Max Reger (March 2016) and a List of works by Max Reger derived from it (sorry without attribution on the talk page then). The history just got more complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


  1. Do we want two pages or a merge?
  2. One or two pages: which name(s)?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: A decision to merge two articles should not be decided on a Project page, although the WP:MERGEPROP discussion can be advertised and linked to here. Clearly it should be "List of compositions", to match all other composers' list articles, and there should not be two duplicate articles. To initiate the merge, all of the very precise steps in WP:MERGEPROP need to be followed. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it should not be decided here, but can be discussed here. Clearly we have two articles for Poulenc, and that made me think there might be reasons for the same for Reger. I had connected this discussion by indenting to the former, because of the connection. If we decide to not merge, no merge discussion is needed. If we decide to merge, all information is at present in the works, only the article history needs to be merged, therefore it's not the typical merge procedure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
To repeat, a decision to merge two articles should not be decided on a Project page, although the WP:MERGEPROP discussion can be advertised and linked from here. It is indeed a "typical merge"; the articles are duplicative. Edit histories do not get merged; when articles are merged the redirect contains the edit history of the merged article. Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal discussion has been initiated at Talk:List of compositions by Max Reger[edit]

Per WP:MERGEPROP, both articles have been tagged and the merge proposal discussion has been started at Talk:List of compositions by Max Reger#Merger proposal. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Overhauling Étude No. 1 (Villa-Lobos)[edit]

This article was created in 2009 by a user who has not made any further edits on Wikipedia. It has been flagged for improvements since that year. However there has been no large scale attempt to give the article a proper overhaul. I have just taken the step of adding some additional categories and trying to sectionate the article. Help wanted tracking down sources. Graham1973 (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be better to expand into an article on the full set of 12 Études, rather than just No. 1? --Deskford (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that suggestion, there is also the case of the two one-line articles on the composers 1st and 4th, which would be better served if converted to an article covering full set of 5 Prelude's for Guitar.Graham1973 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Five AfDs that may of interest[edit]

Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mozart piano concerto in c minor now featured![edit]

Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) - Our first ever FA I think! — Iadmctalk  20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Who is "our"? - I nominated it for TFA on 24 March. The last TFA of classical music (if we don't Francis Poulenc), was on 16 July 2016. - Another FAC is open, comments welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, no, the last TFA on a piece of classical music was on 19 October 2016, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. Didn't realise there were others as we have no assessment system... — Iadmctalk  23:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a list of a few FAs would be more impressive for a start to this talk than the information that Signpost wrote about it. They can serve as models. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the sources for Violin sonata[edit]

I was looking over the references for the above article and found that the third reference is simply the words "A Brief Analysis of Debussy's Violin Sonata, Brahms' Violin Sonata, Op. 78, and Shostakovich's Eighth String Quartet, Op. 110". It is not clear if this is the title of an article, the title of a book or simply a statement that the author of the article (Or whoever added the reference.) made this study.

I am not sure how to begin checking this third reference. Can anyone help?

Graham1973 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I imagine it is this dissertation. It seems of limited value to me - unless someone is happy to go through alengthy rigmarole and shell out $33 (or whatever) just to find out what it says, you might as well just delete it. The sentence to which it is attached is an anodyne generalisation, which could itself be deleted, or just reworded; the fact that these composers also wrote works they called "sonatas" can be verified by looking at lists of works on IMSLP, for example, which suggests there are hundreds of such composers. In fact, I think that sentences like this are misleading, because they suggest either that there is something (who knows what) very distinctive about the sonatas of these three composers, or that this is an almost comprehensive list. Imaginatorium
Ask User:Shabidoo who developed the article and added the reference [3]. The article is far from being perfect, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the line and it's reference to the articles talk page.Graham1973 (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Of possible interest 2[edit]

My state classical-music public-radio station has a weekly art song program (previously called Great Songs, now called Singing and Other Sins because nowadays people call anything that can be downloaded a "song"). It is the only radio program in the world that focuses on art song. The station has a new website format and all of the archived episodes are free to listen to: [4]. Over the years the show has also done exclusive interviews: I particularly recommend the 2013–2016 interviews with Ned Rorem, and the two-part 2013 interview with Christa Ludwig(!). Just Control+F interview. Most programs are not interviews but rather artsong programs with well-informed commentary. Anyway, check out the various episodes if you like! Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice idea. By the way the weekly program has been running since 1988; I now notice that those archives only go back to 2012 for some reason. Maybe they don't have the earlier ones converted (yet) or available. Looks like that dedicated site is a labor of love of Gary Hickling, the host. Softlavender (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Leigh Embleton[edit]

An apparently non-notable composer called Matthew Leigh Embleton has been repeatedly using IP addresses to add his name to List of composers for lute for about five years. Now he seems to be taking a different approach, adding external links to his own website and to a Google site of doubtful value that mentions him prominently, not only to this list page but to several other lute-related pages. Should these additions all be reverted, or is there any value in them? A second opinion would be welcomed. His latest contributions appear to be as (talk · contribs). --Deskford (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, an "External Links" section is not an invitation for people to add links to their own websites or any other website for no reason other than they are in some way related to the topic.Of the three links currently at the foot of the article, the first and third are definitely not appropriate. You could make an argument for the second, I suppose, although the "Lute Society" seems to be no more than two men operating out of a letterbox. Syek88 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I'll remove them. --Deskford (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)