Talk:List of compositions by Claude Debussy

Two versions

Please note:

• This page has only the old, original 1977 "L" catalog
• Before his death, Lesure released the definitive 2001 "CD" catalog ("CD" as in "Claude Debussy", mind you)

The old "L" catalog is still the one in use for opus numbers on CDs (as in "Compact Disc", mind you) and the literature. But the "CD" catalog is the last word. It's available at fr:Liste des œuvres de Claude Debussy (where, conversely, the "L" catalog is missing). 62.147.38.1 05:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If people want to go down the "CD" path, here's my suggestion. A new page should be created called List of compositions by Claude Debussy by CD Numbers which is similar to the List of compositions by Claude Debussy by Lesure Numbers page (except of course with the L numbers replaced with the appropriate CD numbers). In addition, the List of compositions by Claude Debussy page should be edited to have both the L and CD numbers. A bit of work, but I'm happy to help where I can. HWV258 (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely should be updated. For instance, the song (for voice & piano) Les papillons is currently missing from this list. And English Wikipedia deserves a complete one! 24.5.114.114 (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder actually, does Lesure's revised catalog actually use "CD" for noting the numbers? I took it out of the library once (it was in French and not too helpful alas) and vaguely remember NO letters, just numbers. I actually was under the impression for a few years now since I discovered the second catalog that it was actually ALSO supposed to use "L" so sort of L¹ and L², but not using that makes more sense. Would love some anyone who has actual knowledgeable input on the subject. Also of potential note is the jrD numbers done by someone named John de Rooy, though perhaps this is just 'some guy on the Internet'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence that anywhere besides this Wikipedia page thinks that the new system numbers are called "CD" numbers. Everyone who uses the new numbering still calls it "L" for Lesure (in the same way that revisions of Mozart's catalogue have continued to use the letter "K" regardless of which system is meant). Wikipedia should not be inventing terminology, it should be reflecting actual usage (even if people consider that usage to be confusing, per an earlier comment below this one).Orfeocookie (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're replying to a five-year old post in the middle of a thread, which is bad form. There are more recent posts which I see address this issue, including pointing out at least three other lists on the Internet that use the "CD" designation, including the well-respected musicbrainz.org and imslp.org; the latter is cross-referenced frequently on Wikipedia and appears designed to be used in conjunction. There are other wiki pages as well, and foreign Wikipedia pages also use CD. The French Wikipedia lists ONLY the CD numbers and not L, and calls them CD. You opened your post by saying "I cannot find any evidence" but you obviously didn't look before you spoke. 97.45.129.111 (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for bad form, and from here on I'll stay with the conversation further down that I hadn't initially seen. But other wiki pages aren't primary sources any more than this wiki page is. That's basically citing an echo chamber. I believe the official term is WP:Circular.Orfeocookie (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO the newer numbering of Lesure's 2001 catalog should be called "CD" to avoid confusion with the long-standing use of L numbers from the 1977 catalog. However, the newer numbers I see have occassionally been used in the past decade-and-a-half but with the designation "L", particularly on record albums, though the old L numbers are still used as well. We have no control over this mass confusion other than our mild attempt to use the CD designation side-by-side with the old L numbers in this wikipedia list (and the Chronological list). Who knows, maybe some savvy record label will see our wiki list and get wise and it'll catch on. Musicbrainz.org has already been maintaining very detailed lists using the CD and L designations, and even including updates to Lesure's 2001 catalog. Wikipedia should continue this trend.

Commenting on another suggestion above: instead of creating a third list in order of CD numbering, I think we should rather combine the two existing lists (Chrono and Genre) into a single TABLE list, initially in Genre order, but SORTABLE by either old L number or newer CD number. As I've done with the Maurice Ravel lists in just that way, I will do so with the Debussy lists. Already the Chrono list has been updated with the newer CD numbers (but called L!) with the old L numbers (if any) in parentheses; these will be separated into separate CD and L columns in the forthcoming table.

However, to start with, the two existing lists are in conflict. With the Ravel lists, one list was an exact mass copy of the other; easy to just delete the Chrono list and make the Genre list into a sortable table. With the Debussy lists, they have been updated separately over the years. The Chrono list seems to have more accurate information than the Genre list, but the Genre list sometimes has additional information, plus it has audio files (the Chrono does not). I will now attempt to combine the data together, incorporating everything into the Genre list and then deleting the Chrono list preparatory to formatting the table. Saguaro-sun/chuckstreet (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Combined Chrono and Genre lists completed (offline). Including newer CD numbering from Chrono (but still called L with old L in parentheses). Plenty of conflicts between the two lists, but the Chrono is more up to date. Some research done to make more accurate and resolve conflicts. Most research comes from other lists such as musicbrainz.org which has both versions of Lesure's catalogs, as well as imslp.org and viewing the scores; need to do more of this later. Several of the changes involve arrangements or alternate versions, where in a couple cases the original was not even listed in wikipedia. L/CD numbering updated for these different versions and the original. Lyricist names have been added in a few cases; need to complete this for all vocal works, later. Dates still need updating; will do that later (using musicbrainz which has months and sometimes days of composition years and both start date and completion date, though I think we should just stick to years). I've also "discovered" the origins (and L/CD numbers) of some of the 'uncataloged' titles Melodia added recently. Many changes are minor formatting corrections (including those for consistency) or spelling (diacritic) corrections.

All changes are itemized in the edit description of each genre section. I'm uploading each genre section as a separate edit. Saguaro-sun/chuckstreet (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

All updates/changes now done. Data from Chronological list incorporated into By Genre list, with plenty of adjustments, updates, and some new info. See individual edit descriptions for what's changed. I'll wait a bit, then format the whole Genre list into a sortable table (and subsequently delete the Chronological list). Saguaro-sun/chuckstreet (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Etude Retrouvee

See also the so-called "Etude Retrouvee" for piano solo (1915), realized by Roy Howat in 1979 from fairly complete sketches left by Debussy. Published by Theodore Presser Co. (for North America). I don't know if such a work belongs on a list of completed compositions, but it is musically a worthwhile investigation. 12.76.138.218 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)KK

Additions by Sibref

The recent addition of Vocal score, transcribed by André Caplet and Prelude to Act II, orchestral score are external links and should be placed on a separate page linked from Le martyre de Saint Sébastien. Does anyone mind if I set that up? One trouble is that I don't know what else to put on that page. It would become the shortest of stubs. HWV258 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

More music

I suggest to include the files at right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Little Nigar

The sound file for the piano piece The Little Nigar, L. 114, is an orchestral arrangement. Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Why the hell are there sound files in a composition list anyway? Pretty dumb. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Where else would you put them? --Saguaro-sun/chuckstreet (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Where else? To the composition, but please a piano version for a piano piece, not an arrangement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Rapsodie in the Style of Liszt

Anyone know the source for the "Rapsodie in the Style of Liszt"? I seem to remember seeing that title in the late 70s or early 80s, but I don't remember if I saw the score. The title would suggest an early work, possibly around 1890 or 91, though it could be a student work from the early to late 80s. Other students describe Debussy as forcefully "attacking" the piano when he played, which seems to be almost a description of Liszt's playing style, though Debussy always said he hated playing the piano, so that could be the reason for the attack. But I suspect the piece may be spurious. Saguaro-sun/chuckstreet (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I found at least one book that mentions it as lost. The chapter discusses Liszt's influence on Debussy's early compositions. Apparently it's a blatant attempt by Debussy. I added the reference to the list. 97.45.129.111 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• La Cathédrale engloutie - Claude Debussy - performed by Ivan Ilic.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ballade a la lune

I continue to be boggled how any sane human being wouldn't realize that making up a catalog number and assuming an author's intentions isn't something one should do on Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's making up anything. The error is not Lesure's, it is the publisher's. Errata will be included in a new edition if they ever go into a second revised printing. We've already determined from Lesure's own notes that Ballade has been verified as Debussy's first composition. You originally claimed it was spurious, and I went along with that by making a change in the Debussy bio article to remove the title. That was wrong of me, as it was pointed out that not only is there no evidence that it's spurious, but Lesure himself claimed it was authentically Debussy, just lost. Even after the discussion on the Debussy talk page, you are still claiming it's spurious or possibly spurious? You've not presented anything that would back up your claim or even suggest it. As for the catalog number, it's a shame the numbering got shifted down, but we do have to include Debussy's first composition in the list here, and the sort order needs to place it in order of CD number. Chuckstreet (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion I don't see anything at all indicating it was a 'publisher error'. There doesn't seem to be much conclusion at all, just confusion. But more importantly, you just can't make up a catalog number, or add info about "presuming" what may or may not happen. If I should "know how it works", so should you. And if you weren't so hasty to revert (against WP rules BTW) you might have noticed that I left the sort order in so it still comes up on top. Again, I'm just boggled at this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The addendum to the latest edition of the "official" Lesure catalog lists Ballade à la lune as "CD 0". I don't think it matters who or what made the error. The piece should be listed in our list, and with the numbers used in all versions of the catalog. If some catalogs, not just "official" ones, list a piece with an erroneous number, we can include that as a footnote. 97.45.129.111 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"CD" Numbers

And just to being this back on the subject of "let's just make up stuff we think fits", is there any RS for Leisure's second version of his catalog being called "CD"? The [not quite] complete works box set on Warner uses L, and I'm pretty sure I've seen other recordings using the newer catalog as well with L. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen that too (Noriko Ogawa's complete piano works on BIS for instance). But it's a bad idea. The numberings are so different that it just causes confusion. IMSLP calls the newer numbers "CD" throughout, and I see more uses of CD than L with the new numbers elsewhere... which is the trend we should be hoping for. The few instances of record labels using L.newnumber are fairly old, aren't they? Ogawa's series starting using the new catalog (while still calling them L numbers) in 2005.

As for the list here, we can't very well have two columns both called L# in the header, can we? How else are we to differentiate the two number sets? Most lists here are copied from IMSLP and there seems to be a concerted effort to synchronize WP with IMSLP. (Despite the notoriously numerous errors and typos I see on IMSLP every day. Chuckstreet (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW the 'CD' was added here (by a user without very many edits), and IMSLP -- as much as I love and appreciate that site -- doesn't adhere to the strict referencing we do here. It's certainly not a reliable source (at least, not anything not taken directly from the scores). Again, you /JUST CAN'T MAKE SHIT UP/. The Warner set I mentioned is from early 2018, hardly 'fairly old', and as far as recordings is probably as close to scholarly as it's going to get in that respect. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• (came here via a request at the classical music project talk page). The list uses currently two references, that is to the 1977 and 2001 editions of the Lesure book:
  • If neither of these sources use the "CD" abbreviation the article currently fails WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT: i.e., say where you got that abbreviation, not here on the talk page, but in the article itself with a decent reference to the most solid source where you saw that abbreviation used. If such source does not pass Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources then the CD abbreviation should probably better be avoided.
  • Another approach could be something in the vein of "The column titled L¹ refers to numbers in the 1977 edition of the Lesure catalogue; the column titled L² refers to numbers in the 2001 edition of the same. The abbreviation L is used for both numbering systems (here follow one or more references to reliable sources illustrating that); the numbers of the second edition of the Lesure catalogue are also sometimes indicated as CD numbers (again followed by one or more suitable references)." See similar issues in the intro of TWV (TWV numbers vs. TVWV numbers); List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni#Catalog numbers (BV vs. KiV vs. Kind- vs. K.); List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV (BWV numbers vs. S numbers) – including an example of a viable footnoted reference that illustrates the variant abbreviation; Köchel catalogue (K. vs. KV); Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel#Cantatas (2nd paragraph: H. vs. HenS) – this one also with sufficient references to illustrate different approaches to using these numbers; etc.
  • Still more worrying from WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT perspective is that the table names around 20 compositions that are apparently not listed in either editions of the Lesure catalogue (which, as said, are currently the *only* references used in the article). This smacks of WP:OR. Find decent references for these or they should be removed from the table.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• A side question: didn't Lesure list Debussy's arrangements? His orchestration of two of Satie's Gymnopédies is quite famous (and mentioned in the Gymnopédie article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The compositions with missing numbers are well known (and I'd wager are firmly talked about by Lesure), and each has a note explaining their connection to other works in the catalog, are just student exercises in the case of the fugues -- which have been recorded --, or are further arrangements not given separate catalog numbers. As for the arrangements of music by other composers, yeah no numbers given, but they should certainly be included....that's neither here nor there however. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Re. "... are well known ..." – shouldn't be too difficult to find a decent reference for them then.

Re. "... a note explaining their connection ..." – it are of course these explanations which need a reference, making clear they're not just made up by some well-meaning Wikipedia editor.

Regarding arrangements: it seems a bit unbalanced that no well-known arrangements by Debussy are included, while arrangements by others are extensively included. Compare: a list of Bach compositions would rather include BWV 596 (famous organ transcription by Bach) than "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" (famous piano transcription of a Bach piece). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Not going to disagree about the arrangements though only ones not by Debussy are by Caplet who was a very close colleague and in at least one of the cases Debussy 'signed off' on it. As for the ones you take issue with because they aren't in the catalog, well the book I have (De Capo Catalog of Classical Music Compositions) cites Lesure's first catalog for as its sole source (it also I believe uses the 1980 New Grove for the whole book in general) and there's also this site which cites multiple sources. And again, many of the pieces you add 'citation needed' for have gotten recordings. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Whichever you think most suitable for the article can be added to the article, after which tags can be removed, apart from:

• The tag at the first occurrence of "CD" (which is the OP topic of this section), apparently still unresolved
• The tags in the two explanatory footnotes (topic of the previous section), until that is resolved
• The "incomplete list" tag, until Debussy's arrangements of compositions by others are listed comprehensively

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

As I've noted under an earlier heading on this page, I can find zero evidence that anyone calls the new set "CD" numbers besides this Wikipedia page, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing terminology just because someone considers the terminology actually used in the world to be confusing. All the evidence I can find shows that when record companies use the new Lesure catalogue, they call it "L" just as the old Lesure catalogue was called "L". Sure, it's confusing, just as there is some confusing usage of different K numbers for Mozart. But it's not the job of Wikipedia to resolve the confusion by inventing something new. The fact that someone thinks what record companies actually do is "a bad idea" is not relevant, what's relevant is that it's what actually happens. Fully agree that a better approach would be to have two L columns and label them to indicate they refer to the old and new Lesure catalogues.Orfeocookie (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Mozart's situation is COMPLETELY different. In Mozart's case (and in others such as Schubert and Liszt though those are far less pronounced) the original numbering system is kept, any changes are assigned a new number which was never used. This is very different from what we have with Debussy, where the new catalog replaces the old whole sale and a number will share two compositions between the two catalogs. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Melodia is right about the Mozart K numbers being a different issue, since it is common to update old catalogs with more recent information and research, like corrected dates of composition that would require a piece in a chronological numbering system to be renumbered, or a newly discovered work getting a new number in between existing numbers with a letter like "a" added. This practice has also been used with Debussy's Lesure numbers, as someone has pointed out in another thread. To address Orfeocookie's concern about the designation rather than the number itself, as has been pointed out elsewhere the latest published edition of the "official" Lesure catalog calls the numbers "CD" to differentiate them from the earlier completely different numbering designated "L". Some record labels seem to ignore this and call them L even if they are using the new numbers, which leads to the confusion. (Liner notes are considered an "unreliable source" for Wikipedia purposes.) It is hoped that Wikipedia would not make that mistake and add to the confusion. 97.45.129.111 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Re. "... the latest published edition of the "official" Lesure catalog calls the numbers "CD" to differentiate them from the earlier completely different numbering designated "L"" – question: do you actually have access to that catalogue? Or is this based on unreliable sources such as MusicBrainz? (see below) Designating the Lesure catalog as "official" seems a POV appreciation, not something we should take into account: can you give a reliable source that says it is "official"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what official publication we're talking about here. Lesure's new catalogue was published in his biography of Debussy (published in 2003 after Lesure's death). At least 2 English-language books point to the Centre de Documentation Claude Debussy as being the home of Lesure's material (not surprising as Lesure founded it) and say that the Centre's website replicates the catalogue found in the book. The catalogue on the Centre's website just uses numbers, with the new number followed by the old number in brackets. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orfeocookie (talk • contribs)

Another piece of the puzzle

Note that the RISM website uses these abbreviations to indicate numbers according to Lesure's catalogues:

• LesD for the 1977 catalogue
• LesDe for the 2003 catalogue

E.g. for the Proses lyriques No. 1 ("De rêve"): LesDe 90/(84); LesD 84 (see RISM 900004910 – the abbreviations are clickable, and when clicked a pop-up shows which catalogue is intended))

RISM does not necessarily use "standard" abbreviations for referring to catalogues of compositions, but if no standard can be established, these abbreviations can at least be referenced to a bibliographic resource. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Arrangements

• This may be a good start for Debussy's arrangements, but I've no idea how comprehensive that is (also: not all of these works are entirely arranged by Debussy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It's missing a few. As far as I know, this is the list of them.:

• Satie Gympnopedie #1 and #3 for Orchestra
• Raff's Op. 159 'Humoresque en Forne de Valse' for Piano
• Schumann's Am Springbrunnen from Op. 85 for Piano
• Dances Russe, Espagnole and Napolitane from Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake for Piano Duet
• Saint-Saens's Caprice sur les Airs de Ballet d'Alceste, ballet music from Etienne Marcel, Introduction and Rondo Caprricioso and Symphony No. 2, all for Two Pianos
• Schumann's Six Etudes in Canon Form, Op. 56 for Two Pianos
• Wagner's Flying Dutchman Overture for Two Pianos
• The final one I'm not sure where I got the info from but I found reference to it here -- Raymond Bonheur's Avec les Pistoles Aux Fontes, which I guess is a song? And the books says Debussy orchestrated it but this version is lost.

All of these (except the last one of course) were recorded on the Warner set I mentioned above. Do with all this info what you will. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This list seems workable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Instead of listing the arrangements on the talk page here, why not put them in the list itself? The list is not "incomplete" just because arrangements are not included. It is complete in the sense that it lists every composition in the Lesure catalog. Omitting compositions without a number and only included in the Lesure appendix doesn't make the list incomplete. I've removed the alert added to this page by Francis Schonken for this reason. The descriptive paragraph at the top of the page does say it is a "complete" list, but I've clarified that by adding the word "original". Nothing wrong with adding arrangements to the list as well, though I see some pages put arrangements on a different page altogether. 97.45.129.111 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Bold in lead

See this link for a discussion relating to the use of bold in the lead. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"citation needed" tags

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One person here seems to throw these tags around liberally where I don't feel they're needed or appropriate. As this is a list not a prose article, the citation for the entire list is given as the Lesure catalog which contains the lists that this Wikipedia list is copied from. It's not necessary to add such tags to items in those referenced catalogs. If there is anything added to this list that is NOT in the official catalogs, but is an update with new information (such as a corrected date or alternate title or a translation), then a citation CAN be added but I don't think is necessary. For adding a newly discovered piece, then there should be a citation. The main "official" catalogs are cited in the first paragraph of this list, which is sufficient to apply to the entire list. Only exceptions should be tagged. There are "citations needed" tags that have been added to all compositions without a Lesure number simply for that reason, but I can see that these are all in appendices or footnotes of the Lesure catalog, or are listed as arrangements under the composition that has a number (though I believe the practice in this latter case is to list the arrangement with the same number but with a letter "a" after it). I've thus removed these CN tags. 97.45.129.111 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:V: page numbers should be given. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's a different subject, but I rather like that idea. However, there would be duplicates when two or more pieces are on the same page. How about we just number the appendix pieces in the order they're given in the catalog, which is chronological. This is how it's done for many other composers (Brahms, for instance): Anh.IV/12 would be the 12th piece listed in appendix 4. 97.45.129.130 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not a "nice to have", but an obligation. {{Citation needed}} tags should not be removed because someone is too lazy to add the necessary—and precise—citations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Go ahead and put the appendix numbers in. I don't think it's an obligation, but I won't stop you from adding them. You should also add Debussy's arrangements of other composer's works (that you itemized on this talk page instead of just adding them to the list) while you're at it. As for inline citations (WP:MINREF), you need to understand their purpose. Citations in the lead refer to the entire page. Inline citations are therefore not needed for the same references. Only for individual items that are not in the references in the lead. 97.45.129.130 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Re. WP:MINREF: this guidance has "Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for ... Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being ... tagged with {{citation needed}}, ...)" (my emphasis). So, all statements that were "tagged with {{citation needed}}" should now have an inline reference, or the tag should not have been removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources being used

Lately, this content has been added to the intro of the page: "The compositions are listed in official catalogues: ... The updated Lesure catalogue at Musicbrainz ..." For clarity, MusicBrainz is:

• not a website that holds "official catalogues"
• not even a reliable source (WP:RS), for WP:USERGENERATED and WP:CIRCULAR reasons, so can't be used as a reference

--Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Première Trio" and other nonsense

"Première Trio" is one of the first so-called "corrections" of the IP editor yesterday. For clarity: "Première Trio" is grammatically incorrect, and not what a French speaker would call the trio. This edit was followed by a series of other edits, none of them much better. I'm suggesting to revert most, if not all, of the IP's edits, and to request semi-protection for the page if the IP editor would return with this type of edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignore anything the IP says. It's Chuckstreet again. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Transcriptions and arrangements by others?

I disagree that transcriptions and arrangements by persons other than Debussy should be included in this list:

1) Since we’re including transcriptions that Debussy made of pieces by others here, it is illogical and inconsistent to include trancriptions that others made of pieces by Debussy. If a a list of works by X includes transcriptions X made of pieces by Y, then it follows that transcriptions Y made of pieces by X should appear only in a list of works by Y.

2) Transcriptions and arrangements of Debussy’s compositions are endless. You could go this way forever, and many of them aren’t even credited. They clutter the list, and they’re essentially specimens of trivia. TheScotch (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Except for those ones of Images and La Mer which I'd agree, I think you might have to expound on that a bit. I'm not sure what your reasoning for #1 is, but for #2 it's not like we're talking about some random Stokowski arrangement, pretty much all of these are contemporary by Debussy's own helpers. And also note these aren't getting extra slots. That said, the ones that are 'just' orchestrations could probably go.

I suppose looking through them, I'd say the following...

-Le Triomphe de Bacchus: Keep because it's a reconstruction

-Ariettes Oubliees: Delete

-Printemps: Keep, as the original was lost. Busser's version is the standard version and often not credited as his work.

-Petite Suite: Delete

-Children's Corner: Delete

-Le Martyre de Saint Sébastien, Fragments symphoniques: Delete

-(Alto Sax) Rapsodie: Keep. It was supposed to be orchestrated, and apparently had notes on a short score. Ducasse orchestrated it akin to how some film music is done.

-Rodrigue et Chimène: Keep because it's a reconstruction

-La mer: Delete

-Images: Delete

-Le Roi Lear: Keep because it's a completion

-La Chute de la maison Usher: Keep because it's a reconstruction

-Le Martyre de Saint Sébastien: Keep, Debussy had a major hand in it

-Khamma: Keep, Debussy had a at least some hand in the orchestration and it's a ballet that was meant to be orchestrated

-La Boîte à joujoux: Same as Khamma

-No-Ja-Li ou Le palais du silence: Keep because it's a reconstruction

-Prélude à 'L'histoire de Tristan: Keep because it's a reconstruction

-L'enfant prodigue: Caplet only touched up the orchestration, probably for the sake of the publisher

But yeah. It's not as clean cut as your post makes it out to be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The principle is “clean cut”, and the allowable exceptions should follow logically from the principle. Reconstructions and collaborations are not transcriptions or arrangements of independent existing pieces. “My reasoning for #1” is spelled out clearly. TheScotch (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that we should consider these (as always) on a case-by-case basis (guided by principles). Let’s start with Images and La Mer. I see no particular reason just now to retain these. I’ll wait to see if we can achieve consensus, or if someone can proffer a spirited defense. TheScotch (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done (which means I agree too); please check whether I didn't make any errors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)