Talk:List of classical pianists/Archive 1

Archive 1

Trimming (2006)

I'm sure the list could do with some trimming (I'm sure the redlinks could be reduced for a start). But I don't think it's sensible to remove people jsut becuse no recordings exist Liszt and Chopin are probaly as well known for being pianists as much as composers, and for other pianist composers for whom there are well-documented accounts of them performing their own or other's compositions (e.g. Mozart, Beethoven) there seems a strong case to keep them in. Of course there are many composers who simply used the piano as a composition tool rather than being well-regarded as concert pianists, and thee should be left out. David Underdown 10:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists, endless and finite

I was the person who suggested confining the list to people who have left a recorded legacy. After all, I play the piano, but I certainly don't deserve to be listed in Wikipedia! All composers since the inception of the piano have played it, with the possible exception of Berlioz. For this reason, I don't feel anyone needs a Wikipedia page. Why stop at Chopin? Where's Bach, JS, Bach, CPE, Bach WF, Bach JC - and on and on...

A list must be finite to be useful, and I think this one would serve a useful function if we define what it's a list of. Anyone who ever played the piano is too vague. Come to think of it, my seven year old son falls under that header...

I have added a couple of pianists who specialise in 19th and 18th century pianos.

I'd agree that the current definition is somewhat broad :) and whilst many (most?) composers can play the piano to some extent, the number that are actually notable for their pianism as opposed to their composing is somewhat more limited. It is probably wise to think about the Wikipedia concept of notability (see WP:NOTABILITY) and apply it here, which should make it a rather more closed list. If their pianistic talents were not such that they would be included in Wikipedia as a notable pianist, they don't deserve to be in this list. That's partly why I suggested going through the red links as a start to get rid of any vanity mentions, if there would be sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article on them as a pianist, I don't see any reason to remove them from the list.

Of the composers you mention JS Bach would be more likely to go in a list of organists or harpsichordists than pianists - I understand he didn't much like the only pianos he tried out. The other Bach's, if they were known for their performances on the piano in public - why not? David Underdown 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually WP:MUSIC is a better reference for what I'm trying to get across. David Underdown 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe all the entries on the list of recorded classical pianists should be in this more inclusive list; however, there are discrepancies between them, with the recorded pianist list being much longer than this list. All the pianists in the recorded list should at least be in this list also. How to do that quickly and easily as I'm new to this. Sll10sll10 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New entry started

OK - I give up. I have created a separate page for pianists of whom there are recordings.

I believe all the entries on the list of recorded classical pianists should be in this more inclusive list; however, there are discrepancies between them, with the recorded pianist list being much longer than this list. All the pianists in the recorded list should at least be in this list also. How to do that quickly and easily as I'm new to this. Sll10sll10 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Schoenberg?

Not noted for his pianism!

I'll grant you that one. By the way do try and remember to sign your comments by typing ~~~~. It makes it much easier to follow who said what in a protracted exchange. David Underdown 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

notability of...

Is Brian Kovach notable enough for us to have an article about him or listed on this list? Frosty 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A very quick google suggests he has appeared with at tleast the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Orchestras, so I'd incline towards yes, but don't have time to investigate further. David Underdown 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tori Amos?

Though she studied classical piano for a time, does this qualify her as a "classical pianist"? Unless she has given classical performances at the professional level or released recordings of classical music, I would think not. If having a classical training is the only criterion needed, several musicians would have to be added to the list - Tony Macalpine is one example I can think of off the top of my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.62.77 (talk • contribs)

Reply - DK - Based on the description of this wikipedia page, I felt Tori Amos belonged on this list based on her gifted talent and abilities. However, I respect and understand the reasons of the members here and will stop adding her (only added her twice). However, I do think the one sentence intro to this page should be slightly modified - as she is a very well trained classic pianist and is also a notable performer and pianist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.161.91 (talk • contribs)

The use of "played" in the intro is supposed to reflect the fact that some of those listed are dead. By a rather literal interpretation of it I suppose as it stands you could argue for her inclusion, but the sense of the list, given it's title, is that it should consists of those who notability as a pianist stems from playing classically. I can't think of a snappy re-phrasing at the moment. Anyone? David Underdown 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Self referent entries

Removed Mikhaïl Faerman from the page, in line with policy on self publicity (see under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) which states Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself.

Mr Faerman's main claim to notability so far is his autobigraphical entry in Wikipedia.

Rconroy 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with "Classical pianists (recorded)"

I've never seen the point of having 2 separate lists. Obviously, those who were around prior to the invention of recording never had the chance to record; and some of the later ones have chosen to play and teach but not to record. But the distinction is pretty flimsy imo. Surely, what we need is ONE list of classical pianists, with an asterisk or whatever next to those who've recorded anything. That way, we'd avoid the absurd situation where certain names appear in the "Classical pianists (recorded)" list but not in this list. Surely, anyone who qualifies for the "Classical pianists (recorded)" list automatically qualifies for this list, which means we have to remember to add the name to both lists. As new names come to notice, in the vast majority of cases they're young, emerging pianists who in the main have a recording career, so the need to add new names to 2 separate lists will be there in most cases.

I strongly urge us to merge these two articles into one, call it "Classical pianists", have ONE list of such names, and indicate those who recorded. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point is not without force, and I'll plead guilty to having sometimes added names to the "recorded" list while forgetting to do likewise to this one. Please have a look, however, at the immediately preceding call for exclusion of names from the "classical pianists" list unless they meet a somewhat elevated threshold of notability and at earlier discussion about keeping the list from spinning out of control. A sister list of violinists is managed along those lines; newly-added names appear to be frequently removed pronto on grounds, to paraphrase, that "not every kid who made it through Juilliard is notable enough for this listing." While making a good deal of sense to maintain a useful enumeration when faced with a more or less boundless universe of candidates, that approach would exclude at least a substantial subgroup of pianists who made a few records. Such performers do, however, satisfy "classical pianists who recorded," meaning that the "recorded" list is not necessarily a perfect subset of the "general" list unless the latter is truly comprehensive, with all the sprawl and possibly impaired utility that such inclusiveness implies. (Do you really want the name of some otherwise unknown lady who cut a single side of idiosyncratic Chopin for Edison in the teens, and hence who may be quite pertinent to the recording history of the instrument, showing up in a general listing?) Moreover, for those who are interested in the piano's recorded history, there's a real convenience, or even value, in being able to browse a centralized list and know that everyone on it made records, rather than being forced to sift out the "recorders" from a sea of "non-recorders." My first inclination, then, would be to preserve the distinction but sharpen it, perhaps by taking an approach for the general list akin to that of the violin list I mentioned supra. Drhoehl (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive response, Drhoehl. Is it really the case, though, that we are confined to serving a group of users who are specifically interested only in recorded piano music, and uninterested in live music-making or the general history and development of piano playing? I'm sure such people exist, but how representative are they of the general mass of pianophiles? I'd have thought that an annotated list of all notable pianists would meet their needs in any event. All the information they want would be there, a win for them, and management of the sole list would be easier, a win for us. Also, they could gain the bigger picture by seeing at a glance how many of the entire list of pianists are those who recorded. My take on the otherwise unknown lady who cut a single side of idiosyncratic Chopin for Edison in the teens, is that if her sole venture into recording is considered important and notable enough to mention in the Recorded Pianists list, then ipso facto she's a notable pianist by virtue of that one recording. So, yes, I would like to see her name in a general listing. She makes it into the Recorded Pianists list because she was a pioneer in recorded piano music, whereas her equally otherwise unknown cousin who made a similar single disc 25 years later has been totally forgotten because there was nothing in her playing that distinguished her from the mass of pianists who were recording by then. But the fact that the first lady is considered a pioneer in some aspect of piano playing means she's notable as a pianist, not just as a recorded pianist. (I guess one could see it the other way too, though.) The other thing is that neither of these lists makes any mention of why each name is included. What happens if the first person to ever record a major composer's piano works happened to play extraordinarily badly, and would have never made it onto the list if he'd been the second? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to quote a couple of extracts: "Is it really the case, though, that we are confined to serving a group of users who are specifically interested only in recorded piano music...? I'd have thought that an annotated list of all notable pianists would meet their needs in any event. All the information they want would be there, a win for them, and management of the sole list would be easier, a win for us. ... The other thing is that neither of these lists makes any mention of why each name is included." In answer to the first question, I'd say—as you quite rightly imply—that, no, we aren't restricted to serving such users, but I think that maintaining the two lists serves such users, or even those who simply wish to concentrate attention on recorded pianists while still maintaining a broader interest as well, better than merging them. If for no other reason, the presence of a name on "recorded" by definition indicates the existence of recordings, whereas the absence of an asterisk or "r," or whatever signal is chosen to indicate recordings in "general," could simply indicate that the person who added the name, who may well have known about recordings, forgot to set the flag. Especially for relatively obscure performers (like our now-soon-to-be-famous Edison lady), other users, even if they thought to check, might find chasing that information out a bit of a challenge. All that said, I fully agree that close attention to your second quoted point would serve everyone well: each list should make very clear right up front exactly what sort of names a user should expect to find there. ("Recorded" does address the issue on its discussion page, as I once actually questioned whether a list of every pianist who made records might be unwieldy, but of course a user won't see the ensuing discussion on the main page.) Moreover, I just strenghtened the "recorded" list's cross reference to suggest that names added there likely also should be added to the "general" list. Now, here is one thought that's been nagging at the back of my mind: would it be feasible to create a "bot" to ensure that names from "recorded" aren't inadvertently omitted from "general"? Wet behind the ears as I admit to being, I'm aware that bots exist but not really up on just what they can and cannot do.

One further point: I think we really need to hear from user Rconroy in this discussion, as he was responsible for setting up the "recorded" list parallel to the "general" one in the first place. I'll freely confess to being very much a Johnny-come-lately by comparison. Drhoehl (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spurred on by this discussion, I've begun reviewing the two lists letter-by-letter to bring them into line. More detailed discussion of what I've done appears at Talk:Classical pianists (recorded). (OOPS--forgot to sign this when I posted it: Drhoehl (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) )

Valiant work to do all the cross-checking. It's crazy not to have just one list. Make it a sortable wikitable, by name and also by recorded or not, and you have all the same info, and someone interested in just the recorded pianists can sort so an alphabetical list of just those ones shows up at the top. I have worked on many big sortable lists in wikipedia, such as List of National Historic Landmarks by state and its subsidiary lists, and List of current ships of the United States Navy (which replaced 3 or 4 other lists that each were presented in a different order. It's not hard to convert, i would be happy to help, too. Repeat, it is crazy to try to maintain two parallel lists! doncram (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! As to merging--well, I still think there's good reason to keep the lists separate. As I outlined above, a list that by heading contains "recorded pianists" is not ambiguous, whereas a list that depends on users to set some sort of flag is never quite certain. Case in point: you yourself added Neil Galanter to this list. According to his Web site, he's made recordings, but you didn't put him on "recorded pianists" [not to worry--I fixed it for you! ;) ]. With split lists, there wasn't much harm done, as no one was going to see his name and assume that he hadn't made recordings because his name wasn't "flagged"; rather, his name simply didn't appear on the recorded pianists list. Were there but one list, however, failure to "flag" him would raise that very possibility, as his name would be on the list and the natural assumption would be that if he had recorded, he'd be flagged. In the case of Galanter, it was easy for one not otherwise familiar with him to chase out whether he'd recorded and correct things, but that's not always true. Indeed, I've run across a number of such performers myself. Drhoehl (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Names Removed

As a byproduct of trying to coordinate this list with the one of recorded pianists, I started this section to note a single name that I had removed as apparently not appropriate. Rather than set up a similar section for each succeeding such name, though, perhaps a better approach is to note all such names under a single head. Hence, I'm modifying the section accordingly. Drhoehl (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Winifred Atwell After discussion with the contributor of her name, I think we're both of a mind that she is not a good fit for this list after all. He recalls that she recorded some classical "one offs" on an LP, but her career centered around popular piano. The question arises, then: even though she won't appear here, does she belong on List of classical pianists (recorded), regarding which at least some sentiment appears to exist for the proposition that a single good "classical" recording suffices to qualify an otherwise primarily popular or jazz pianist for inclusion? I would welcome discussion of that issue and of the broader matter of standards for inclusion in both lists. Drhoehl (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Marcus Chapman As best I can tell from a Google search, he is a music student working toward a degree in piano who has posted a couple of recordings to a free download site. (I presume the anonymous editor who added this name was not referring to the bass guitar player of the same name!) I think we really should avoid adding names of those who have not yet established a career in piano performance; questions of "notability" aside, including music students would swell the list beyond any pretense of utility. Hence, I'm removing this name. If I'm in error (i.e., if there's yet another musical Marcus Chapman more established as a classical pianist), please add the name back in, preferably with a note here so that I can learn something! Drhoehl (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Raht Jayapani Ketusingha was added by the same anonymous user at approximately the same time to both this list and the list of jazz pianists. A Google search for the name turns up only a Web log full of philosophical musings but no mention of the piano.

• Shawn Lane As far as I can tell from his Wikipedia entry, he was not noted as a classical pianist, although he seems to have had classical training and interest. I removed him from the recorded list and will do so from this one as well, subject, of course, to reversal by someone more familiar with his work than I am. Drhoehl (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: I am somewhat confused about the criteria, as Shawn Lane recorded his own "Piano Concertino" on a digital keyboard. There is video of him playing a (out of tune) classical piano on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A2vG0GsG54 Kettil (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure any formal criteria have been set at this point. That said, I would be inclined to discount performances on keyboards; I may be a stick in the mud, but for my money one becomes a pianist only by playing the piano, not electronic instruments. (Admittedly, Wikipedia muddies the waters by lumping pianists into "keyboardists.") Moreover, going by the Wikipedia article on Lane, it appears to me that he was a pop musician who occasionally may have played a bit of classical music, not really a "classical pianist," which I would take to be someone who devoted a substantial percentage of his performing career to playing classical literature. To cite an example going the other way, I'd say that guitarist John Williams is a "classical guitarist," not a pop star, even though he formed a pop group, with which he released a couple of recordings, back around 1980 or so. I'll confess to total unfamiliarity with Lane, however, outside of his Wikipedia article; if the article led me to a wrong conclusion and he actually spent substantial time playing classical music on the piano, by all means add him back in. That's why I noted his removal here in the discussion. Drhoehl (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Tony MacAlpine, as best I can tell, presents another case of the primarily pop artist who touches on classical a bit, too. I'm making a judgment call that he really isn't a "classical pianist" as I think this list contemplates--but, again, I'd never heard of him until I started coordinating "M" with the recorded pianists list, and others may disagree. Drhoehl (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dudley Moore Was notable as a jazz pianist early in his career, but as far as I can tell publicly performed classical music only in parody.

• Maksim Mrvica What I've read about him suggests that he takes some classical material and turns it into modern dance music. Again, my judgment call is that he is more a "pop" than a "classical" artist; again, having no personal exposure to him beyond some fairly hasty reading, I'm removing his name subject to revision by those with better knowledge. Drhoehl (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Shoudie N. Marzan ll I have removed this name, which was incorrectly inserted under "A." The article is a one-liner with no sourcing and NPOV problems. I've tagged it in both respects, but beyond that I'm not sure what to do about it; someone more knowledgeable than I am may wish to take a look. Drhoehl (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully Coordinated with Classical pianists (recorded) as of April 3, 2008; Shortcoming of This List Revealed

I have now finished working through all the letters of both lists, ensuring that no one appearing in the recorded pianists list is omitted here (and adding not a few names there that appeared only here). For detailed comments, see the discussion page of the other list. Whether all the imported names actually belong here is a matter for debate (see the discussion of merging the two lists, supra), as is the notability of some names, particularly those of some individuals still in conservatory, appearing here; I'll leave those questions for another day. What did emerge during the process was that the instant list, as it stands, could almost be renamed "List of Classical Pianists from the 20th Century or Later." Even before I began my cross checking, it was seriously underpopulated with names from before the recorded era, and of course adding names from "recorded pianists" did nothing to address that issue. I intend to start working on the problem, but I'm no expert in 19th century or earlier pianists; I would beg others to help out! Drhoehl (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "pianist" for the purposes of this list

Names such as Condoleezza Rice and Federico Garcia Lorca appear in the list. Rice's piano-playing is well known, although I wasn't aware of Lorca's. However, I suggest they don't belong here at all. They are certainly notable, and they may have been pianists, but they weren't "notable pianists". Let's keep this to people who are notable as pianists, excluding those who were notable in other fields who just happened to play the piano at home. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; I, too, would prefer to limit this list and its sister list of recorded pianists to those who had significant performing careers. As you can probably tell from all my blabbering above, while awaiting a relief column of other editors that never seems to arrive, I've taken it on myself to keep an eye on both lists in hopes of maintaining some kind of order. I've loosely followed that approach, but absent broader discussion including those who would adopt a less stringent standard (and they are out there), I've tried to err on the side of inclusiveness, lest this turn into "Drhoehl's list of classical pianists." Hence, I didn't immediately remove Rice when she showed up a week or two ago and have dithered since, unable to decide whether her, as you put it, well-known piano playing means that she "qualifies." Moreover, some names appear here because, partly in response to our discussion of some months back about whether separate lists are justified, I provisionally imported them from the recorded pianists list in expection of discussion that never materialized regarding whether they belonged here. Admitting that yet another list devoted to classical pianists might be a bit much, I wonder if we should consider creating something like "List of notable classical piano amateurs" to handle folks like Rice and Lorca? Drhoehl (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that last idea would create more issues than it seeks to resolve. And I don't think it's encyclopedic, but rather a list of trivia. There would be literally thousands of notable people who could play the piano, but this is of as little real interest as a list of the thousands of notable people who knew how to change a tyre. If not knowing that Condy Rice plays the piano does no damage to our picture of why she's notable, then in respect of her it's essentially trivial. It might qualify for a mention in her own article, but there'd be many other notables who played the piano where this fact gets no mention. The fact that it's mentioned on one person's page but not on another's, does not mean that the first person was any more notable as a pianist than the second person. For all I know, Charles Dickens might have played the piano, and played it far better than Condy Rice does. But do I care enough to research and find out? No, not really. I'm more interested in knowing about his literary achievements, which is what we know him for. Now, take Georges Bizet. He is known principally as a composer, but he could also play the piano magnificently - Liszt himself proclaimed Bizet to be one of the three finest pianists in Europe - and he was an outstanding sight reader. This generally gets little attention because he chose not to become a concert pianist, but it's definitely worthy of mention in his article (I put it there) because his pianism is strongly related to his composing. And Bizet is definitely worthy of inclusion in this list, if he's not already there, even though he was not a professional pianist. But people whose public lives had nothing to do even with music, let alone with piano playing in particular, and who were amateurs on the instrument, do not qualify. I'm pretty sure Harry S. Truman played the piano very well; so did Sir Don Bradman; and I know that Jack Lemmon did because I've seen him playing on TV. They're off this list because these activities were entirely unrelated to the reasons for their notability. Having a separate list with the Rices, Lorcas, Trumans, Bradmans and Lemmons of the amateur piano-playing world would serve no real purpose. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But other than that, do you think it's a good idea? ;) OK, I was just thinking out loud, and of course your observations are right on target. Thank you very much for all the fixes and additions you've applied to the list in the past couple of days; I only wish there were more who would take the time and trouble to make improvements on a similar scale. Drhoehl (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Duo pianists

It occurred to me recently that we have a large gap in our coverage: pianists who appeared either exclusively or predominantly as duo pianists. There were/are lots of them, most of whom do not yet have WP articles. I've now created a List of classical piano duos (performers). I've started on the work of creating articles for the best known duos, by creating Aloys and Alfons Kontarsky today, but there are dozens more still to be done.

Many/most of them also recorded. Btw, the List of compositions for piano duo can do some with some considerable beefing up. That repertoire seems to be growing daily, as people dig out and record 2-piano versions of symphonies etc., as well as little-known works written directly for piano 4-hands or 2 pianos.

The question is now: do we restrict this list to people who were known mainly as solo pianists, and maintain the duo-pianists list separately, or do we add all the new names in here as well? At a minimum, there needs to be a statement about what each list is intended to cover, so that we're all on the ame page. It's a little complicated because many people who were known primarily as duo pianists also did some solo work. And vice-versa. Thoughts? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea; I've always felt a bit dissatisfied with the way we were handling team members solely as individuals, even though I've added a number of them to this and its sister list along the line. I'll give the matter some further thought, but my first inclination would be that one can make a strong case for excluding duo pianists from List of classical pianists if they are to appear on a list dedicated to them alone, unless, of course, they also had significant careers as soloists (Harold Bauer and Ossip Gabrilowitsch would be an example). If we do exclude them here, however, we should probably do likewise from List of classical pianists (recorded), in which case, as you suggest, we'll need to decide how or whether to handle flagging those who recorded. As you and I have discussed before at some length, I see utility to having a separate list for recorded soloists (and I know that you at best have doubts), but even I am fairly sure I'd not want to see "List of classical duo pianists (recorded)" added to the present stable.

One other thought occurs: what about piano teams of more than two members, such as the 5 Browns or the Schrade family? Such groups, although certainly nowhere near as numerous, partake of some of the same issues as the duos. Might we do well to expand the coverage of your list and retitle it as something like "List of multi-pianist teams," perhaps with appropriate redirects to assist those who search for one or another specific category? Drhoehl (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Drhoel.

I'm happy to include the 3+ teams in the new list, and retititle it accordingly. There could be separate sections for the duos, trios, quartets etc.

In the multi-team list, I've been thinking of having not just the names, but adding some brief notes to each entry (where relevant), along the lines of: "The first duo to record the two-piano arrangements of the symphonies of X", or "Premiered Y's Concerto for <number> pianos", or "Z's works for 2 pianos were all dedicated to them". Where they were specially associated with a certain composer/s in performance and/or recording, or with a particular sub-genre (e.g. avant-garde music; obscure and forgotten music), that could be mentioned too. This would obviate the need for a separate list of recorded multi-teams. Maybe a table format would suit this approach, rather than a straight list.

Keeping the names separate: We could have a note on each article "This list shows pianists who worked mainly in the solo/multi-team repertoire. For those who worked mainly in the multi-team/solo repertoire, see "List of ....". Or something similar.

But then what to do with the people who were mainly solo pianists but also did significant work in duos/trios; and vice-versa? Argerich, Gabrilowitsch, Ashkenazi, both of the Kontarskys, etc. I'd hate to see any of those names excluded from either list. A note against the names in the multi-team list would be easy to add if it's in tabular format. But this much longer list of solo pianists has no notes, just names. Maybe a footnote would work better here. That would mean the note I mentioned above would have to read something like "This list shows pianists who worked mainly in the solo/multi-team repertoire. For those who worked mainly in the multi-team/solo repertoire, see List of ..... Some names appear in both lists."

The list of recorded pianists could/should include anyone from either list, and it would need to be made clear that it's not just confined to solo pianists.

We'll also need a new category: "Classical pianists who worked in teams", or something like that. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More good thoughts, for which many thanks. Here's an idea for an admittedly somewhat inexact standard for inclusion in either list: "This list includes the names of pianists who devoted a significant fraction of their careers to performance as [classical soloists] [members of classical piano teams]." I'm thinking that would include the Bauers and Kontarskys of this world while excluding those who had inconsequential solo careers before joining a team or gave a one-off solo concert (or duo team appearance) here or there. Such a standard would also have the virtue of addressing another concern that I've had with this and the recorded pianists lists: what to do about the overwhelmingly jazz or pop pianist who has included the odd classical piece in concert; participated in a crossover project or two; or, Sting-like, even delivered a classical recital or record as an aside to his or her regular activities. Of course, it would likely exclude the Edison lady--remember her?--who figured in our earlier discussion about whether separate lists were appropriate, but then, she presumably would still retain her place on the "recorded" list, and the existence of folks like here was one of my reasons for thinking that list valuable in the first place.

I like your ideas about annotations and tabular presentation, by the way. These "extras" would probably be a bit much in a big list like this one, but the piano teams list should be more manageable in size, and the extra information strikes me as greatly enhancing its utility to the reader. Drhoehl (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. I'll start on some work along these lines later today, when I have some time. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)