Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

pianorarescores.com and WP:COI

I thought I should draw your attention to Special:Contributions/Prslibraries, specifically on the matter of WP:COI. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not just COI, but they are selling the scores, so it's a pretty cut and dry spam case. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WallaWallaSymphony1925.jpg

image:WallaWallaSymphony1925.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

LvB Op. 11: Piano or Clarinet?

This move from the title Piano Trio, Op. 11 (Beethoven) to Clarinet Trio, Op. 11 (Beethoven) by User:Casadesus strikes me as odd because the work is categorised as Category:Piano trios by Ludwig van Beethoven and listed in {{Beethoven piano trios}}. If the work is indeed better known as a clarinet trio, that category and template should be adjusted, no? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the clarinet as the main instrument is considered the 'normal' instrumentation, places such as this worklist, Arkivmusik, and the IMSLP all seem to corrilate on that front. If you check out the first score, you'll note it has both parts, but the violin is in parenthesis, clearly designating an alternate. That said, it IS still a piano trio, both for the fact that the violin is considered a completely valid and composer approved choice, as well as the fact it's a trio and has a piano. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Grove Music Online: 'Piano trio. A composition for piano and two other instruments, usually violin and cello; standard variants include piano with flute and cello (Weber j259), clarinet and viola (Mozart k498, Schumann op.88), clarinet and cello (Beethoven op.11 and Brahms op.114), and violin and horn (Brahms op.40).' This clearly indicates to me that the work should be listed under 'Piano Trio', and it can be cited in support of a move back. Interestingly there is no Grove entry for 'clarinet trio', but such a title would suggest to me a trio of three clarinets (or maybe two clarinets and basset-horn?).--Smerus (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as someone from the music library world, I'd like to point out that library usage always privileges the form over the instrumentation, e.g. "Trio [for] piano, clarinet, violoncello." When one has trios that do not have a piano in it, how do you designate those? I don't expect that to be followed here (or at IMSLP), but I think it provides a clearer (better, more consistent) way of organizing information. -- kosboot (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, from Grove again: 'String trio. A composition for three string instruments. The term is generally used to refer to works from the Classical period to the present, scored either for two violins and cello or for violin, viola and cello.' When these dictionary definitions exist from a universally acknowledged authority, why do we need to agonise over them?--Smerus (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now reverted the article, with an explanatory note.--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This is another case where two (or more) titles describe a work well, seen from a different perspective. The trio should be in both categories (if they exist), because by definition it is of course a piano trio, but not the usual violin-cello-piano kind, therefore "clarinet trio" is more specific. - What do we do with Gestural Variations (in terms of categories), composed for oboe-bassoon-piano, with different versions as clarinet trio, oboe trio and flute trio? Create more cats? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, your reasoning is incorrect. To say 'Clarinet trio' is 'more specific' is just wrong - it could, mean (and sometime does) a trio of three clarinets.(See e.g. here. This particular trio - and as it happens Gestural Variations - both count as 'piano trios' by the Grove definition. End of story, unless you have a contradictory definition from a reliable source. There is nothing of course to prevent anyone setting up a category for, say, 'Piano trios including one or more woodwind instruments' - if they really want to. If there isn't already a category for 'woodwind trio'- three woodwind intruments - there ought to be. Etc. It's all straightforward.--Smerus (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
A piano quartet is understood as a quartet of one piano and three others, right? Not of four pianos - but could be. I don't think the matter is as straightforward as you say. - The composer of Gestural Variations knew why gave a real name to the piece, rather than something that can be understood this way and that ;)
ps: the article name piano trio is fine, I was only talking about categories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You have your opinion - i.e.WP:OR. Unless you have a published source you can cite, I don't know how you can possibly make your statement about the intentions of the composer of Gestural Variations. There is absolutely nothing in the article about it, sourced or otherwise. Wikipedia, like it or not, depends on third party sources for verification. That's the way it is, we all have to learn to live with it. As an example - Grove defines 'piano quartet' as 'A composition for piano and three other instruments, usually violin, viola and cello.' It could be four pianos under this definition, why not? I utterly fail to understand your problem with this. --Smerus (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I seem to have a language problem. If I would write in an article that he knew why, without a source, it would be OR, but may I just tell my opinion here? - I would expect Grove to define 'clarinet trio' - in analogy to piano quartet - as 'A composition for clarinet and two other instruments", - that would take us back to the beginning: a piece can be both a piano trio and a clarinet trio, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Terminology is a funny thing. After all, a piano duet doesn't mean a piano and another instrument or even two pianos, but two people at one piano. And <instrument> duet usually does mean two of the same instrument. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm generally staying out of this one, but that's why I like official library subject headings which would promote the form over the instrumentation: Trio (piano, clarinet, violoncello) or in the case of Brahms: Trio (horn, violin, violoncello). They concatenate beautifully and one doesn't need to spend time on discussions such as these.  :-) Ok, back to lurking. -- kosboot (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC) + p.s. and it provides a clear direction for the creation of future article titles. -- kosboot (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
kosboot, I must learn your admirable self-control!!! I will seek to lurk henceforth!--Smerus (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
from lurking to learning: how would you, kosboot, name Beethoven's trio for WP? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Beethoven, it's easy because all the opus numbers are distinctive. I would say Trio, op. 11 (Beethoven) and would have redirects from all the things people are suggesting. The longer a title is the more cumbersome it is to write, and more chance that it won't be the first hit in a search. When we had the big fight over the Moonlight Sonata I was thinking something similar: it would be easier and more consistent to name every Beethoven sonata, Sonata, op. XX rather than have to distinguish the piano sonatas from the various duo sonatas. (This is going on the assumption that they'll be plenty of redirects so that people looking off of liner notes (usually poor sources for reference) will find what they're seeking). -- kosboot (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

James DePreist

The article for James DePreist will be receiving a lot of traffic in the near future due to his death. The article needs work, as much of the text has been pulled from his Allmusic and NEA biographies. It appears to be incomplete and needs expanding, re-wording, sourcing, etc. Any assistance improving this article would be much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Camerata de' Bardi?

I think Camerata de' Bardi should be a redirect to Florentine Camerata. The name of the stub dedicated to the eponymous orchestra of the University of Pavia could then be changed to something like Camerata de' Bardi (orchestra). 86.171.36.216 (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, at least the Google algorithm somehow manages to get the order of the results right [1] (if not the title link [2] in their box). At the moment, we seem to be implying that Camerata de' Bardi " is, first and foremost (cf [3] [4]), the academic orchestra of the University of Pavia in Italy ... founded in 1989 by Luca Bardi..." 86.171.36.216 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
sorted. --Smerus (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. 86.171.36.216 (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Symphony discography

Might there be an editor more familiar with naming conventions and the Wikipedia/classical music manual of style willing to copy edit the Oregon Symphony discography? Any assistance would be truly appreciated. I hope to have this list promoted to FL status, once completed and reviewed. Thank you so much. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Strauss article

Is anyone here sufficiently interested in Richard Strauss to try to straighten out his article? I am definitely not; but it badly needs some help. Somehow his "Works" have been split into two separated sections, and the whole thing is sort of a jumbled mess. I only went there looking for one specific opus number, and after a few moments of surprise and frustration, found what I needed and closed the door behind me. I think most composers' pages generally have biography following the lead, and their works lower down on the page. I did leave a note on the talkpage, but I'm not sure anyone ever looks there. (If it were just a simple question of rearranging text, I would have gladly done that; but it needs some thoughtful rewriting.) Milkunderwood (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed this is a crap article, and I agree a quick fix won't do. RA is not one of my strong points, but can we perhaps get a task force together to kick it ito better shape?--Smerus (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Kleinzach is presently taking a stab at it - thanks, and hello again! Seems like you were away for a while. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, basically away, but I thought a quick restructure would help. Unfortunately there is a lot more that needs to be done with this. --Kleinzach 10:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Der fliegende Holländer

Our friend Gerda Arendt has requested a move from what is presently titled The Flying Dutchman to its correct name, and the "CommonName" crew is ganging up on her, trying to shoot down her proposal. Not only is this the only Wagner given an English title here at Wikipedia, but I would be hard pressed to think of any other opera where the original language title is not used. Even Der Ring des Nibelungen is given in German.

If anyone has thoughts concerning this, your input would be welcomed. (Jack, I understand your point, but can't agree with it. Many people might say "The Flying Dutchman", but they go to see, or buy a CD of, Der fliegende Holländer. And doubtless you will be able to find a slew of other translated titles that haven't occurred to me.) Milkunderwood (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For instance:

(Operas originally titled in other alphabets, such as Russian opera, are nearly always translated, or at least transliterated.) Milkunderwood (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You should check at the opera project (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera). They have a lot of active editors over there and have likely discussed this before.DavidRF (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It is at project opera, coming from there, in the context of Richard Wagner going to be celebrated on the 200th anniversary of his birth by Today's featured article, see also the FAC discussion - and participate, he was mainly an opera composer, but as such a composer of classical music, and we can't say that he composed The Flying Dutchman as we can't say Beethoven composed the Moonlight Sonata. That FA (to be) has at present the phrase "Dutchman and Tannhäuser" twice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Since you seem to be addressing me, Milkunderwood (which I've only just discovered), I can only reiterate the comment I made to Gerda about taking more than one bite of the cherry (or the apple, for international audiences). This is a classic case of "I can't get the result I want first go, so I'll just keep on making my point over and over again, in different ways and in different places, until I can hopefully wear enough people down and get what I want that way". To me, this multi-location approach to an issue is the absolute antithesis of the spirit of WP:Consensus.
You may choose to make your arguments in many places. I've made my position known quite clearly, I will not be making it again here, and I will abide by whatever the consensus finally reveals itself to be. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Just saying that it was relisted, and Michael Bednarek read The Grove, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Glazunov violin concerto Op. 82

I'm sure no one is watching Talk:Violin_Concerto_(Glazunov) - I've posted a new question there, if anyone might be able to help. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article, but not with a great deal of confidence. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Systematically include duration + "size" information for all score based Western classical works

Proposal rejected.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For score (sheet music) based Western classical works important descriptive parameters are those having to do with the "dimensions" of such works.

Dimension parameters are either "length" related (that is related to duration in time units, number of bars, number of beats, etc.), "width" related (number of voices or vocal and instrumental parts) or related to "density" (for lack of a better word: average number of pitch changes per bar, or per beat, etc.; average number of modulations, of chord changes, etc.; or even what one could call "thematic" or "motivic" density).

This proposal has got to do exclusively with the "length" parameters.

  1. include duration (in units of time: hours and minutes) of the work. Not all Wikipedia articles having to do with score based Western classical works even carry a mention of their duration. I propose to attempt to make this systematic, that is it should be made part of the explicit description of a well written article on such a subject that it carry duration information. [1]
  2. include "size" as the number of beats (eigth-notes, or quarter-notes, or half-notes, etc. according to what seems more appropriate given the particular work and its written rhythm and meter). The format could be: "Work X contains N eighth-note/quarter-note/eigth-note/etc. equivalent beats"). This objective metric usefully complements the more approximate and problematic duration metric.

Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 10:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Including duration information is often problematic: different interpretations of such works, at different tempos, can have different durations: which particular recordings do you take into account to determine a "typical" duration of such a work and why? and why limit yourself do recordings? live performances should also be taken into account even though information about their duration is much harder to come by. I don't think instructions as to manner the duration information should be obtained and verified should be formalized, at least not at this time and before a thorough discussion of the problem. So this particular proposal does not at this time suggest to modify the informal way duration has been established for those works where it had been included, but simply to extend that practice to all score based Western classical works.

It's an interesting idea that would work for some pieces. It's not going to work for any composition that involves improvisation (e.g. any concerto or similar work with a cadenza or similar passages). I suppose for such works one could list a range of timings. For those not worn out by the infobox war, this would be good information for the infobox. -- kosboot (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the second idea - including the number of beats - is nonsensical, and unless documented elsewhere, might be against WP policy. -- kosboot (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If measuring the length of a piece of music by the number of beats is nonsensical, what other metric do you see which is intrinsic to the work and not dependent on particular interpretations and performances?
As to it being against WP policy? I'd love to have this one explained to me. It wouldn't also be against international humanitarian law or the U.S. federal tax code? You're pulling my leg, right?
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 21:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unless documented in writings, determining the number of beats is original research and therefore goes against WP:NOR. In many works it is also a subjective decision - all the more reason not to include it. As for common sense - what reference sources provide the number of beats for musical works? I don't know of any, which strongly suggests the information is not very useful. Frankly I don' see any metric as being useful to music. The primary reason why timings has become prominent is because of recordings and the need to manipulate them for commercial purposes. But one should not mistake a recording of a work as "the work" itself. Timings are appropriate to recordings, not to the works themselves. -- kosboot (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No, for the large majority of works, "number of beats" would hardly be original research. Simple counting is completely allowed, WP:BLUESKY. That said, it's completely irrelevant. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
kosboot has got a point. Strictly speaking timing is a feature of a recording of a work, not of a work. However the range of timings of different recordings for a given work is a descriptive feature of the work. In any case many articles for classical musical works do carry approximate duration information, e.g. all the articles about Beethoven's Symphonies. Many of course do not, which is why I made this proposal in the first place. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 01:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but do you count the number of beats in repeated sections just once, or twice? What about "da capo" sections? Do you count the quavers or crotchets in Largo passages where the "subdivisions" become more prominent than the "beats"? What about passages with long, extreme ritardandos where a minim beat becomes a crotchet beat, and then gradually merges into a quaver beat? And then there are polymeters where, for example, one layer is in 6/8 with another in 3/4. Oh, the fun is only just beginning as we wade into the outer margins of this swamp!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes the fun is just beginning, hopefully. It would indeed be fun, not to mention interesting and useful to discuss what would be appropriate in specific cases, example by example and case by case. My proposal is of course very general. Its goal is essentially to provide, with all the obvious caveats, a metric that is intrinsic to the work, that would say something about the "size" of works prior to any performance (and indeed in cases in which performances do not even exist). As to the repeated sections, my opinion would be that they should not be taken into account. For example a work containing 12 bars, each of 4 quarter-note beats (in other words 12 x 4/4 bars) which are to be repeated one billion time should not be described as having a length or size of 48 billion quarter-note beats. I think it would be more reasonable to describe it as a 48 quarter-note beat work, even though if actually performed, its duration would be enormous. Such an example actually shows that it would be useful to have both metrics. The two metrics complement each other, as stated in the proposal. Your other examples: polyrhythms, variations of tempos, etc. each would warrant a discussion. Also, at some point the notion of length bleeds into the notion of "density" if that's the appropriate word, or rather the simple counting of beats does not correlate well with what one would intuitively call size. A work of 12 bars x 4/4 with one whole-note per bar and one with 64 sixty-fourth-notes per bar would not be intuitively considered to be of the same "size", yet they are both 48 quarter-note beat long. Just because something is useful does not mean that it is necessarily easy to nail down. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 00:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The repetition question probably has its most serious manifestation in the question of repetition markings on the exposition sections of certain sonata-allegro movements, for example in the first movement of Schubert's "Big" C-major Symphony, where the repeat is seldom observed in practice, but makes an enormous difference in the beat-count or performing duration. Similarly, it was once (and perhaps still is) normal to omit the repeats in the da capo of the minuet in minuet-and-trio movements in Classical-era works. However, if you want an example that will almost certainly cause your CPU to implode, I suggest a work with absolutely no improvisation at all, and everything notated in conventional note values: Stockhausen's Klavierstück XI. Whereas performances generally range between about five and fifteen minutes, reckoning the range of theoretical lengths in beats, measures, or clock time is a task not to be undertaken lightly, as this source and this source demonstrate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Surely the question is not whether counting beats is strictly OR (arithmetic is usually okay) but rather whether treating beats as length is something done anywhere in the literature? If it's not used by any sources, then for us to treat it as a meaningful metric seems very strange, and itself a form of original research - we're making an original decision on how to measure.
I can see the value to mentioning length, but it might be best to be approximate - "Usually lasting around 40 minutes when performed, the piece has..." Andrew Gray (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Andrew Gray. Giving the length in beats or measures of a piece is not standard practice in reference works about music, and quite rightly so -- it's just not an important fact. We should focus on things that really matter, like the historical background of a piece, its musical structure, its composition history, and its reception and influence. (I'm ok with saying a piece is (for example) about 10 minutes long, and indeed we are already doing this for quite a few articles.) Opus33 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The length of a performance is rarely an encyclopedic aspect of a work; exceptions springing to mind include 4′33″, As Slow as Possible, Minute Waltz. If some articles give an indication of an average duration, so be it. Mandating it as part of a work's "important descriptive parameters" seems impractical and it will invite unnecessary and pointless "corrections" – already seen in articles which contain such description. Introducing a completely new measure, "size", seems even less encyclopedic and more subject to pointless disputes – never mind the difficulty of finding that "information". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Michael, your example of the Minute Waltz is of course a general and popular misapprehension of what was intended as mī-ˈnüt to be ˈmi-nət instead (using M-W representations). Milkunderwood (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, that's why its duration is widely discussed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I knew you knew that - sorry I wasn't clear. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
In my very humble opinion, this is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen on Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
While others have kindly, usefully and constructively commented on the proposal and its difficulties, I modestly submit that this last "observation" is one of the most idiotic, useless and non-constructive utterances I have yet seen in this discussion or any discussion on Wikipedia I can at the moment recall.
In answer to the people who are against the inclusion of such information, I thank you for your contribution and I understand your objections, but please consider that without such information a user who turns to Wikipedia for information about Western classical works is given absolutely no idea, as things now stand, that the scale of a work such a some minuet in the Anna Madgalena Klavierbüchlein, which fits on half a page, or the Partita for Solo Flute BWV 1013 which fits on two pages, and that of a work such as say the Matthäuspassion BWV 244 (which takes 336 pages in my Eulenburg pocket editions) or the Mass in B minor, differ enormously.
Do you believe the situation as it stands now is more useful and informative to the potential user of the encyclopedia?
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 09:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
(squeeze) Smerus/David just had the guts to come out straight, and he's right. I can say for my own contribution that I had to struggle to couch my thoughts in language suitable for polite society such as this. I can detect similar sentiments in almost every other editor's comments and edit summaries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I must congratulate you on your "detection" capabilities or at least for being so confident of them. I could not detect anything, not even in your response. If you think it takes "guts" to produce the pitiful infantile and vapid ejaculation that in the opinion of Smerus passes as a "contribution", then I can only feel sorry for you and for anyone who thinks that is a useful way to contribute to a discussion on Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'm with those who think that such an idiotic reaction as that by your dear "Smerus/David" wouldn't be appropriate in any discussion, in any case and anywhere. Unless of course your "jumping to the defense" of poor dear "Smerus/David", who seems to be an acquaintance of yours, is just some mutual backscratching. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 13:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
For reference and as a tribute to the uncanny powers of detection of Michael Bednarek here's the "edit summaries" of the editors who have contributed to the discussion so far in their sequential order including Michael Bednarek's own except for this last comment of his where he jumps to the defense of poor "Smerus/David". Michael Bednarek says he can "detect similar sentiments in almost every other editor's comments and edit summaries"; you've read the comments right here, so here, for your convenience, are the edit summaries:
See what you in turn can "detect" from these edit summaries. Have fun. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 14:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That "Smerus/David" engages in such ejaculations, he's probably got an excuse, he probably just can't control himself. There's people like that. Frothing at the mouth, using expletives in lieu of arguments that can sometimes be the symptom of a psychiatric condition. But that Michael Bednarek jumps to his defense and praises and approves and thus encourages this sort of behavior as a useful debating behavior... Well, words fail me.Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyway. To sum up the whole of this "Smerus/David"/Michael Bednarek episode: you all can judge whether saying "this is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen" should be encouraged in a debate. Make up your mind. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Jerome Kohl for the reference to the two very interesting Lily Yen and Ronald Read articles on what they call the "Stockhausen problem". If I hadn't made this proposal I would not have heard of those two articles, at least not at this time. In view of this, even if nothing comes out of this proposal, it was worth making it. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 11:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Has anyone thought of weighing the printed scores? Quantitative methods are fine, but they have to be applicable to the subject. Recorded performances obviously have durations, but musical works don't normally have durations that can be specified in precise figures. Kleinzach 11:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Weighing the score, hunh? Very funny. Musical works may not "normally" ("normally" meaning? they do sometimes? they do "abonormally"?) have durations, yet several articles on musical works in Wikipedia do contain durations. Or has that escaped your notice? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 13:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If giving duration (or "typical durations") is such a nonsensical idea that it has "Smerus/David" lapse into Tourette syndrome-like behavior and render Michael Bednarek almost unable to control fits of laughter and on the other hand capable of all kinds of extrasensorial "detection", then maybe it ought to be disallowed' in Wikipedia articles on score based Western classical works. What do you think? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 13:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course I am sorry to have incited Basemetal to such a tiswas with my humble comment. I hope he can recover without serious injury to mind or body. But I would gently point out to him that one is allowed to express opinions, even on WP talkpages. Nothing he has said so far has convinced me to change mine. Soothingly, --Smerus (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Saying "this is the dumbest idea I've ever seen" is hardly the expression of an opinion as it is understood in debates I've been taking part in. You may argue that as a result, I too engaged in the same kind of behavior. But that was a reaction and a legitimate one. For people who do what you do in a debate, that is using insults, under the guise "expressing opinions", a zero tolerance policy should apply because such behavior quickly rots and spoils the whole system of civil intellectual debate. So they should be given no quarter, unless they can show a bona fide medical certificate that states a specific medical condition which is the reason for that kind of behavior. In which case yes, they should be offered all the appropriate compassion, understanding and sympathy. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Basemetal's response to "one of the dumbest ideas" was way over the top. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I vote no. A proposal to "systematically include" anything in classical music almost always presents problems because of how incredibly diverse the genre is. That's one of the reasons why infoboxes haven't caught because its hard to come up with attributes that apply to everything. In this particular case, there's just so many permutations of measure counts, meters, tempos, meter changes, tempo changes, etc. Couple that with the wide variations in performance styles among many performers and you wouldn't come up with meaningful numbers. And the idea that a reader can't determine that a minuet in Anna Magdelena's Notebook is of much smaller scale than St Matthew's Passion? Nobody reading those articles would ever get that impression. There are already many cases where an editor has added that a piece is approximately X number of minutes long. I'm OK with the range is wide enough to accomodate most performances... but most of the time its not really necessary. Anyhow, none of my opinions are new to the debate, just weighing in with my vote. As for the rudeness, it sounds like the consensus is against the original proposal, are you trying to leverage the rudeness to try and win the debate on a technicality? I don't vote for that either. DavidRF (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
How about we just let it die naturally and you stop fapping over archiving everything? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting some parts of this talk page should not be archived? Or did you mean to wait the customary period (what is it? two weeks?) before archiving? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:humor. Or WP:rudeness. This is a very funny discussion. I would hate for everyone to just go away and let it die all by itself. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Mmm. I thought it was a bit sad, hence my suggestion to archive it early. We think we know who we are talking to here — most of us have known each other for several years now — but sometimes we encounter someone different and unpredictable as happened here. --Kleinzach 15:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I oppose the idea and I agree with comments by J. Kohl, M. Bednarek, DavidRF and Kleinzach. On a side note, it is sad to see such an embarrassing conversation on this—usually very intelligent—forum (I mean the verbal exchange between Smerus and Basemetal). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
May I say - as a modest defense - that the 'verbal exchange' was almost entirely on one side - I am afraid my three mild and meagre sentences were quite owerwhelmed by the shock and awe of Basemetal's heavy brigade. At least the whole thing amused some folk.--Smerus (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I just think it's always better to say clearly why do you disagree instead of "... it is one of the dumbest ideas ..." But I don't mean to patronise you. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way - as Basemetal seems uncertain in his posting of 14:55, 23 February 2013 - I am against the proposal; shall I say - to preserve the august standards of this forum - as per J. Kohl, M. Bednarek, DavidRF and Kleinzach? --Smerus (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to get the impression that Basemetal may have by now picked up his marbles and gone home. But it was fun while it lasted. Or, we could keep the thing going. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
My overall impression is that the initial proposal, while certainly outré, was not necessarily patently absurd on its face. But given the tenor of the OP's responses, Smerus's comment seemed entirely justified. It helps to put that in context. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

My, my, my! What.is.going.on?
No, I haven't picked up my marbles and gone home.
But there's life outside of WP, you know?
I'll be back and already looking forward to it!
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 20:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As you may have noticed reactions to the proposal were wholly negative. But the reactions were not unanimous as to what it was they were objecting to in the proposal and why. I will post a summary of the various positions later. This will wrap all of this up for the moment. That summary will not be meant to be a continuation of the debate, just meant so that people who will be examining WP archives in the year 2063 be able to tell at a glance what the various positions were, how many were based on a reasoned argument and how many were just based on knee jerk opposition to anything unusual, how many were based on underlying assumptions (of various degrees of dogmatism) as to what WP is or should be, etc. The summary will also have a general remark about quantitative and qualitative treatment in other contexts, e.g. how this proposal could be compared to a hypothetical proposal that all articles about paintings, buildings, sculptures, etc. carry size measurements, that articles about literary works carry size information such as number of words, number of verse lines, that all articles about films carry timing info, etc. But this I'll leave for some other day.
Today I just want to wrap up another question: how should one treat people who instead of engaging others in a debate with articulated and reasoned criticism, instead of going to all the hassle of finding logical arguments to back their opinions think they are entitled to indulge themselves, make themselves feel good with insulting ejaculations such as "this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard" and that, simply by virtue of the fact that they are them, that is, of course the center of the universe as they see it, the universe is obliged to tolerate their insults and to take them as an expression of "opinion", when they don't actually think that this sort of immature behavior is actually a proof of "guts" and character. One would think the answer was obvious: there should be zero tolerance for such behavior. But no, apparently that answer is not obvious to everyone as some of the worrisome reactions that sought to find "excuses" for such behavior showed. I wonder if people who sought to excuse such behavior understand what they were saying, i.e. do they measure the consequences of what they were saying?
Opus33: "Smerus was rude, and of course this is bad. But perhaps it's occasionally better to be rude if someone is not getting the point." First, regarding the general point that "it's occasionally better to be rude if someone is not getting the point": does Opus33 realize what he's saying? Does he realize that using his "principle" everyone could decide unilaterally that the other party "is not getting the point" and use that as a pretext to abandon civility? What would happen in a place where debates are supposed to be civil except when one of the debaters suddenly decides that it is now OK to use insults because the other party really doesn't get the point? Plus, where has Opus33 seen that someone "who is not getting the point" suddenly starts getting the point any better because they have been insulted? The appropriate attitude if one has the feeling the other party is not getting it, is to just drop it. If one has stated logically and articulately everything one had to say and the other party still doesn't seem to get it, one just leaves it at that. Second: the particular circumstances: the guy who spewed forth "this is the dumbest..." did not do so after he had tried patiently to argue in rational terms. That was his first intervention in the debate. So I am at a complete loss as to how Opus33's observation, completely wrongheaded as it is as a general principle to start with, even applies to the present situation.
Milkunderwood: "My overall impression is that the initial proposal, while certainly outré, was not necessarily patently absurd on its face. But given the tenor of the OP's responses, Smerus's comment seemed entirely justified. It helps to put that in context." (My emphasis). Again: (1) is Milkunderwood actually calling "this is one the dumbest things..." a comment? (2) is he saying that such behavior is ever justified, let alone ever "entirely justified"? Anyone who is tempted to agree with what Milkunderwood wrote here, let them read what I wrote in my answer above to Opus33 comment who also sought to find excuses for this type of behavior. In this particular case: Has Milkunderwood got the sequence of events right? Did the insulter's "comment" come after the "OP's responses"? If not how can it be justified by them? Anyone can verify what the real succession was and how sensible this remark from Milkunderwood is. Finally, even leaving the two previous points aside, if the initial proposal was "certainly outré" but "not necessarily patently absurd on its face", how can any later response make it otherwise. The proposal was what it was and will be what it is until the end of time, so I will leave the reader to judge how sensible that observation by Milkunderwood is, let alone the inference that therefore the insulter's "comment" seemed "entirely justified". Finally what were my "responses"? If fact there was only one response of mine to the insulter's ejaculation namely this: "While others have kindly, usefully and constructively commented on the proposal and its difficulties, I modestly submit that this last "observation" is one of the most idiotic, useless and non-constructive utterances I have yet seen in this discussion or any discussion on Wikipedia I can at the moment recall." And wasn't this a justified response to "this is the dumbest thing..." Was it supposed to be ignored? The bulk of my response was to Michael Bednarek's reaction and not to the insulting remark per itself. First I'd like to say that, since Michael Bednarek "outwardly" respected decorum I will too, towards him. But I must say that besides the absurdity of his contention that insults in a debate show "guts" (when in fact they only show immaturity, self-indulgence, laziness, selfishness, lack of self-control, stupidity and poor logical and verbal skills), his reaction typifies some the lowest of what I've seen on Usenet and other places that the kind of "debating technique" typified by the insulter have all but ruined. Besides making fun of your opponent spelling, English language skills, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity, etc. one of the favorite "techniques" on Usenet was to pretend that you had been delegated by the "majority" to confront an "outcast", or by the "inside crowd" to confront an "outsider". Witness how Michael Bednarek "sensed", in the edit summaries, among other places, that the other posters had actually wanted to do the same as the insulter, but for some reason didn't dare do it, leaving only the insulter to have shown "guts" on behalf of them all. It is to counter that that I posted a list of the edit summaries so that people can judge for themselves if what Michael Bednarek claimed was reasonable. Now that was really an outrage, wasn't it? I know that on the net people don't actually read posts very carefully ("too long; didn't read"), let alone bother to examine the background and sequence of a thread more than 2 levels deep, and like to respond without really bothering to get a full picture of what it is they're responding to. But this contention that it was I who engaged in outrageous behavior just because I posted the series of edit summaries where Michael Bednarek claimed he had "sensed" I don't know what, just so that people can make up their mind, must be a classic, even on the net. So it wasn't Michael Bednarek's reaction, that still makes me sick to my stomach, that was the outrage, who (1) suddenly felt the urge to intervene in an exchange between the insulter and the insulted and take the side of the insulter (2) claimed that the insulter's insults showed "guts" (3) used the technique of pretending to be the spokesman for the "inside crowd" against an "outsider" and (4) in fact had recourse to falsehood in referring to comments and edit summaries which showed nothing of what he claimed (not even his own, which was actually fairly civil, did)?
Kleinzach wrote: "We think we know who we are talking to here — most of us have known each other for several years now — but sometimes we encounter someone different and unpredictable as happened here." Exactly. With this "club" mentality Michael Bednarek chose to absurdly jump to the defense and support of an insulter who contravened any civility guideline, just because the insulter was part of the "inside crowd" as perceived by him.
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 17:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This proposal gained no support. It's just become an excuse for a disruptive rant. Nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. I am archiving this. Kleinzach 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mensural notation

Any Renaissance music aficionados around who might be interested in working on mensural notation? I'm in the process of rewriting and expanding it, and I think it could be taken to FA some time. Ideas, review, copyediting and other contributions will be welcome. Among the things I still want to add is a section on Italian trecento and one on tempo and tactus. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded this image of an illuminated manuscript from the British Libary for the article on Coldingham Priory and the cult of Cuthbert. It hadn't quite clicked that that's what you meant by mensural notation. Mathsci (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thematic catalogue

Librarians depend heavily on thematic catalogues to create proper titles for muscial works. On an email list for international music librarians, someone posted a request that the Wikipedia article on [thematic catalogue]s be expanded to include such catalogs. Anyone want a try? Here's a list of those used by the Library of Congress (and British National Library): Thematic_Indexes -- kosboot (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

We may already have what you seek - Catalogues of classical compositions (* blush *) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I guess (though there's barely enough information to locate the books - I might be tempted to flesh out things more). Thanks for the link. -- kosboot (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There's actually a book out there that's basically a guide to all the thematic catalogs the author could fine (much more comprehensive than WP's page, but only involving actual thematic catalogs). Forget what it's called or who wrote it, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean Thematic Catalogues in Music: A Bibliography by Barry S. Brook and Richard Viano? It's already 15 years old. ;) -- kosboot (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably. It's still useful, despite its age. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely useful as a historical artifact because many of the thematic catalogs (e.g. those from the 19th century) are of historical interest. -- kosboot (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bibliographies

This article: Students Are Urged to Stay Away from Wikipedia and Google for Research doesn't provide anything new that many haven't heard previously. But the oft-repeated comment quoted in the article, "Wikipedia is good for its bibliographies" - made me think that this aspect could be enhanced. When I think of my work on WP, I think of article creation or editing. When I first started editing 6 years ago, many editors I encountered wanted bibliographies limited to works used in article creation. But if people come to WP looking for bibliographies, shouldn't we then enhance the bibliographies even if we don't touch the article body? Thought? -- kosboot (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean something like Wikipedia:Further reading? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe my view is narrow, but usually don't see such a section except in the more-researched articles. Usually one does this as part of article editing, but I'd like to suggest it can be done on its own. -- kosboot (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia - especially for country articles because of the Wikipedia Education Programs like Bibliography of Canada that leads to 7 more bibs. We have many many many bibs on all kinds of topics Category:Bibliographies.... see Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies for more info. Moxy (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, way cool, Moxy. I'd almost like to suggest that WP:Classical Music have its own bibliography sub-project (it's easier with WP:Opera where you know what is going to be the coming month's focus). I'm going to study that WP:Bibliography a bit to see if I can't enhance articles here in that manner. Thanks again! -- kosboot (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Would be a great to make one - Great resources for project members as well as an asset to people doing research. If something like Bibliography of fly fishing has been viewed 827 times in the last 30 days - just image how many people would view and benefit from a Bib on a much more notable topic like this.Moxy (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinions requested: article titles of Mozart's masses?

Hi all, I've just finished writing ten articles on Mozart's masses, thus completing a basic coverage of all his masses here. The problem is that the naming format is really messy. I've mostly been filling in redlinks, so there's no consistent naming format. We have titles by...

Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · count) and I have been discussing how to make the naming format consistent, whilst still allowing for the most familiar names (eg Coronation Mass (Mozart)) to still be prominent in the article title.

Solutions include...

  • A format similar to the listing of Beethoven's piano sonatas, which allows for number (NMA number in this case)
  • A format similar to the listing of Beethoven's piano sonatas, which allows for number (Köchel catalogue number in this case)
  • A format similar to IMSLP's page titles, eg Missa brevis in G major, K.49/47d (too messy? Possibly comparable to listings of Bach's cantatas)
  • ... ?

I'd welcome some suggestions - none of the above seems particularly elegant to me, so I'm not sure what to do with them! ~ Riana ⁂ 16:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel (but don't ask me for a citation :-)) that K numbers are the most generally familiar, so that a title such as '[MainTitle] in [key] (Mozart K. 999)' might be the best standard format, with alternative names ('Coronation') mentioned as such in the lede opening sentence and used as redirects. The MainTitle should be whatever Mozart himself called the work ('Missa brevis' or whatever). Not elegant I'm afraid but should be clear.--Smerus (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
K numbers would definitely be the most familiar :) (I haven't seen a Mozart mass referred to by NMA# until I started writing these articles). So, you're suggesting something similar to [5] - sans NMA# and nicknames? I think that is the most complete way of referring to them, whilst avoiding clutter and confusion. I guess none of these options will be particularly elegant, but they should at least be consistent :)
I'd like to wait for a few more opinions but your suggestion is what has generally felt least obnoxious to me. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Sounds good. Some aspects: Mozart didn't name the works, so there is no Main title. Look at the interesting manuscript of the most elaborate one, commonly called Great Mass in C minor: "Kyrie", no more (di Wolfgango Amadeo Mozart). They have been called Missa, in English Mass. Whether "brevis" or "solemnis" or even "brevis et solemnis", is not so clear, some say brevis for shortness but for the same piece solemnis for trumpets. All the other fancy names (Sparrow, Coronation etc.) are later additions. The key almost doesn't help to disambiguate, as C major is so frequent. The numbering of all of them, and separately the Missae breves, seems to have been introduced with the NMA (New Mozart edition), I never heard of Mass numbers before and find them confusing. The Köchel numbers are almost as confusing because most works have two. - I was bold and established redirects with the first Köchel number, such as Missa K.220 (Mozart), so that people who know that number can find them. (The Bach cantatas are much easier: First line + BWV number, period.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
ps: the imslp titles can't decide Mass or Missa, for example, - we perhaps should? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I suspect IMSLP is sitting on the fence about the ones that are long enough to be not-quite-missae breves (eg Coronation Mass and Credo Mass). I would be happy with something like Missa K. 49/47d (Mozart), I think, with redirects from any other possible - ensures completeness with the Köchel numbers (both numbers are equally relevant), avoids the brevis vs solemnis confusion, and avoids reference to the key - like you say, most of them are in C so there's still room for ambiguity there. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
On the work titles - Gerda's point about Mozart's absence of manuscript titles is of course relevant, so perhaps we should look at the orginal titles at publication?--Smerus (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many of the original titles are extant. Köchel didn't come along until about a century after Mozart's death; also, I'm not sure how unambiguous said original titles would be? ~ Riana ⁂ 12:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that even if we knew them they would only be of historic value. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I support the format Mass, K. xxx (or if you must, with a key, e.g. Mass in C, K. 317 - although that case is moot already). -- kosboot (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any special knowledge of the masses, but in this kind of case we usually check check Grove and other main sources (H. C. Robbins Landon etc) to see what titles they use. It's important to follow existing titles in scholarly literature rather than invent new ones. (Unfortunately I don't have access to a library where I am now.) Kleinzach 00:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable point. I no longer have Grove access but I can check out the Mozart Compendium (Landon) and a few other works tomorrow. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually it was the intention of the suggestion to do so, because the present numbers (of "Missa" here, "Missa brevis" there) seem NOT to be used by scholars. A different problem is that the one Missa called "solemnis" seems to be brevis ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! It's a total messe (hehe, pun). It is currently my "tomorrow" but it's 12:50am, so I might have some sort of proposal to put up here in the next 24 hours, after a bit of Landon and Grove searching. :)
Gerda - Sadie and Einstein, as well as a few others, do use something reasonably close to the IMSLP format, hence my continued willingness to entertain that option. Will let you know post-Grove expedition. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Grove online gives table with K number, K6 number (i.e. 6th revision of K, 1964), title and key, thus, to give some random examples:
  • 139 47a Missa solemnis c
  • 192 186f Missa brevis F
  • 262 246a Missa [longa] C
  • 626 626 Requiem d
I quite like the '[longa]', which makes things even more confusing.--Smerus (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for finding those, note that they have "brevis", not "Brevis". (But Wikipedia doesn't go be Grove, it's still The Flying Dutchman (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I see the general article here is Missa brevis small b. Kleinzach 23:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, when I took a class with Alan Tyson some years ago, he mentioned that K6 (revision by Alfred Einstein) was so inconsistent as to be discredited and that K7 (when it will emerge - some day) will generally revert back to Köchel's original numbering. -- kosboot (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
K6: I would also support to have only the first Köchel number in the title (if at all) and mention the historic other one (K6) in the article. "brevis" - in general it's "Missa brevis", the question is if as a title it would have to be cap. But I question that it IS a title, it's seems only the attempt of a classification to me, which isn't even consistent. We have Missa solemnis (Beethoven), why should it be Missa Brevis No. 1 (Mozart)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone cold, but I have moved the various Missae Breves (if that's correct!) to Missae breves. --Kleinzach 03:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that. It's a start towards getting consistency across the board. I'm still looking into this - haven't really had a lot of time to devote. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the moves! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add a bit more consistency to the table, under "Title" first the genre, then a name in German, then in English), please improve. I suggest to have the new and old Köchel numbers in two columns, wasn't bold enough to do that myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New guideline?

Our guidelines are here. Maybe we need a new section to cover generic Latin titles? Would someone like to draft it? It would be good if we could nail this down, not just for Mozart but for other composers as well. Kleinzach 11:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

This doesn't show up on Alerts here, Talk:Recorder (disambiguation), also Talk:Jose Yacopi Argentine guitar maker. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Bishop

I was looking for Stephen Bishop (from a CD), aka Stephen Kovacevich, but couldn't remember his changed last name. Clicking on Stephen Bishop (musician) takes me to a guitarist, with no hatnote on the page. Reentering Search and going now to the Stephen Bishop disambiguation page I also find a Steven Bishop, who is a drummer. At least he does a hatnote. How should these three musicians best be disambiguated? Kovacevich has a number of recordings and other references with the name "Bishop"; WP's rock crew seem to have taken care of their guys, but the classical musician is left stranded. (I also left a question on his talkpage about the unexplained change of name.) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the disambiguation was the least of that article's problems. Stephen Kovacevich had zero references. Another editor and I have now at least fixed that and explained the origin of the name change with inline citations. Note also the Stephen Bishop (pianist) redirects to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It could also use a good copy-edit. It's currently full of "acclaimed" etc. + unsourced assertions like "His interpretations are renowned for their thoughtfulness and re-creative intensity" + the somewhat nonsensical "he enjoys good relations with orchestras as a conductor and by directing from the piano", the latter pasted in verbatim from his EMI bio. Voceditenore (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sarabande

Jerome Kohl and I have been puzzling over the term Sarabande on that article's talkpage (which is also how the question of Stephen Bishop originally came up). I'm not sure that an entirely satisfactory answer has yet been arrived at; perhaps someone may have further information. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cannot use Britannica format for composers?

Since composers on en.wp - unlike footballers - don't have infoboxes, I consider that we should be free to follow Britannica format when we wish and include place of birth and death next to date of birth/death.

Camille Saint-Saëns, in full Charles-Camille Saint-Saëns (born October 9, 1835, Paris, France—died December 16, 1921, Algiers [Algeria]), composer chiefly remembered for his symphonic poems Britannica entry

The (Paris, 1835 - Algiers 1921) mention of places in the brackets seems to me particularly appropriate to minor composers, short articles/stubs, and is the format of fr.wp de.wp for even big composers and all the other wps except en.wp - which now has a [guideline?] since Dec 2012 forbidding "Paris" to be mentioned in the bracket. Is everyone here okay with this being a rule for composer bios too? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was also Grove format too, at least in The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sholdn't this query be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers?- they're the ones that have a guideline on this ('unless the exact place of birth is essential information, it should be included in the biographical section or paragraph instead.')--Smerus (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not to have places in the opening line is not restricted to composers. The easiest solution would be to have infoboxes with the core data in granular form, see also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, nicht nörgeln! :-) --Smerus (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
you or I do not mean the same by nörgeln ;) - Accessability and granularity are my goals, seriously ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
if I have granularity, I normally take some medicine!--Smerus (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, can we move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, please? Kleinzach 11:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's probably better there, but worth leaving a notice about it here as this project does have many biographies of classical musicians in its scope who aren't covered by the Composers or Opera projects, e.g Mitsuko Uchida, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There is already a considerable discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#POB in WP:OPENPARA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Good. I have commented there. Kleinzach 12:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
To me it seems clear that places are not to be mentioned with the dates but in the body - and to me the reason is a good one: For those people born in places where the political or national boundaries have changed it creates a problem (i.e. Marcella Sembrich who always considered herself Polish, but whose town of birth is now Ukraine). So to maintain consistency, etc. -- kosboot (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't get Kosboot's objection. I have never understood why places can't be included with the dates - I know nothing of Britannica's rules (if any), but Grove gives place and date for musicians (even if they are not women :-)). The town where someone is born remains that person's birthplace whether or not it has since fallen within the borders of another state (or those of several states) - so where is there a problem of consistency? E.g. - Marcella Sembrich was a Polish singer born in Wisniewczyk (today Vyshnivchyk, Ukraine). Seems pretty clear. The question of whether anyone's birthplace or deathplace is connected with their 'notability' seems daft - the places, where known, are facts, and the 'notability' or otherwise of this information can only be a matter of WP:OR - but if Grove and Britannica consider this information encyclopaedic, why shouldn't en.wp?--Smerus (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Not so much an objection but a realization that including place names in some cases creates difficulty. So by not having place names in the dates, it removes a difficulty and makes it easier to follow across-the-board, so that when something like Sembrich comes up, the difficulty can be explained in prose. But I'm pretty much willing to follow what everyone else does (meaning not just this project, but WP in general).-- kosboot (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There might well be times when one wouldn't want the place of birth death in brackets - but honestly looking at The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music, page after page passes with no such problem. It's a clean and immediate way of presenting stub (and bigger) bios. I wonder if en.wp practice is because en.wp is the only wp which is infobox crazy? (Gerda, nörgeln kann ich auch). Anyway if this is a rule rule rule then I guess will have to follow the rule rule rule. Very surprised to see WP:COMPOSERS had that written in. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by en.wp infobox crazy? de, fr, nn all had infoboxes on Bach cantatas before en - calmly so, not crazy, so you are probably right ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Influences in classical music

A new article which I just stumbled across. It may need considerable clean-up, to put it mildly. Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm slightly concerned some of it may overlap with the article List of variations on a theme by another composer, but that may not be a problem. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to merge the articles? --Kleinzach 11:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to make this article more of a signpost pointing to other articles that discuss influences (and most do)? Otherwise a well-researched article would never end. -- kosboot (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't really see that this needs to be an article. It feels very...clunky. Especially since "x artist was influenced by y artist" is pretty much a staple for the large majority of artists across all arts. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually I agree with Melodia - musical influence is almost always a characteristic of music - it's like saying there's always a "G" in every piece of music. Nominate as AfD? -- kosboot (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Reads like a school essay and - at least so far - names only very well known connections, - not needed, and no way to merge with the very precise one, "List of variations ..." which is the almost the opposite, the one writing the variations doing it in his style, typically not influenced, - there's not much Mozart in Reger's Variations, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear AfD candidate, selective WP:OR waffle. ---Smerus (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have done the dastardly deed - editors are welcome to endorse(or indeed to oppose should they be so minded) at the page.--Smerus (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Endorsed. Opus33 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Now a full AfD here after the article creator casually deleted the PROD (while 'improving' the article by categorising it under two 'Art' headings).--Smerus (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Charles-Valentin Alkan

I would like to bring this article up to at least GA, preferably FA, during this year, CVA's bicentenary . All comments/contributions/suggestions welcome.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

TFD for collapsed infobox code

The Infobox collapsing code discussed during the past few days at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has been sent to Templates for discussion (or rather deletion), see here. --Kleinzach 09:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The code collapsing complete sections is discussed, - collapsing lists within a parameter is not discussed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Leo Mouravieff (?)

Has anyone ever heard of a Russian composer whose transliterated name might be Leo Mouravieff [6] or Leon Mouraviev [7], or perhaps Leo/Leon Muraviev/ff [8], without the "o"? According to a Vox Records CD, he was born in 1905. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

According to this source:
"Leon Mouraviev was born in 1905 in Kiev, studied with Gliere, and later in Germany and France. He left the USSR in 1937, and lived in Paris until his death in 1987. His Nativiti is a rather dark, morose work for strings without much character."
Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Great - thanks very much for this info. I'm guessing that since he lived in France, the Leon Mouraviev is the spelling he used there for his professional career. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Gregorian chant demoted

I've added the {{classical banner to the talk page of Gregorian chant which seems to have fallen through the cracks, just being busted down from Featured article to C class in a review which was not participated in by previous reviewers or editors of the article. Sparafucil (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion regarding which musician articles, if any, should be on Wikipedia's 10,000 Vital articles occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. pbp 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn

As pointed out, we have Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn, starting the lead with a translation, - strange. The orchestra abbreviates itself WKO, leaving out Heilbronn as the location. Heilbronn seems officially part of their name, but not commonly used, has a different colour and line on their web. - Do with it what you like, but make it consistent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The official English name is Württemberg Chamber Orchestra Heilbronn. Should I move it? --Kleinzach 15:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I've now made the move. This means it's now searchable in both English and German. --Kleinzach 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm torn. In general I prefer using "real" names - I'm a fanatic about using people's correct diacritics - but as long as there is an "official" name in English, for en:wp I think it ought to be moved, with all appropriate redirects. I had just stumbled across this one rather than going looking for an example. There are also names in French, which I'm not thinking of at the moment; and just now searching for Orquesta Pau Casals I find Pablo Casals Orchestra which I'm sure was never used, and in the lead further down in the text is misspelled Orquestra Pau Casals. In sum, we should not be doing our own translating without good sources. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The last point is important: we should never invent English titles that don't exist. That would be inviting ambiguity and misunderstandings. --Kleinzach 04:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"There are also names in French" - Conservatoire de musique du Québec à Montréal ??? Milkunderwood (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've checked this one and (surprisingly) it doesn't have an English name. Kleinzach 10:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I guess not so surprising after all - the Québécois wouldn't allow it. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Orquestra Pau Casals

Kleinzach, I don't suppose you'd be willing to stick a hand into the Pau/Pablo imbroglio? That Orquesta Pau Casals ought to be fixed. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. BTW it's a Catalan/Spanish thing. Kleinzach 11:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes - and very emotional. Thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln

Thanks for creating that one! Now we have one symphony orchestra of the station in German, one in English, long live internationality ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln doesn't have an official English name as far as I can tell. --Kleinzach 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we always still need redirects from the full name in any case. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Redirects don't have to be correct, official, full or whatever. They just have to be practical. --Kleinzach 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Confusion: We have WDR Symphony Orchestra Cologne (which states The orchestra was founded in 1947 by Allied occupation authorities after World War II, as the orchestra of Nordwestdeutschen Rundfunk (NWDR; Northwest German Radio).) And we also have WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln (which seems to have generally a similar origin, but doesn't say so). Okay, so there are two different and separate WDR orchestras in Cologne. Now the "R" stands for "Rundfunk", but then that is repeated in the name: "WDR Rundfunk"? Is that right? Milkunderwood (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you can check this out on the official websites. Semantic satiation is probably common in German. --Kleinzach 10:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, good catch! I'd never encountered that term. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And both WDR orchestras were founded in 1947. There's something fishy about this history. There may be two distinct orchestras today, but I can't see the US Army establishing two separate radio orchestras in Köln right after the war, unless they had different purposes - and even so ... Milkunderwood (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe there were too many unemployed musicians in Cologne and environs in 1947. And obviously radio was the only way of reaching an audience then. No one had food, much less transportation to a concert hall. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Music to Starve to Death By? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 17:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Not too far off - the Marshall Plan hadn't kicked in yet; it was pretty desperate. At least this was the American Zone, not the Russian. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_45&oldid=1137389613"