Talk:Baroque music/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of baroque composers

I have moved the list of baroque composers to a new article. Why? The article minus the list is c.1500 words, while the list took up c.1900 words. 202.147.72.158 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gregorio Allegri should be considered the 'Late Renaissance', not baroque composer. Gehersh 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivial maybe, but why does Bach's name appear smaller than Handel and Teleman's, among other names? I view Bach as the greatest Baroque composer...--Hdk132 14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever made the chart of Baroque composers is a genius. Well done. It's pretty good, pretty good. 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't William Brade on the list? If it's because he's transitional, then he at least belongs on a transitional list on a transitional topic (with a link). Being "between" doesn't make you less important or less "documentable". Thanks. --76.89.139.255 (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Francesco Geminiani? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.170.135 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What about him?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Francesco Geminiani is already on list, filed under the "Late Baroque era composers (born 1650–1700)" section. – Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Most important?

I've taken out indications of which composers are the "most important". Everyone will disagree about who is important and who isn't. Personally, I would certainly have marked Monteverdi (I assume him not being marked was an oversight) and Sweelinck, and probably not marked A.Scarlatti, but that's just me, and everyone will have different views. What would be useful is a prose commentary on the baroque period wherein we can explain who was significant and exactly why they were significant. --Camembert

Homophony

Uhh ... how does homophony jibe with fugues?!? Kwantus

I suppose it's in the list because some some baroque music is homophonic, it's not meant to indicate that all baroque music is homophonic. It's not very clear, I agree. The whole article needs a lot of work really - feel free to work on it (I said I was going to work on it ages ago, but haven't got round to it yet... one day...) --Camembert

Dowland and Campion

Why if John Dowland is listed under baroque composers, why shouldn't Thomas Campion, who is four years younger? --65.73.0.137

Sorry, I didn't notice Dowland was there. You're right, he doesn't belong, I'll take him out (the same goes for John Bull and Thomas Tomkins). These stylistic divisions are somewhat artificial and tricky, of course, but I feel reasonably confident that these English composers are usually considered to be Renaissance rather than Baroque. --Camembert

Hmmm, yes, but Banchieri (born c1557), Sweelinck (born 1562), and Titelouze (born 1563), and Claudio Monteverdi (born 1567) are listed. For instance Titelouze was born about the same year as Dowland, and Monteverdi about the same year as Campion. Now we're getting into composers that are really associated with Baroque (esp. Monteverdi). Any clarity? --65.73.0.137

Well, it's not really a question of birthdates, it's a question of style. Banchieri and Titelouze I don't know about, but I would say Sweelinck and Monteverdi show enough Baroque characteristics to make listing them on this page reasonable. But as I say, dividing things up stylistically (Baroque vs Renaissance) is somewhat artificial and rather tricky. If you're looking for clarity, you've come to the wrong place ;) --Camembert

(Following this comment, 65... readded Campion, Dowland, Bull and Tomkins to the article - edit summary: "until there is reasonable disproof of Baroqueness (on talk page), it wouldn't hurt for Campion, Dowland, Bull, and Tomkins to reappear" --Camembert 14:57, 27 May 2004 (UTC))

I can speak to Dowland, in particular, because I'm familiar with his work. His compositional style is clearly late Renaissance, as is his choice of small forms (songs, airs) and his scoring for the lute and for consorts of limited size, made up most often of recorders and viols. These can hardly be considered baroque instruments. I've performed some of his work (when I was an aspiring lute player) and listened to other of it, and whatever else might be said of it, it isn't baroque.

As for the others, I would tend to defer to Camembert's judgement since he is more of a musicologist than I. I would only add that the transition from Renaissance forms to classical ones occured at different times in different places. That and the presence of leading-edge composers alongside laggards who sought to polish the existing forms serves to explain the difference in dates.

I think the encyclopedia would be best served by categorizing the prominent composers in one era or another, and noting any crossover in the articles on each composer. In closing, I observe that the distinction between eras, while somewhat artificial, is still an important one inasmuch as there are so many shared compositional elements among composers in each era.

UninvitedCompany 20:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

You know, the recorder and viol were used during the Baroque Period. For example, Georg Philipp Telemann composed for the recorder, and Marin Marais was a viol player. 65.73.0.137

Telemann included basso continuo (a uniquely baroque phenomenon) in many of his compositions, while Dowland did not. Do you really believe that Dowland is better understood in the context of Baroque music than in the context of Renaissance music? UninvitedCompany 21:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no. It is not that I think Dowland belongs any more in Baroque than Renaissance. I think that he deserves mention in both. The Baroque period is said to begin about 1600 anyway, when non-Renaissance styles were emerging, and Dowland died 26 years later. Dowland is also listed in the Renaissance section, and have kept him there. And don't you think that "basso continuo" came out of the closet somewhere in the middle of the Baroque Period? --65.73.0.137

Other than the date of his death, is there anything to suggest that Dowland was a part of the Baroque era? I would think not, and don't consider the dates to be particularly important. Therefore, Dowland should stay off this list. There may be a few composers who arguably worked in both styles, but he isn't one of them. UninvitedCompany 22:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, some of his music does sound a little Baroque to me (ex. Galliard a 5 for strings). Is there any reason for being too confident about 0% of Dowland's music being baroque? --65.73.0.137

Hmmmmmmmm...very debatable.I'll Get back to you. What would you say the 5 main things that make Baroque different from all other genres?

I'm not familiar with all of John Bull's music, but the pieces I have heard were definitely and beautifully Baroque. While it is true that Bull lived prior to the accepted starting date for Baroque music, in fact he helped originate the genre, along with other English composers such as Jeremiah Clark.

David Spector (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean he was born before the Baroque period began. He lived for almost 30 years into the Baroque period - so it is no surprise compostions in the latter part of his life might be Baroque in style. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Vandalism

This page seems to have been vandalised (by IP: 217.205.250.130) - I've reverted the changes. --User:Dawidl (3 Nov 2005, 17:15 SAST)

While I was looking through many sites through a google search i seemed to find that this site is exactly word for word plagerized from www.infoweb.co.nz/baroque-period for many of the paragraphs i would advise changing this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.228.182.126 (talk • contribs).

Actually they took it from us, and that site is not in compliance with the GFDL license, i.e. they don't say anywhere that I can see that they scraped their content from Wikipedia. Indeed, they slapped their own copyright tag on it. Makes me laugh to see some of my own writing under someone else's copyright. But whaddya gonna do... Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning the Baroque history section

This will eventually have to be factored out, as it is going to include a great deal of text, however it should remain here until there is a consensus version, which can be moved to the subsidiary article at that point. By no means is the version I am writing canonical or in any sense a "best" version, merely an attempt to get some text up so that we can get to work on it, and decide the best way of presenting the huge volume of material that the subject requires. We are, after all, talking about 400 years of music, and almost two centuries of core practice. (unsigned comment by User:Stirling Newberry)

1750 or 1760

We have two quoted end dates of the Baroque period as 1750 in the opening para and 1760 in the table. I note that the original date in the opening was 1760 but changed by an anonymous users who also seems to be one source of vandalism. It would be useful to have a consistent view here. Velela 19:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

We have 3 quoted end dates, since the end date of the Late Baroque is repeatedly given as 1730. This follows the citation establishing the three periods, but is clearly too early to be consistent with the rest of this article. Philgoetz (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I had ever understood that the Baroque period is usually deemed to have closed with the death of J.S. Bach in 1750. Of course this is an arbitrary cut-off, but it's as good as any. There seems to have been a consensus that Bach's style was already old-fashioned at the time. Smerdis of Tlön 20:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this; 1760 is awfully late. Some composers continued to write in a more-or-less "Baroque" style after 1750, but they were a minority. Antandrus (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Student's Desk Reference by the New York Public Library ((c) 1993) says the end date to the Baroque period is 1760. Handel was a Baroque composer and he lived to 1759, which is pretty close to this date. Marcus2 23:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that the date is even later. Telemann died in 1767, Tartini in 1770, and many of the lesser English Handelian composers (Arne, Stanley) were active until they died in the mid-1780s. These composers certainly weren't a minority--the late 18th century was a period of considerable diversity in styles and compositional techniques, often dictated by geography, religion, and social climate.

I verified the French, Spanish, Italian and Deutsch version of that page. They all use 1750 as the end of the Baroque era. For the sake of consistency, I suggest to use 1750. After all, it is the end of an era, not the date on which each and every musician of that era died… Sarcelle 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The best date for the end of the period is 1750, for sure. 90.205.92.47 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Musicologists have generally agreed on 1750. Bach was the last innovator in the music - after his death, nothing "new" was done in Baroque and the Classical period had begun. Telemann made many fine new compositions after 1750, for example, but they were just new melodies, not new forms. It's a similar argument to when the Victorian age ended - no matter how early some historians consider it over, by all accounts, by the end of WW I, they ALL agree it was dead. As long as the article and the articles on late-Baroque composers are thorough, readers shouldn't have any trouble understanding this. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Key signatures

Any differences between the rules for key signatures then and those for now?? Was the 2-flat key signature the flattest key signature in common use then?? Georgia guy 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "common use". Josquin Desprez used a four-flat signature around 1500. Sometimes one less flat was used for a piece than we expect, e.g. a piece in C minor might have only two flats in the signature (the A flats being added via accidentals); Bach's Dorian toccata is an example of this, with no key signature yet in D minor (not really Dorian). It's true that exotic key signatures like F-sharp major weren't used at this time, but I don't think we could draw a line with any consistency or verifiability. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In what piece did Josquin use four flats? Having looked at facsimiles of his music I find this highly unlikely, although possible. Remember that modern editors tend to transpose Renaissance music. Makemi 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

His motet "Absolon fili mi" has a "partial signature" (i.e. different parts have different signatures) with two, three, and four flats in different parts. There's some dispute about the authorship of this motet, but it's certainly from his time. But we're talking about Baroque music. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mannerist Music: Reference?

"A small number of musicologists argue that it should be split in to Baroque and Mannerist periods to conform to the divisions that are sometimes applied in the visual arts." This would be a good place for a more specific reference. "A small number of musicologists, such as ..."? --Christofurio 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Johann Mattheson

Is there any particular reason for not including Johann Mattheson in the Baroque Composers Timeline?

Baroque Trill?

This seems to be a recurrant feature of baroque music, if I recall correctly, partly because the harpsichord couldn't sustain a note. How about a section on the instruments of the baroque period and how they influenced the style? The baroque trill isn't mentioned in the article and it is arguably the most identifiable feature of most baroque music. I am not comfortable enough with the genre to add it (nor do I have references). --Tbeatty 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ornamentation is indeed an important aspect of music of the Baroque, but I'm not sure about the "Baroque trill". Ornaments are a whole can of worms, and when you look at Baroque treatises which have written out ornaments, you can see that there is no single "Baroque trill". Perhaps what you are thinking of is more something which is a modern habit of generalist performers of Baroque music, especially Bach etc. I don't quite know. Perhaps there should be more discussion of ornamentation, but I don't think talking about a "Baroque trill" is the way to go about it. Mak (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea that trills were used because the harpsichord couldn't sustain a note is nonsense. There are a lot of instances in Bach's music and that of others where the note is just left to fade - the ear still hears it even though it has faded. Trills were used for their own particular effect. This idea is an instance of modern musicians not understanding the baroque style and trying to explain it in their own terms. Trills were used on the harpsichord because they sound good on it, and they are easy to play, and they suit the style of baroque music. It is a combination of these factors. Though I agree it would be nice to have a more detailed section on ornamentation. I have a huge tome on it. 10:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"The idea that trills were used because the harpsichord couldn't sustain a note is nonsense."

Trills and other devices were often encouraged because of the harpsichord's lack of sustaining tone. To rule this out is rather strange considering what musicians at the time have written on the subject. One example (though I can find more if necessary) from Johann David Heinichen:

It is to be observed generally that a great difference is to be made in the accompaniment of all quick notes according to whether one is accompanying on an instrument with pipes or one with strings. On the former, the right hand may remain motionless till the passing notes are over; on the Organ, therefore, the accompaniment in the above example would not be amiss. But on the Harpsichord it would sound far too empty (especially if the time were slow), and therefore, on instruments of this class, the usual tendency is to double the harmony, i.e. to repeat the preceding chord when the passing note is struck

--Roivas (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Baroque Copyright

Is it possible to get copies of the sheet music in PDF and upload to Wikipedia? That would be an awesome expansion project to bring out of copyright sheet music to everyone. Are there still copyrights on this music or is it public domain? I don't ever recall having to pay a performance royalty for baroque performances.--Tbeatty 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Baroque music itself is not under copyright anymore, except, I think, for the Messiah, because of an odd quirk which might actually just be apocryphal. The problem is that most of it exists in modern editions, which as far as I understand are under copyright. Wikipedia generally discourages uploading tons of media which isn't being used in any articles. Wikimedia commons might be a more appropriate place to set up a project of finding, scanning, and uploading music which is out of copyright. I don't know what the whole deal is with the copyright on facsimiles either though, so it would have to be approached with caution. Mak (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

timeline

is there anyway for us to expand the timeline?

The timeline can be edited on a separate page, Template:Timeline Classical Composers Baroque. Mak (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Baroque versus Renaissance styles?

I am not sure if this part of the article is accurate (Baroque versus Renaissance style):

These stylistic differences mark the transition from the ricercars, fantasias, and canzonas of the Renaissance to the fugue, a defining Baroque form. Monteverdi called this newer, looser style the seconda pratica, contrasting it with the prima pratica that characterized the motets and other sacred choral pieces of high Renaissance masters like Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina.

1 - Fugue is in no way a defining Baroque form: as early as the 15th century, the word fugue was already the established term for any piece in which all voices participated in the canonic performance of a single melodic line, as for example, the fugues by Oswald von Wolkenstein (1376-1445).

2 - For both Vicenzo Galilei and Michael Praetorius, ricercare and fugue were about the same thing. The difference, if any, is in their form rather than the stylistic differences mention in the article.

3 - Monteverdi would never refer to a fugue as seconda pratica, as the article implies. The main characteristic of the Seconda pratica, in fact, was the absence of polyphony. Grove online reads: The first major composers of vocal music in the new Baroque style, however, all but abandoned fugal techniques for their seconda pratica music. (A piece such as Monteverdi’s Piagne e sospira, from the fourth book of madrigals, is a rare exception.) Fugue found no place in the new genres of opera, monody or cantata, nor, surprisingly, did it play a role in the early development of the oratorio.

4 - Opera, monody, cantata and oratorio, are, thus, the defining Baroque genres, since they did not exist during the Renaissance. The organization of a tonal harmony did not take place until the the middle Baroque.

As most of the stylistic features mentioned in the article are not manifestations of the Early Baroque, maybe it is not appropriate to try comparing it to the Renaissance style. Probably it would work better if the section was about "EARLY Baroque vs. Renaissance styles".

What are your opinions? --Narazadd 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You've identified an important problem with the article; feel free to have a go at fixing it. I don't think anyone has worked on this article in a while. Indeed, the importance of "fugue" is overstated and quite misunderstood in the article. The development of functional tonality, the concertato style, the polarisation of bass line versus melodic line, the innovations of the Camerata and the Venetian School, the development of idiomatic instrumental writing and specific instrumentation, the development of big musical forms performed on a stage, -- all this is more important than fugue. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Instrument Painting

The two stringed instruments, large and small, are probably not viols. There exist violin type viols, but the most common are of the general construction of the picture to the right (note the different construction of the c-bouts: the points are not drawn out). I'd replace it but I don't know whether the smaller instrument is a violin or a violino piccolo. --Vlmastra 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

baroke

it is very cool read on now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.133.20 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Early Baroque

I think credit should be given to the Florentine Camerata for spearheading the early baroque, rather than Monteverdi. It seems peculiar that their mention is omitted from this article, since it was their desire to imitate the early greeks that generated early opera, and indeed, is the foundation for recitative, a common feature in operas ever since.

Does anyone agree?

--Tjonp 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph needs moving, maybe deleting?

The last paragraph of the sub section "jazz" under "The Baroque's influence on later music" defiantly does not fit were it is, I'm not sure that there is any where in the article that it does fit it seems superfluous. What do others think? should it be moved, then to where? or deleted. --Loganrah 07:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Vandalism

Due to large amounts of vandalism i have, by a request posted on the wikipedia:cleanup page, returned the article to an earlier form, hopefully the vandals will stop. {*TEE DUB*} (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for why I deleted the external link marshall.charles.googlepages.com - English translations and recordings from the Fourth Book of Monteverdi's Madrigals

For an explanation of my decision to delete this external link, please see this Pasiphae discussion page which is just one example of the way Wikipedia is going. Charles Marshall --Charlesmarshall65 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Gavotte....

Minor detail, but duble time implies two beats, and it stats the accentation on first and third. first and third is in a (for the gavotte, simple) quadruple time. duple time would be first beat strong, second beat medium, and of course, all in between weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.71.211 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that's excessive

It's clear that the middle section and, indeed, a lot of it would be better off with citation. But the "citation needed" every sentence is a bit much. 12.54.108.178 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why we have tags like {{refimprove}} -- so we don't have to have articles riddled with "citation needed", which is disruptive to readers, aside from just being ugly. Tags are for editors, not readers. One "refimprove" in the references section can do just as well as that buckshot spray of "fact" tags.

Much of this article could do with a rewrite, but no one has come along to do it yet. Some day, I suppose. Antandrus (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to say. Every freaking sentence. It disrupts readability and basically signs that nothing can be sure about. Maybe someone is just extremely interested in literature about it, in what case that person should go get some literature on it - or someone's extremely insecure. Needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost no mention of the piano

It seems strange that the development of the piano is not listed anywhere as a possible dividing line between baroque and classical style.71.221.66.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Um, because it isn't? Pianoforte was being developed, but that's not what defines a musical genre. And the modern instrument we know as a "piano" was decades in the future.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

I think you mean the fortepiano was being developed. Anyway, the fortepiano played little to no role in the baroque era. — Harpsichord246 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New Section: Aesthetics

I'm well aware that some cleanup in my new section is needed, but I preferred to do this start instead of just suggesting that others did it. It would be a good idea to amend the mention of the Monteverdi/Artusi debate with some summeray and quotations from the Strunk book. Also to unfold more fully the Mattheson topic. Well, but hope you see my points... Intuitive (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Baroque or baroque – a discussion about capitalization

Mid-sentence (in sentence case), is it correct to capitalize or not to capitalize the word Baroque? I noticed that the article is not consistent. My intuition tells me that it would depend upon whether Baroque is used as a stand-alone word to refer to the period of time (the Baroque) vs. used as a modifier (e.g. in baroque music). However, I'm not sure whether my intuition is correct. Any thoughts? ~David Rolek ^(talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Baroque should be capitalized in every circumstance. In my opinion, it is the name of an era and should be treated just like the name of a nationality (ex: Italian, French, etc.). Perhaps we need to deal with the inconsistency of capitalization on this page. – Harpsichord246 (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style strongly suggests otherwise. The Chicago Manual of Style reinforces this position, though with a caveat (CMS 7.61): "Some names applied to historical or cultural periods are capitalized, either by tradition or to avoid ambiguity" (examples include "Middle Ages; High Middle Ages" and "Renaissance"). Continuing (CMS 7:62): "Most period designations, however, are lowercased except for proper nouns and adjectives". Examples include "antiquity", "baroque period", and "romantic period". This is sharply different from (CMS 7.63) "Names of cultural periods recognized by archaeologists and anthropologists and based upon characteristic technology" (such as "Stone Age", "Bronze Age", "Paleolithic times"), whereas (CMS 7.64) "Analogous latter-day designations, often capitalized in popular writing, are best lowercased: age of steam, nuclear age, space age".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: The citations are to the 13th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. The latest (16th) edition has shifted the material around a bit, but the substance is unchanged. The corresponding sections in the new edition are 8.71–73.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. It's best to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. – Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this a source?

http://teachmeaboutmusic.com/tonlistarsaga/289-barrokk-ca-1600-1750?start=3

The link above seems to be a an exact copy of one of the sections in this article, however it appears to be copyrighted. Could this be where the material in this article or vice versa? Harpsichord246 (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

After further research it seems all the material on this page is almost identical to the link above. It is doubtful that this entire article originated from that site, however it should be looked into. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference reorganization

Perhaps it may be easier for the reader if the references were linked directly to each sentence rather than being in a separate section. Harpsichord246 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That will have to be done at some point. I've added {{Inline}} to encourage a start. GFHandel ♬  20:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you both mean here. The "inline" template adds a claim that there are no inline citations, and yet I see 23 of them. @Harpsichord: what do you mean by "linked directly to each sentence rather than being in a separate section"? If you are you proposing a change to parenthetical referencing, then I am prepared to support you, though I doubt many others would agree. Somehow I think you must mean something else, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer. What I was meaning to say was that the web citations should not be placed under the reference section but under notes section and that books that are linked in the Notes section should be able to be linked to their corresponding reference line. Here is a page I think we should follow in terms of its referencing style:Joseph Haydn. As you can see, the biographical sources are cited using the "cite book" method and the web page references are included only in the notes section. Harpsichord246 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. In other words, you are suggesting that the established reference formats (such as they are) be changed to something else, and are initiating the discussion required by WP:CITEVAR. Could you clarify what you mean by "web citations", please? This is not a term with which I am familiar, and I do not immediately find clarification by looking at the Haydn article (the referencing of which, BTW, I think has some serious problems). I think I see (by the example you have already inserted) what you mean about linking the inline citation to the corresponding item in the list of references. That does seem like a good idea, given the referencing style already in place here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When I say "web citations" I mean non-bibliographical references (books), but those that come from web sources (URLs). What I am proposing to create is a bibliographical section (maintaining the name "references") for books, and putting the online references, such as this one: Estrella, Espie. "The Suite: Baroque Dance Suite". About.com., in the "Notes" section. This has, for the most part, been accomplished. Now we must convert all bibliographical citations to the Template:Harvard citation no brackets style. As you can see I am in the process of doing this. This is a better example than the Haydn article: Ludwig van Beethoven. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and for the better example of the Beethoven article. Now I can say that I strenuously object to the separation of references in this way. Online publications are still published sources, and there is no reason that I can see for treating them differently from printed books, newspaper or journal articles, archives, and so on. This is particularly true for sources that exist in both print and online formats. Am I missing something?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess it is just a matter of opinion. I believe that it is easier to use the Harvard citations on books and to use just normal inline citations for online publications. It is clearer for me. Do you wish to change back to the original style while maintaining the Harvard citation templates for books or do you approve of the current style (as of today)? Harpsichord246 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot approve of the current style, for the simple reason that there isn't one—there are at least three, and the guidelines are clear that there should be one consistent referencing style within each article. For this reason, it is not just a matter of opinion, either. The various articles from New Grove provide a good example. Some are presented as full citations in footnotes (inconsistent with the linked shortened references—what you are calling Harvard citations—used for other print media), while others cite one or another version of the online edition. I'm not sure about the "original style", since I have not checked the edit history, but somehow I doubt that there actually was just one, to which we could revert.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel we should be using {{sfn}} templates. Have a look at Ernest Shackleton for a strategy that would translate well to this page. GFHandel ♬  05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I am wary about using templates at all, they do have the virtue of enforcing a consistent style. The usual problem, in my experience, is that no template ever anticipates all of the parameters necessary for a given citation format. That said, I don't have any particular objection to the sfn template system, given that footnotes are already established as part of the citation style in this article. However, that still does not address the question of citation formats, since the sfn template allows a variety of different options. The Shackleton article, for example, uses something very close to APA (author-page) style, which is OK, I guess, though I personally would rather see author-date style, which is referred to under Citation Style 1 in the sfn documentation. My reasoning is that APA style necessarily defaults to author-date whenever there are two or more items by the same author, and this results in an inconsistency in appearance in the inline citations.

Thanks for pointing to the Shackleton article, because it illustrates citations that are not actually very exemplary in just this regard, since they use two conflicting methods of differentiating different sources by the same author. The items by Riffenburgh, for example, are differentiated (e.g., notes 43–49) by using author-date ("Riffenburgh 2005"), whereas the items by Shackleton are differentiated using author-title (e.g., 73, 82–88, etc. "Shackleton, South"), a problem compounded by the fact that there are two sources plausibly titled "Shackleton, South", forcing the highly irregular use of "Shackleton, South (film)" in note 81. This unnecessary congestion could easily have been avoided by using author-date throughout, in which case the two "Shackleton, South" items would be "Shackleton 1982" and "Shackleton 1919", respectively. Not only that, but the separation of the reference list into “Sources” and “Online sources” is confusing and inconsistent in just the way I have mentioned previously: The “Katz, Gregory (18 January 2011)” “Lusher, Adam (27 November 2011)” items are prime examples of print-media sources listed instead under “online sources”, merely because there happen to be online versions available, whereas “Mill, Hugh Robert (1923)” is listed as a print item, even though the primary reference is to an online edition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of template usage because of the consistency they provide—so I'm glad we're on the same page there. I do not agree with your boolean-type edit comment that the Shackleton article demonstrates "bad referencing formats", and you have to appreciate why decisions were taken on that page (e.g. more than one work by an author in the same year). If no such issues are present here, then there is no problem with adapting the scheme for this article. At the very least, I support moving the hard-coded referencing syntax out of the article text, and using more {{sfn}} templates in the article text (for example there is not a single citation in the "Middle baroque music (1654–1707)" section to help the readers—of our tertiary-source project—to understand where we have sourced particular sentences). We can take some time to decide on a good strategy, and I'm very happy to do much of the work when the time comes (however I'm not sure I'll be able to get access to all of the print sources). We've each had our say now, so it's probably time for other editors to have some input into how the referencing style evolves. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can take a hint, and will shut up and wait for others to offer their views, but only after clarifying that I never said the Shackleton article has "bad referencing formats"—only that several different perfectly good formats are being jumbled up together.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to stifle discussion, and your experience will be very welcome as we all work towards trying to improve the article. Is there a place this discussion could be advertised to get more input? (Apologies for misinterpreting your edit comment of "thanks for a good example of bad referencing formats".) GFHandel ♬  23:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it was my carelessness in wording that edit summary that gave an unintended impression. My apologies are in order here, not yours. For a place to solicit more input, you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, though in this kind of situation input tends to come mainly from the editors currently active on the article in question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good example of what we should follow regarding references: Monadnock Building - Harpsichord246 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the virtues of this example, in your opinion? It looks extraordinarily cluttered to me, in part because it has two different sections for content notes and reference notes, and in part because of the annoyance of having Harvard-style references displaced from the text (where they belong) into a separate list of footnotes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the downfalls you just explained, this article includes the years of publication on all the materials cited; something the Ernst Shackleton page does not. Harpsichord246 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I too prefer Chicago author-date format to APA format, though this is actually a small style issue which sidesteps the fact that both of those formats were intended for in-text, parenthetical citations, rather than footnotes. It is the transposition into footnotes that creates the clutter and distraction, do you not agree?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I definitely do agree. I believe it is more organized to put the footnotes in a separate section from the references. What do you think? Harpsichord246 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have the feeling we are agreeing while at the same time possibly misunderstanding each other. "Footnotes" (or, to be more precise, endnotes) are a section by definition; "references" may be defined as a section and, if this is the case, they may be one of two things: a separate group of endnotes distinct from the "content notes" referred to above, or a List of References. I think we are in perfect agreement about the desirability of a List of References (as opposed to putting full bibliographic details into a numerical list of endnotes). It has the advantage of presenting in alphabetical order by author name all of the sources used to document an article. In this way, a knowledgeable editor can quickly survey the list in order to determine whether anything obvious has been omitted, and whether any weak or dubious items have been included. In this way, it also reduces the chaos of having sources presented in the order of citation. The potential for disagreement between us lies in the question of what kind and number of "sections" are to be included. I suspect that you are thinking of having three such sections: (1) content notes, (2) reference notes using short (Harvard-format?) references, linked to (3) a list of references, with full bibliographic details. This is what I see to be the cause of the clutter in the Monadnock Building article linked above. What I contemplate is a simpler system, in which the Harvard references are not displaced into a list of endnotes, but rather are left in the text as parenthetical references, linked to the Reference List in exactly the same way. This reduces the three sections to two (content notes, and the list of references). Thoughtful editing can reduce this to just one—the list of references—by incorporating into the text any material really worth keeping, instead of shunting it off into an awkward list of "content notes". What do you think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In some ways I can understand your argument. On second thought, you may be right. Is this somewhat like what you are talking about?:Mozart family grand tour (except with Harvard reference style, of course). Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, no. That article (which appears to use APA referencing style, adapted to endnotes) uses a single set of endnotes for both content notes and reference notes. It seems to me that, if a remark is worth keeping at all, it is best incorporated into the main text. Shunting it into a footnote implies that it is not really important at all. The system used in the Mozart family tour article does have the merit, in one case, of combining a reference and comment into a single note. What I have in mind is to eliminate the distracting list of notes entirely, placing all of the author-date notes in parentheses in the text (where the note numbers now appear). An example of this kind of referencing is the article Atonality, though it lacks the links to the list of references, perhaps in part because of an incompatibility between the currently available templates and the particular type of Harvard referencing style used (Chicago style).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. It appears I have dramatically misunderstood what you were saying earlier. Are you saying that you just want parenthetical references or you want Harvard style references that are linked to each sentence? I understand that you don't want footnotes at the bottom. Is the example you gave me exactly what you are proposing? Harpsichord246 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, I would like you to consider parenthetical references instead of footnotes, yes. It seems rather silly to put author-date citations (aka Harvard references) in footnotes, since the system was developed for in-text parenthetical referencing in the first place. Using them with footnotes does only two things, as far as I can see: (1) it provides the entirely spurious appearance of scholasticism through the mere presence of footnote numbers, and (2) it creates distractions for the reader by leading his view away from the text and back again, every time he wants to see what is in the footnote. This distraction can of course be avoided by floating the cursor over the footnote number, thus producing the note's content in a pop-up box, but that is entirely unnecessary if the information is already in front of the reader, in a parenthetical citation. What I would like to recommend is the style of referencing found in the Atonality article, only with the addition of linking from each parenthetical reference to the corresponding item in the list of references. This necessarily involves a slightly different referencing style, because the currently available templates do not, to my knowledge, allow for Chicago Style formats.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not like parenthetical referencing because they take up space in the main body of the text and can be distracting to a reader. It can sometimes seem cluttered as well, such as in the thrid paragraph of Atonality where this shows up: (Baker 1980 & 1986; Bertram 2000; Griffiths 2001; Kohlhase 1983; Lansky and Perle 2001; Obert 2004; Orvis 1974; Parks 1985; Rülke 2000; Teboul 1995–96; Zimmerman 2002) at the end of a sentence. The 'hybrid' style you seem to be proposing is one that I am not familiar with (as you said there are no templates for this). I Would object to this, but maybe we should see what GFHandel thinks because he was the only other user commenting on this issue. Do you think there is a compromise of some sort? Harpsichord246 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I also dislike the parenthetical referencing that I see at Atonality. It would be hard to find a more distracting way of presenting reference minutiae to the reader. GFHandel ♬  22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tastes will vary and, as I said at the outset, I did not expect any support for parenthetical referencing even though, in my opinion, it is much less cluttered and distracting than footnotes. I apparently am being misunderstood on one other point: I am not proposing any "hybrid" style. The system of the Chicago Manual of Style is well established and, despite allowing for several variants, is actually a thought-out, uniform style, unlike "Harvard referencing", which is a term loosely applied to author-date citation systems, which are numerous. In this sense, Chicago style is a specific sub-type of Harvard referencing. There are several specifics of Chicago style that are not addressed by the currently available linking templates. Perhaps the most immediately obvious is that the year of publication in the list of references is not enclosed in parentheses in Chicago style, but must be so enclosed by all of the templates I am familiar with. In any event, I did not mean to argue specifically for Chicago in the present case—there are plenty of other dialects to choose from that would serve just as well. If the two of you mean to retain the (in my opinion) ugly, distracting, and pretentious endnotes, then this is a moot point anyway. Thanks for considering my arguments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so fast. I would prefer this: 1) we do not incorporate notes (section or not) 2) We include this format Template:Harvard citation no brackets (this may have been a source of confusion as parenthetical references can also be called Harvard references) 3) There will two sections in which there will be the links in one and the references in full form (ex:cite book, cite web, etc. with author-date format) in the other. It should all look something like this: Inner German border, only a bit more organized. What do you think of this? — Harpsichord246 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by your first point, which seems to be saying "footnotes will not be used", and yet it seems clear you mean to keep the "notes" section. Certainly the new example article uses notes. That example also divides the list of references into three categories, which seems a little pointless to me. Do you mean to make such a division here? While "Harvard references" can indeed be synonymous with parenthetical referencing, it is my understanding that the "no brackets" qualifier in that template is meant to prevent parentheses around the author-date citation, which are of course superfluous in footnotes citations. I'm not sure whether this also presents the year of publication unbracketed, but that is not important here. The only issue is that the Harvard citation template with brackets is for use with parenthetical references in the text and so, when footnotes are used, the "no brackets" variation is the only viable option.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(outdent, but responding to the "Tastes will vary..." comment above.)
I need to make sure that I/we understand this. From the Atonality example mentioned above, are you really saying that you find:

Late 19th- and early 20th-century composers such as Alexander Scriabin, Claude Debussy, Béla Bartók, Paul Hindemith, Sergei Prokofiev, Igor Stravinsky, and Edgard Varèse have written music that has been described, in full or in part, as atonal (Baker 1980 & 1986; Bertram 2000; Griffiths 2001; Kohlhase 1983; Lansky and Perle 2001; Obert 2004; Orvis 1974; Parks 1985; Rülke 2000; Teboul 1995–96; Zimmerman 2002).

less distracting than:

Late 19th- and early 20th-century composers such as Alexander Scriabin, Claude Debussy, Béla Bartók, Paul Hindemith, Sergei Prokofiev, Igor Stravinsky, and Edgard Varèse have written music that has been described, in full or in part, as atonal.^[10]

with the reference detail formatted (with a template so that it matches referencing style found all over Wikipedia) in a dedicated section at the end of the article (which the casual reader can easily ignore or skip over)? If you are, then I'm afraid that I have to respectively disagree. I won't push this too hard here right now, but I will commit to being very easy to find if consensus is required to implement a citation system here that resembles those now used widely at WP (e.g. the one at Bob Hope—even if you just consider the printed source aspect of that example). Cheers.
GFHandel ♬  23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you understand me correctly. In order to see what that blue numeral represents, I have to either link to it, and then back to resume reading or, at the very least, float my cursor over the number to see what pops up. With the parenthetical system, this is avoided entirely. The "argumentum ad populum ("widely used at WP") is not a relevant concept, by the way. WP:CITEVAR is very clear that this argument is not valid.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my last comment when I said notes I meant Explanatory notes rather than reference notes. In response to the 2 vs 3 section issue, we could have one Reference section and one Notes (non explanatory) section (that links to the references). It is similar to the Inner German border article except that it would have two vs three sections. Harpsichord246 (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, good. That's what I thought you meant.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you wish to implement this or are there any further objections we need to cover? Harpsichord246 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like an improvement over the present situation. By all means, go ahead with it, as far as I am concerned.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well then. Would GFHandel accept this new format? Harpsichord246 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Could someone make a sample edit (possibly followed by a revert) to demonstrate what is planned? Look, bottom line for me: I don't much care about the organisation of sections such as "References", "Notes", "Citations", "Sources", etc. as long as they are at the end of the article and the reference syntax is moved out of the displayed article text (and preferably largely out of the article source text). GFHandel ♬  00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Two points that I feel you are not considering adequately:

• The vast majority of readers (and I'm guessing 99%+) do not have the slightest interest in the reference minutiae we present, however 100% of readers are forced to cope with the minutiae introduced into the article text by the parenthetical system (and as I've indicated above, sometimes very large intrusions in the article text). In other words, I feel your arguments are probably based more on the assumption of an academic-type readership who are interested in our sources, however we write articles for the average reader. And BTW, the academically-inclined reader will have no trouble coping with the footnote system employed in so many articles (e.g. by having a copy of the article open in another browser—with focus on the references section).
• The "used widely" argument I present above is not mean't as a reason why anything must be used here, it was presented as an argument why the scheme adopted at so many articles should be seriously considered here. Among other things, for: the connected nature of the citation hyperlinks, the pop-up of reference information, the consistent formatting of all references (via templates), the ability for bots to detect and update parameters as required, etc.

I feel strongly now that parenthetical referencing should not be used at this article.

GFHandel ♬  00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what I have proposed:

It was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of Germany. On the eastern side, it was made one of the world's most heavily fortified frontiers, defined by a continuous line of high metal fences and walls, barbed wire, alarms, anti-vehicle ditches, watchtowers, automatic booby traps and minefields. It was patrolled by 50,000 armed GDR guards who faced tens of thousands of West German, British and U.S. guards and soldiers.

References

• Faringdon, Hugh (1986). Confrontation: the Strategic Geography of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books. ISBN 0-7102-0676-3.

Do you understand now what I am getting at? Harpsichord246 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@GFHandel: I think you are beating a dead horse. The real matter at issue (though this has not actually been spelled out until now) is that WP:CITEVAR dictates that the established referencing system be retained, unless consensus to change it can be obtained. Neither Harpsichord 246 nor yourself have accepted my suggestion to adopt parenthetical references, and I have yielded that point. It seems to me that the required consensus has now been reached, unless of course you are raising objections to Harpsichord246's proposal. I do think that your suggestion of a test edit is a good one, since there have obviously been a lot of misunderstandings in the discussion so far.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Harpsichord246: Yes, and I think that is better. But why not go for the full benefit of using the {{sfn}} template for the <ref>[[#Faringdon|Faringdon (1986)]], pp. 282–84.</ref> syntax? GFHandel ♬  01:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I think we have reached a consensus. Harpsichord246 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still worried for two reasons:

• Jerome Kohl is obviously the major concerned editor at this article, and I don't want him to feel driven away based on a referencing system with which he doesn't feel comfortable.
• I have often helped convert the referencing at articles, however I just don't have access to the sources used in this article; so I'm worried that I'm going to be part of a change that I'm not in a position to help with as much as I should. E.g. I never want to be part of some sort of hit-and-run conversion at an article; instead, I want to watch-list and remain dedicated to the articles I help to improve.

GFHandel ♬ 

Don't concern yourself about the first point. I won't be driven away, just because I really would rather see the referencing system changed to something else. The proposed changes, as I have already said (I think), are an improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not thoroughly read this discussion, but have just fiddled with the article a bit. I worked on the refs for both Shackleton and Monadnock and do a huge amount of this sort of thing. {{sfn}} is great, as is the related {{efn}}; {efn} is best used with the note dropped via a name in order to get that detail out of the prose. Not sure why such notes are even being discussed here, as the article has none… The idea is /short/ link in the prose to an organised biblio. by user {{sfnRef}} you can control the footnote text and use simply author if that's unambiguous. For conflicts you need the year or full dat, or a fragment of the title; or something. Nudging this along would be no big deal, but a km long discussion is uninteresting. Let me know if I can help. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think we now all agree that sfn is the way to go. Harpsichord246 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)