Talk:First Suite in E-flat for Military Band

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Columns

The instrumentation needs to be put into columns. Ideally the three different versions should be lined up to show comparison. Justin Tokke 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities of Themes

I want to add a section that shows the different themes and how they are all very similar, esp. the chacone and march. I will make the music as pics.Justin Tokke 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flats

I'm not clear on why this article was moved, or why the flat symbol was written out in the instrumentation section. Powers ^T 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flat symbols used before do not look that particularrly nice
The suffux "-flat" is more understandable and, as far as I know, any Title will almost always have, for example, "Symphony No. 1 in E-flat". rather than "... in Eb".
It is easier for those who don't know music to understand what it is.

Justin Tokke 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the Manual of Style supports the option to use the words (and I've often seen it written out in the title of this piece and its sister), but I personally think it looks better with the flat symbols in the instrumentation section. Powers ^T 13:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of instrumentation lists

It's not the instrumentation per se that I object to; it's the formatting of the list here. Just because some dusty old volume from 1948 capitalizes the instruments doesn't mean we should do so here; I refer you to many, many other instances of such names here. Capitalizing them is just plain wrong. As is using shorthand like "&" instead of writing out the word "and". +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the instruments being listed, it is the parts which are being listed. Parts are titles and therefore, should be capitalized. As far as it being "just plain wrong", any book of style will tell you proper titles are always capitalized and I don't see grammatical styling as a moral issue. The same applies to the use of the ampersand (that's the fancy word for the symbol that replaces the word 'and' which apparently you did not know). Somehow, I don't believe you are a doctoral student or professor of music or grammar; the person I'm consulting for this post is a graduate student in music performance who owns the scores for 1948 and the 1984 editions. Please stop posting this incorrectly.

--Musix220 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts or instruments, doesn't matter: neither one constitutes proper nouns, therefore shouldn't be capitalized. By the way, this subject has been discussed exhaustively at this archive of the classical music "WikiProject"; you might want to read there before commenting further. These instrumentation lists should follow the pretty-well-established conventions used, for the most part, throughout this "encyclopedia". +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and read the things posted at the link you gave. The thread shows support for usage of the hyphen except for your one objection. Much like Justin said, only three of you were discussing this subject "exhaustively" (which is hardly the word I would use for such a short entry). As far as the conventions being "pretty-well-established" (I see you have no problem using a hyphen incorrectly there; so why is it so cumbersome otherwise?), three of you took it upon yourselves to choose one way of doing things and the format we are using meets those guidelines. There is no discussion of capitalization, only that it is listed in paragraph format rather than list format and instrument quantities are not spelled out. In addition, credible publishers and scholarly print resources are far more reliable and respected than three random people posting whatever they choose unchecked. Just because it is posted elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean it is credible. Clearly, anyone can post nearly anything. Also, just how much free time do you have that, not five minutes after my post is completed, you have already posted back?

--Musix220 13:25, 28 July 2007 EDT

I believe that Musix220 is correct in his/her statement. The listing standardly used for instrumentation is in reference to the parts, not the instruments themselves. I believe that ILike2BeAnonymous is right when he/she says that the instruments should be lowercase when it is reference to a general instrument. I have a number of books that aren't a "dusty old volume from 1948", and in each of the books I referenced, this rule is held true. Here are some example excerpts from one book that illustrates these points:

"Conductors should note that the 1984 Colin Matthews edition contains a Euphonium part that is new to this edition..."

"For the repeat of this theme Holst turns to Solo Cornet (measures 84-98), which is now doubled in Solo Euphonium in the 1984 Colin Matthews edition."

(excerpts from "The Wind Band Masterworks of Holst, Vaughan Williams, & Grainger", Willis M. Rapp, 2005)

Also, regardless of the decision, the "[X]-flat" (or "[x]-flat", which is incorrect) must be hyphenated. If it is not, then it is not clear that the "[X]" is linked to the "flat". For example, for the upper clarinet, it would be called "E-flat Clarinet" (in reference to the part), "E-flat clarinet" (in reference to the instrument), not "e-flat clarinet" or "e flat clarinet". What if it was the A-flat clarinet? If you put "a flat clarinet", does that insinuate that the clarinet is not properly tuned, or is it referencing to an instrument? The hyphen is needed for clarity.

--Lekamsk 23:11, 24 July 2007 (CST)

Not so; just check numerous other articles here (e.g., articles on symphonies, etc., with instrumentation lists). The hyphen is not only not required, but not wanted; the situation you mentioned arises in certain musical jokes (like the old "what do you get if you drop a piano down a mineshaft? A flat minor.", but doesn't happen when the context is clear. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Said articles and policies were enacted because you and only 2 other editors (User:Opus33 & User:EldKatt) took control of virtually every instrumentation section of every article of the classical music sector. I think its wrong. In regard to the Hyphen, 80% of the time, I have seen it used and it is much clearer. I sometimes think it is a burdon, but this is rare. And what the heck does a musical joke have to do with it? You're trying to mix propper English grammer with music and it just isn't done. Lord knows how many rules we musicians break the laws of all languages (english and music). So, I'm asking you again, please stop wasting everyone's time with useless things that are not of any merit in this situation. Justin Tokke 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there's a great inconsistency with the way you, apparently, want this section formatted: the first part, with the earliest instrumentation, you don't touch (it has the instrument names uncapitalized), but the other two sections you insist on (wrongly) capitalizing the instrument names; why the difference? There's no discernable, consistent formatting scheme being applied here that I can see. You were wrong before (in the great battle over instrumentation lists, which is why you were voted down), and you're wrong now, and you are apparently as stubborn as ever nonetheless. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a chance to fix this because you keep reverting and reverting and reverting (in violation of the 3 reverts rule now). I will fix the problem because you have no intention of doing so. Justin Tokke 01:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted on several occasions to communicate with you on this issue--which is how these things should be solved--but failed completely. Turning to other editors, I found that several supported my position, and none supported yours. At that point there's really nothing else I, ILike2BeAnonymous and Opus33 could've done to deal with the situation than uphold consensus. I haven't attempted to get an understanding of the issues discussed now, because I have better things to do at the time, but your comment above ("...took control...") makes me suspect that you really don't get what happened, and how it was entirely in line with how Wikipedia works. That said, I might not be particularly active here in the near future. EldKatt (Talk) 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website with substantial info about Colin Mathews edition.

I found this website that has a whole lot on the new edition by Colin Mathews. I think it is practically a re-print from the program notes of the score. If anyone wants to add this stuff, I think it would be very helpful to the article. See: http://www.earfloss.com/band/8897201.html Justin Tokke 03:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]