Talk:Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)

Merging

I disagree with the removal of the infobox. I do not want to dispute. I think that an infobox is an interesting tool in the case of Bruckner's compositions, because a lot of them either exist in several versions and editions, or were not published / performed during the composer's life, even were published / performed first at the end of the 20th century, i.e., about 100 year after the composer's death. Two examples: Psalm 146 (Bruckner), String Quartet (Bruckner). Moreover, we have to be consistent, i.e. have an infobox on all pages dedicated to Bruckner's work or none at all.

Some references currently used as, e.g., those from AllMusic on from the booklet of a CD, which have been found on Internet, are perhaps less opportune than some of my references as that to the anthology of C. van Zwol (2012), a book of 782 pages on Anton Bruckner and his work. Van Zwol devoted 20 years of his life to the composer and was regularly in touch with scholars as Leopold Nowak (editor of many Bruckner's works). I do not understand why some data coming from that reference concerning the retrieval of the original manuscript were removed.

I have update nearly all pages dedicated to Bruckner's works and created several new ones. Moreover I was one of the three authors of the new List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, a page I update every time new info is available.

For the discography I am in close contact with Hans Roelofs and John Berky, who via a broad network of contacts are updating their website on a regular basis. Discographies from other origin are in my and their experience incomplete and sometimes not reliable. I have a large discography of Bruckner's works, including all versions of the symphonies and other instrumental works, and all vocal works for which at least one commercial or (known) private recording is available. For my contribution see e.g. "Informanten"[1] and "Links" on Hans' website, and "First known recording of Pange Lingua (1836)"[2] on John's website. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"we have to be consistent, i.e. have an infobox on all pages dedicated to Bruckner's work or none at all" - no we don't. These are optional features, and ones that are often the subject of disputes. For that reason, some articles have them and others don't, and the best way to avoid disputing is to recognize that this will continue to be the case unless they are either mandated or prohibited. For the record, though, since infoboxes are meant to be at-a-glance reference points, they are a poor medium for exploring the often intricate publication histories of Bruckner's works. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, Meneerke was a major contributor and moving the article to a new name and merging is kind of disingenuous. I say keep the infobox, it's a 3-1 consensus here. The creator of the original - pre-merge - needs to be given substantial consideration. Also, it is needed to restore the hardcopy sources, sometimes web links are fine to supplement, but inadequate to stand alone. I disagree that infoboxes are useless - only to the hardcore aficionado. For the rest of us mere mortals, they are helpful basic information. If something like publication is too complex, then just omit that parameter. Montanabw^(talk) 01:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say they are useless, but they are not well suited to the purpose that MB suggests, and that appears to be the primary reason he wants one. Look, it's clear I'm not going to convince you that not every article needs an infobox, and you're not going to convince me that every one does. So you've argued that in including or excluding an infobox we should show respect for the main author, the person doing the most work. Here that's me. Elsewhere that may be Meneerke or Gerda or whoever. But for that approach to have a chance of reducing the constant infobox disputes, it has to be applied evenly, from both sides. Gerda has said she will show that respect, even where she disagrees. I'll work on that. Will you? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For your info: Hans Roelofs, who is responsible for the discography of Bruckner's non-orchestral works, has in the meantime had an independent look on the pages String Quartet (Bruckner), Rondo in C minor (Bruckner), String Quintet (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). He thereafter e-mailed the following reaction to me: "Wanneer iemand zoals jij, die je sporen al bij Wikipedia heeft verdiend, dan een lemma schrijft over een onderwerp dat relevant is en binnen het Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept past, heeft dan iemand anders het recht dat tegen te houden? Wordt die betreffende user door de redactie gewaarschuwd?" (Translation: "When someone like you, who has already won his spurs by Wikipedia, writes a lemma, which is relevant and suits the Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept, has someone else the right to hold it? Has the concerned user got a warning from the Wikipedia redaction?"). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To split or not to split

Splitting was not my decision. Originally I put the Intermezzo in a section of String Quintet (Bruckner) with its own infobox for the following reasons.

• Hellmesberger found the Scherzo too difficult, so Bruckner wrote an eight-minute Intermezzo (WAB 113) in the same key to replace it. However, when the Hellmesberger Quartet, with Julius Winkler as second viola, performed the quintet on 8 January 1885, it performed it with the original scherzo.
• The manuscript of Intermezzo went therafter lost, till it was retreived by Franz Schalk in 1900 in the legacy of his brother Joseph, so that it was premiered posthumously by the Fitzner-Quartett on 23 January 1904 during a concert of the Wiener Akademischer Wagner-Verein.
• The Quintet and the Intermezzo are put together in the same band of the Gesamtausgabe (Band XIII/II).

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've merged the two versions, as best as I can tell. Hope all relevant material is in there now and nothing chopped that should not have been. The discussion should now turn to accuracy and sourcing, not removing and edit-warring over material. Montanabw^(talk) 22:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit added a number of formatting inconsistencies and instances of duplicated content, which I have attempted to correct. In addition, I have removed some additional content due to concerns about the clarity, accuracy, and other issues - see extensive explanation below. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference

• Cornelis van Zwol, Anton Bruckner – Leven en Werken, Thot, Bussum (Netherlands), 2012. ISBN 90-686-8590-2

Per WP:SPLIT, articles should be split to "allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article", assuming that the subtopic meets WP:GNG. This is the case here: there are sufficient sources to support a complete article, one that cannot adequately be written as a subsection of the Quintet article. Indeed, your point 2 is indicative of this. Further, several sources explicitly identify it as an independent work, as despite its original compositional intention it did not end up being used to replace the original scherzo. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An independent look

Hans Roelofs has in the meantime had an independent look on the pages String Quartet (Bruckner), Rondo in C minor (Bruckner), String Quintet (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). He thereafter e-mailed the following reaction to me: "(Translation) I find your Wikipedian 'adventure' with the Canadian user boring – it is knowledge on democratic base, it will end with a voting! I am understanding the philosophy, which is behind it. One wants so to avoid proliferation and manipulation, as well as garbage, but the whole construction has holes. … In a 'old-fashion' encyclopedia you could not describe people, who were not enough relevant to be taken into account for it. On the opposite, of course people, works, etc., which were faulty forgotten, can now be put to attention of the audience – anyhow in a single language. When someone like you, who has already won his spurs by Wikipedia, writes a lemma which is relevant and suits the Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept, has someone else the right to hold it? ... I find the idea behind Wikipedia very pleasant, I have already found a lot in Wikipedia, but I know that I have always to check whether the article is accurate, on a more critical manner than by an encyclopedia or a manual." --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Removals

I have been attempting to find sources to clarify/explain some of the below, but have not yet located any. Here is what has been removed from the merge and why (in addition to corrections of formatting and duplication as mentioned above)

• External links. One of the two links repeated a source already cited in the article. The other did not meet the provisions of WP:NONENGEL and related guidelines
• Watson. Worldcat does not show any publications with those exact citation details, and the reference is missing an ISBN. I checked one version and could not verify the citation. Need to clarify exactly which book is being cited here
• Versions and editions section: mostly duplicates what is already in the history section, and what isn't duplicated is not cited
• "including the scherzo": redundant, that's what "original" means
• "The manuscript was retreived by Franz Schalk in 1900" - not clear what this means. Retrieved from where? How?
• All additions to Discography. I mostly tried to fix formatting issues rather than removing the content, but these are just too messy. Before adding them please make them conform to the formatting of the other entries, including the addition of titles, and insert in alphabetical order by performer. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply

• point 1: The reference "Watson" was put by the first authors of the page User:James470. Ok for removing this relict.
• point 4: Here you have the full history: Before the first edition of the Quintet by Gutmann in 1884, Bruckner gave the manuscript of the Quintet and the Intermezzo to Hans Richter, to let it edited in London. Richter did not succeed and brought back the manuscript, but without the Intermezzo. Bruckner went desperate, because there was no other copy of the Intermezzo, and so the Intermezzo was thought to be lost. In 1991 it was retrieved in London by Richter's friend Hermann Francke, who brought it back to Vienna. Apparently noboby went then aware of it. In 1900 Bruckner's pupil Franz Schalk retrieved the manuscript of Intermezzo in the legacy of his deceased brother Joseph, so that it could be premiered only posthumously. Thist was done by by the Fitzner-Quartett on 23 January 1904 during a concert of the Wiener Akademischer Wagner-Verein.
• point 5: I will review the discography on Hans Roelofs' website, and if necessary by contacting Hans himself. I have five recordings of the Intermezzo: Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett (1956), Quintett der Wiener Philharmoniker (1974), Melos Quartett (1992), L'Archibudelli (1994) and Fine Arts Quartett (2007). The two best (my preference) are the Quintett der Wiener Philharmoniker and L'Archibudelli.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that history, while interesting, does not clarify the matter at hand: where did Schalk retrieve it from, and how? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Schalk (24-03-1857 - 07-11-1890) and his younger brother Franz Schalk (27-05-1863 - 03-09-1931) were pupils and true supporters of Bruckner. Both helped the composed at the end his life to publish his works. Presumably Hermann Francke gave Joseph Schalk the manuscript of the Intermezzo together with other material, without to be aware that it was containing the "lost" Intermezzo. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So here we encounter a problem: "presumably". If we don't know that that is what happened, it would be original research to speculate on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have some suggestions for improving the quality of the content:

• I am missing the reason why the Intermezzo was not publicly performed during Bruckner's live. See my reply to the previous section.
• Find better references than popularizing websites as AllMusic or daily papers (The Arizona Daily Star).
• Discography: Precise that it is a selection among the about 15 available recordings. On which base was the current selection chosen? This paragraph can be reviewed by using Hans Roelofs' webpage, and if necessary by contacting Hans himself.

I have also some suggestions for improving the consistency within the Bruckner-project:

• Add a link to the page in String Quintet (Bruckner)
• Restore the infobox. The page is the single page on Bruckner's works without infobox.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: In the meantime I have created a Template "Bruckner chamber music" and added it to the four concerned articles, so that all Bruckner's Chamber music (except the short Abendklänge for violin and piano) is now grouped. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• See reply above
• The article cites a variety of sources, all of which are considered to be reliable. If you would like to suggest additional sources that you think should be cited, feel free.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Articles_about_compositions recommends that only notable recordings are included. If you feel that one of the listed recordings is not notable or that a notable recording is not included, please specify.
• There are already several links to this page in String Quintet (Bruckner).
• As already explained, there will never be stylistic consistency across all Bruckner articles. See further discussion above. This article is consistent with most instrumental composition articles, as well as Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which include the provision that infoboxes are not required.
• Small navboxes like the one you have created are undesirable when their content is already included in a pre-existing navbox. I have edited the existing Bruckner navbox to make clearer which works are chamber works, and have removed this new navbox as redundant. You may wish to create a subcategory of Category:Compositions by Anton Bruckner to assist in grouping. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discography

As in the other Bruckner's pages, I have put the discography in chronological order, because older recordings are often using earlier, not critical editions. In the particular case of the Intermezzo, the first edition was issued without the Trio.

NB: To be able to put Bruckner's complete chamber works on a single CD L'Archibudelli & the Fine Art Quartet have also issued the Intermezzo without Trio. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please give a substantiated reason for removing the ref to Roelofs' discography, as well as the first recording of the Intermezzo. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The information given by that source is out of date. I suggest adding the recording to the list instead, with full details. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Hans Roelofs' discography of the Intermmezzo does perhaps not contain the full title of the recordings, but it reliable, i.e., up-to-date and updated every time a new recording is available. Please restore it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, looking closer, not only does the source appear to be wrong, your addition was not supported by that source. You actually removed the correct earliest recording from the list yourself. I have added that back in. Nikkimaria (talk)

On which base do you replace the discography I have selected by another one? Do you know all the recording you have put?

Hans Roelofs and John Berky, with whom I am in close contact, are responsible for the discography of the international Bruckner Archive. They are updating it on a regular base. Do you really think that their database is wrong? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the change you made was wrong. You inserted the sentence "The Intermezzo in D minor was recorded at first by the Keller Quartett in 1962". That the Keller Quartet made the first recording of the Intermezzo is contradicted by your own source, which identifies an earlier recording from 1956. That earlier recording was in fact already in the list, but you removed it in the same edit. That the Keller recording was made in 1962 is at the very least questionable: for example, this source gives a recording date of 1967 and a release date of 1970; the record itself does not list any dates, but most sources seem to support late 1960s for recording and early 1970s for release. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Errare humanum est, perseverare... The first recording was indeed by the Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett in 1956, which presumably used the non-critical first edition (based on the Hynais' transcription, which missed the Trio). See Hans' Diskographie des Intermezzos. Thank you for taking my attention on it.

For the date of recording (Aufnahmedatum in German) of the Keller Quartett please refer to Hans' Diskographie des Streichquintetts, in which Hans gives 1962, but mentions also that another source (Weber) gives 1967 as possible date of recording. Please refrain to check all the literature. Hans did it earlier when creating / updating his webpages. Therefore, it is thus very helpful to put a link to it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Further info: Hans Roelofs created his discography in German for two reasons:

1. It appears logical to create / update the discography of an Austrian composer, who is primarily prized in Austria and Germany, in the composer's native language,
2. Personal reason: as Germanist[3] Hans prefers to write in German rather than in English.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

His reasons are not particularly important to this discussion. However, what continues to be problematic are these "presumes", which are uncertain and not strongly supported by the source you cite. Also, we don't list re-issues for the other recordings, and most sources use "Vienna" instead of "Wiener" for the English-language name of the ensemble. Finally, there is no indication that the Melos recording is particularly notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You, as the "Bruckner specialist of Wikipedia", you may thus decide whether a recording of a Bruckner work is valuable (based on literature you find on Internet and you assess as valuable). As "Bruckner specialist" you also assert that the commented discography used for the international Bruckner Archive is of dubious quality.

May I let you further know the that official name you changed is "Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett", not "Vienna Konzerthaus Quartett" (a mixed English-German name)?

For a critical assessment of the performance of the Melos Quartett have a look on Commented discography of the String Quintet. Hans have not duplicated his assessment on the Intermezzo page. I can translate the German text for you if required. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not have such thing as a "Bruckner specialist of Wikipedia". We follow our policies and guidelines, and our sources. Since the source you presented is itself uncertain on which edition was used for the first recording, it is safer to omit that detail rather than risk moving into original research. Where sources conflict, as in the matter of the date for the Keller Quartet recording, we should not simply declare one to be "right", particularly where the weight of sources is against it.

"Vienna Konzerthaus Quartett" appears to be the name used by many English-language sources for that ensemble, which is the standard we most often follow on Wikipedia (see WP:UCRN and WP:UE). "Vienna Konzerthaus Quartet" is also used. What translation would you propose?

Since you assert that every recording of the work is included on that site, the inclusion of this particular performance there does not speak to its notability, which as pointed out above is the usual basis for deciding what goes in the discography section on composition articles. It's got little to do with "value", which is a more subjective concept and will tend to vary from listener to listener. I'm not sure on what basis your proposed selection was developed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added the discography as an external link. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that the "notability" of a work / performance has something to do with its worth. During Bruckner's life his symphonic works were rejected because the critic was negative. Currently the status of his symphonic works has changed, but most of Bruckner's vocal works remains unknown by the general public. Are these works not worthy because of their lack of notability?

For your info, here you have Roelofs' review about the performance of the Melos Quartett of 1992: "(translated) The Melos-Quartett is the only ensemble, which has recorded the Quintet twice; ... Of interest is that the second recording [1992] is using another score than the first. … [In the second recording] the beginning of the first movement is impressively dreamy, nearly romantic and quite slow, but thereafter it becomes stronger, so that the performance looks impressive and the Quintet looks conceived as symphonic. Nevertheless the sound remains transparent and the adagio is poignant." I share Hans' point of view, and thus consider that this performance is worth to be put in alinea "Discography".

Whatever the "notability" of a performance is, putting it in the Discography remains always somewhat subjective. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: A correct (full-English) translation of "Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett" would be "Vienna concert-hall quartet". Let us please use the original name of the ensemble, not a more-or-less Anglisised translation. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"I do not think that the "notability" of a work / performance has something to do with its worth" - you are welcome to that opinion, but notability is a standard for inclusion here. The review you provide of the Melos Quartet seems to be speaking only to the Quintet, and does not contribute to the inclusion of the Intermezzo recordings here; a different choice may be made at the Quintet page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

How does a work / performance get notability?

During my academic past (researcher and lecturer at the university) and professional life in the pharmaceutical industry, I experienced that "notability" occurs often as follows: someone, who is, with mainly strong financial support, lobbying about a work / performance, is reporting that this work / performance is "remarkable" or "excellent", whatever its real intrinsic value. This is then seen by the mass media and other people, who also report that it is "remarkable" or "excellent", without having had an own critical view on its intrinsic value - the well-known publication bias and media bias (!). And so, via "rumour" this work / performance gets "notability".

Another work / performance, which is possibly of intrinsically better value remains, because, e.g., lesser financial power, lesser commercial or media publicity, quite unknown, so that this excellent, but "forgotten" work / performance does not get "notability".

As I previously wrote, I do not think that the "notability" of a work / performance has something to do with its intrinsic worth. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you propose to determine "intrinsic worth"? What you consider worthwhile might not be the same as what someone else values. It is for that reason that Wikipedia uses notability and sourcing rather than worth to decide on inclusion. Certainly those measures can be subject to bias, but then, so is worth. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The intrinsic worth of a performance can be assessed by using more objective features, as respectful use of the score and its indicated tempo, the quality of the sound produced by the used instruments or the voice of the singer, the quality of the recording itself, etc. A choice among the better performances can so be made, by comparing their intrinsic worth. I have seen that you have drafted pages on a few of the most popular motets of the composer: Ecce sacerdos magnus, Locus iste, Vexilla regis and Virga Jesse. On which criteria have you based your discography? For sure not on the intrinsic worth of the performances. A critical review of the available performances of all but one motet (Vexilla regis, the last Bruckner had composed) has been made by Hans Roelofs.[4]

• For Ecce sacerdos magnus (27 recordings reviewed) see [5],
• For Locus iste (more than 100 recordings reviewed) see [6],
• For Virga Jesse (about 80 recordings reviewed) see [7].

Hans is currently doing the same for Vexilla regis. When this review will be ended it will be posted on [8].

Based on his critical review you should put a discography of the concerned motets, which is based on better criteria. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Since his discography aims to be comprehensive rather than selective, it would surely aim to include all recordings, whether "worthwhile" or not. But the review you provided of the recording at issue here does not seem to make any comment on the quality of its Intermezzo, rather focusing on the Quintet. Furthermore, some of the "objective features" identified above, in particular the quality of the performer(s), are in fact subjective, and others are based on a view of worth that might not be shared by all readers. It is for these reasons that we prefer notable recordings rather than trying to determine which have "intrinsic worth". The discographies included on other articles are better discussed on those talk pages, where I see you have already posted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alike Hans I am a Bruckner-connoisseur since more than 30 years. By the quality of the performers I mean: Can the singer sing the higher notes required by the work on a soft (i.e, not shrill) manner and the lower notes too (i.e., not vibrating)? For a violinist or a cellist, do he refrain to use too many portamentos, do he play the artificial harmonics softly, etc.?

Among Bruckner's motets, an example of a work, which is requiring a high-quality soloist is the third Ave Maria of 1882 (WAB 7). Composed for alto soloist and organ, it requires a two-octave large tessitura (from F3 to F5). Hans has reviewed 19 recordings. Only a few of the performers are singing it on a 'faithful' manner (according to the score). See Review of Ave Maria III, WAB 7. After also having heard these recordings, I discussed with Hans. Hans found Ilieva's performance as the best one. I agreed that Ilieva's performance is indeed one of the better ones, but, since it is transposed by a minor third (from F major to A-flat major) because Ilieva is a mezzo-soprano, I found it not a 100%-'faithful' performance. I therefore prefer Sigrid Hagmüller's performance, or (second choice) Anne-Marie Owens' one.

PS: To make the Discography section of the motets more user-friendly, we should not only put the name of the choir, but also that of the conductor (and, as for the third Ave Maria, that of the soloist). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

An informative infobox or not?

In presumably the best encyclopedia of Bruckner's works (Uwe Harten, Anton Bruckner. Ein Handbuch. Residenz Verlag, Salzburg, 1996. ISBN 3-7017-1030-9), the description of the works begins with the following summary table:

• Name
• WAB No.
• Key:
• Composed: date and place
• Versions (if applicable)
• Number of Parts (if applicable):
• Author of the Text (if applicable):
• Voices and/or Instrumental:
• Dedication:
• First performance: date and place
• Manuscript location:
• First publication:
• Publication in Bruckner's Gesamtausgabe:

Thereafter the history of the work, etc, is described in detail.

A really informative infobox should provide the readers with a similar quick overview of the relevant data of the Wikipedia page, before they begin to look for more detailed data in the page self.

I have used a quite similar content in the infoboxes of the about 50 pages, which I have recently created for several types of Bruckner's works.

In this point of view, I was adding more data to the obviously too limited number of data of the current infobox of this page. However another user, who is apparently not in favour of using really informative infoboxes, has repetitively reverted my edits.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Meneerke! We are not bound by the format used by another source, but rather by our own policies and guidelines, and our own consensus. If there are specific changes you would like to propose to the current infobox, by all means do so. However, it's not particularly "informative" to equate "completed by" with "composed on", as the two are not equivalent and this would be giving our readers a false impression. It's also not appropriate to claim that any good-faith edit you happen to disagree with is "botching" the article. You may wish to review WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I find it very strange that the Wikipedaia policies and guidelines, which you are referring to, would apply to the two pages Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner), which you have originally split from other existing pages, and that the same policies and guidelines would not apply to the about fifty other pages dedicated to works of Anton Bruckner, which I have updated/created in the meantime in a constructive collaboration with other users.

As a result of this constructive collaboration, all the works of the composer are now covered by a page or al least by an overview page, as for the piano and the organ works (See Book:Anton Bruckner).

I am not a beginner on Wikimedia. For the quality of my about 40,000 edits, of which more than 7,000 on the English Wikipedia, I have recently been granted "autopatrolled". Moreover, Wikimedia has also asked me for translating some of my edits for the French Wikipedia...

Let me please work and further update the pages dedicated to works of Anton Bruckner and avoid to repeatedly revert my edits according to your own interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as sterile discussions about it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: We are apparently not on the same wavelength... Even when "Intermezzo" is in the title, "form = Intermezzo" is a different story, similar to when "in D minor" is in the title, "key=D minor" is still needed to tell search functions it's a piece in D minor. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia policies and guidelines also apply to the fifty other pages you mention, but at the moment we are discussing these two particular pages, and the argument you present is not relevant to what their content should be - we both have editing experience, we both have been asked to translate, etc, but that really makes no difference to this discussion. (after e/c) Your more recent point is more relevant, but not entirely correct: we don't currently have a search function capable of filtering by form or key, as we're not a specialized music encyclopedia - the regular search function will find this piece with a free-text search of "intermezzo" or "D minor". Wikidata would be a more appropriate venue for these metadata pairs so they do not clutter the output for our human and therefore more intelligent readers. But of course that was not the change that was originally disputed, so I am unsure why you are presenting the exact same conversation across two pages when the situations differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, it looks like one infobox parameter needed to be restored, it was sourced in the body text. Nikki is right that the boldface down in the works list looked funny. Let's hope we are done with this now. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montana, as I mentioned above, the article actually says something else: the work was finished by that date, but this is not the same as saying composed on that date, so using only the year is more appropriate for what that parameter represents. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us not split hairs... For me "finished" and "composed" are nearly synonyms. Before this the piece is "sketched". A composer makes sometimes sketches months or years before the work is actually "composed", but I do not think that he is then already composing the work...

Example: The early sketches of Bruckner's Symphony No. 9 were probably already drafted around 1890, when he was working on the 2nd version of his Symphony No. 8. The first three movements were "finished" in 1893. For the scherzo Bruckner had drafted successively three different trios. When he died in 1896 he was still working on the (unfinished) finale. But in the meantime he had also revised the other three movements... When was, according to your definition, this symphony "composed"?

Another example: Beethoven drafted possibly the first sketches of the finale of his Symphony No. 9 about 15 years before it was "composed", when he was not yet fully deaf and was composing his Choral Fantasy... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I love to split hairs ;) - If it is known and notable that a work was composed over a long period or even several, that should show. If several: should we introduce a new parameter "revised"? Or use a list of periods then within composed? Perhaps a question for the template talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In most of the instances, the only date, which we know for Bruckner's smaller works, is the date put by Bruckner on his manuscript. For me, it is the date when the piece was actually "composed"... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: You have to be creative... "Composed" is now accurate. The concerned row of the info box allows to replace "start date" by "end date". I have done it without any problem. If you agree, I will do it for the other concerned pages (the motets and secular choral works, etc.). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The location of composition is easy to know, i.e., where Bruckner was living at that time (see Motets (Bruckner))

• Before 3 October 1841: only Pange lingua, WAB 31, composed in Hörsching
• Between 3 October 1841 and 23 January 1843: Windhaag (only the Windhaager Messe)
• Between 23 January 1843 and 23 September 1845: Kronstorf
• Between 23 September 1845 and 24 December 1855: St. Florian
• Between 24 December 1855 and 1 October 1868: Linz
• Thereafter: Vienna

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not the difference between "finished" and "composed", but between "by" and "on" - the article body states that the work was finished at some unknown point before that date. Replacing start date with end date does not solve the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not know where this "by" is coming from. As reported in C. van Zwol, p. 683 and U. Harten, p. 216, it should be "on". I guess that the ref No. 4 is a not-optimal translation of the original German text. I have corrected it and I will replace the ref by those of van Zwol and Harten. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Many references on this page are second-hand references, obviously written for news papers, internet reviews, etc. The most of the info can be found in van Zwol and Harten. Replacing them by van Zwol and Harten would provide the page with a higher-quality label. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen that you have removed "Viola quintet", because it would be a duplicate of String quintet. The title of infobox refers to the Wikipedia page String quintet. A "Viola quintet" is one of the types of the "String quintets". "Viola quintet" is indeed referring to the same page ("String quintet"), but it is thus, s.s., not a duplicate. Please restore the edit. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

An article, which started on a shaky base

As I wrote on 7 September 2014, splitting was not my decision. Originally I put the Intermezzo in a section of String Quintet (Bruckner) with its own infobox for the following reasons.

• Hellmesberger found the Scherzo too difficult, so Bruckner wrote an eight-minute Intermezzo (WAB 113) in the same key to replace it. However, when the Hellmesberger Quartet, with Julius Winkler as second viola, performed the quintet on 8 January 1885, it performed it with the original scherzo.
• The manuscript of Intermezzo went therafter lost, till it was retreived by Franz Schalk in 1900 in the legacy of his brother Joseph, so that it was premiered posthumously by the Fitzner-Quartett on 23 January 1904 during a concert of the Wiener Akademischer Wagner-Verein.
• The Quintet and the Intermezzo are put together in the same band of the Gesamtausgabe (Band XIII/II).

I never was in favour to split the section "Intermezzo in D minor" from the main article String Quintet (Bruckner), as Nikkimaria did it on 4 September 2014. Despite well-grounded arguments by an user, who is analysing Bruckner's works since more than 50 years and that of scholars Leopold Nowak and Cornelis van Zwol, which advised to not split, Nikkimaria decided to go on, considering herself as a specialist of the topic and without having the basic knowledge from the Bruckner's handbooks to justify the soundness of her decision.

Because it started on shaky base, this lame article is, since its beginning, bogged down in repeated discussions about soundness of its content, discography, infobox, referencing, etc. The "Intermezzo in D minor", which was composed as an alternative to the scherzo of the String Quintet, was well-integrated in its main article. The repeated discussions on the soundness of several topics of the split article confirm that it had, as it was advised, better never been split from its main article. You cannot expect that an article with a false start get a course with no obstacles to a successful end...

PS: The Rondo in C minor, which is an annex to Bruckner's String Quartet, was also well-integrated in the main article. I also never was in favour to split the section "Rondo in C minor" from the String Quartet (Bruckner), as Nikkimaria did it on the same date. The repeated discussions on the soundness of several topics of the split article confirm that it also had better never been split from its main article. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreements about things like discography and referencing have little to do with whether this should be an independent article or not - if it were not, those disagreements would simply occur on a different page. Instead, we consider Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in deciding whether or not to split, and in this case they are in support. The Intermezzo is certainly related to the Quintet, but that does not preclude a standalone article. Indeed, there is sufficient content relevant to the Intermezzo - including the history you outline above - that, if it were to be integrated into the Quintet article, would by disproportionately large relative to other content (a key consideration in splitting). Instead, it is more appropriate to summarize the Intermezzo there, per WP:SS, and have the more extensive article here to expand on details. There is also sufficient sourcing to support the existence of the more detailed content available here, including the scholars you cite. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is of course sufficient material available to support the existence of a stand-alone article, if it is written by an expert, who is basing his writing on credible references —not by a sorcerer's apprentice, who obviously does not has sufficient knowledge about the composer and the complex history of his works, and is basing his writing on references coming from popularising or promotional works written by ghost writers, who are paid for doing it... Do you have access to the two "Bruckner's bibles" by Cornelis van Zwol (782 pages) and Uwe Harten (544 pages)? If no, I advise you to acquire them before going further with this discussion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is not actually that the articles should not be separate, but rather that I shouldn't have been the one to write this one? In that case, this discussion is at an end, since your argument has no basis in policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving the content of the article

If you do not have access to the two "Bruckner's bibles" (U. Harten's and C. van Zwol's handbooks) for improving the content of the article, there is an excellent encyclopedic work available online: Bruckner online. Unfortunately for English-speaking people, the main literature about Bruckner and his works is in German language (see de:Anton Bruckner). There are only a few good basic references in English, as the The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner (however, with somewhat outdated content), and the ongoing Crawford Howie, Anton Bruckner - A documentary biography, online revised edition (3 chapters edited as yet). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have somewhat restructured the section "History", which is—I think—now better ordered, and added a few additional, more substantiated data from Harten's and van Zwol's handbooks. I will later review the section "Music". Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added a detailed description of the score. Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: This page has now got a—for a Bruckner connoisseur—acceptable quality level. Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)