Jump to content

Talk:List of concert band literature

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Howard Cable works as cornerstone

[edit]

I don't know any of the three works listed by Howard Cable and have never performed them; however, perhaps they are significant works in Canada and not in the U.S.? Could someone give a more international perspective there? Thanks. --Myke Cuthbert 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent works a bit TOO recent?

[edit]

I'm a bit skeptical of the works on the "recent works" list dated just in the last two or three years. It strikes me as fanboyism at best, and possible self-promotion at worst. I think five years should probably be about the minimum age to appear on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.194.5 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, some music on this list is just too new and is completely untested by time. I concur with at least a five year minimum, if not longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomas83 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Thunder, Colonel Bogey?

[edit]

Shouldn't Rolling Thunder be listed as a cornerstone work by Fillmore, if not his most performed work? Also, shouldn't Kenneth Alford get some mention as being an important contributor to band literature? I suggest dividing this wiki into two sections: concert band works and marches, because some very important marches are left out of this list that should be here (Valdres and Inglesina are but a few that come to mind)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.75.161 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcriptions by the composer

[edit]

Is it really important to exclude transcriptions made by the composer? I could see it for something like the William Schuman "New England Tryptich," where the two versions are pretty much equally important. But the Holst "Mars" and "Jupiter", which have been repeatedly removed and put back in, are a different case. Although the transcriptions were made by the composer, there is no doubt that the orchestral version has primacy, and that these are the secondary versions. Can we come to a consensus on works in that category? - PianoDan (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mars" and "Jupiter" transcriptions were ghost-written, they were NOT created by Holst himself. This is pretty common knowledge around conductor circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.128.84 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the source to back that up? Justin Tokke (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formating

[edit]

I re-did the formating because the current bullet points with itallics look positively ugly. The columns also make the article much more managable. I will re-instate it if there is no appropriate dissent.Justin Tokke (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am undoing the "columns". A list is most appropriate. Comments such as "positively ugly" have no place on wikipedia. Please remain scholarly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomas83 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Scholarly"?! This list is anything but. It's a purely subjective opinion of the editors on Wikipedia of which works to include. And in case you didn't notice, I did much more than just add columns and loose the bullet points. I made a lot of the lists MUCH more succinct. Some of the works listed under cornerstone are clearly not. I re-evaluated the list and made proper adjustments. The page with the columns is still a list (duh!) just broken up and made easier to read. If you don't agree, then say so and wait for concensus before reverting it again. But don't get into an edit war simply because you're trying to hold up some fake notion of being "scholarly." Justin Tokke (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oh "Justin" is it? How can you spell succinct correctly and misspell a simple word such as lose? And you expect us to take your opinion on anything? Get over it, and yourself. And if you do want to do columns, fine. But at least make them LINE UP. I agree with whoever this Paul guy is. You just made it look ugly.

Transcriptions

[edit]

It is paramount that we keep the transcriber names in this section. Anyone can create a transcription of a piece of music, but only certain ones have gained notoriety. Justin, by constantly deleting this information you are erasing important facts and clouding the truth. That is NOT how Wikipedia works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomas83 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing them at all. If you want to add them, then do so, but not at the behest of the entire article. "Concert Band Literature" implys the major works written for the concert band. Yes, this includes transcriptions, but not every one made ever. That doesn't mean that only transcriptions my Erik Leidizn (sp?) or Lucian Calliet are important. The majority of what I edited were the original works, mostly paring them down to standard works and removing the incredibly informal language in the section titles and section introductions. Is that unreasonable? I hope not. As a compromise (one that I agree with), I'm gonna take your added contributions with transcriptions and add them to my work with original works. Sound good to you? Justin Tokke (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I'm confused. After looking at the two different edits, I noticed that my version DOES have the transcriptions in it. (I thought I had forgot to put it in there for something.) What's the problem? The name of the transcriber? How is that important especially when it is the composer that is paramount? Justin Tokke (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You WERE deleting the transcriber/arranger names. Without that information ANY hack composer, perhaps yourself, could write a transcription and sell it as “important to the literature”. Go back to writing bad symphonies and save everyone the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.88.88 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've flagged this article for a Third Opinion so we can get some concensus instead of the lame Revert-Edit War that's going on here. BTW, do I know you? Justin Tokke (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

The article has now been flagged for third opinion to resolve two ongoing disputes:

  1. Article Formating, i.e. Columns and Bold/Standard face vs. Bullet List for Composers and Pieces
Justin, you already received a third opinion. Perhaps if you read BEFORE you type/edit you would know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomas83 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Transciptions, i.e. Should the transcriber be listed and in what capacity, and WHICH transcriptions to include.
Justin, the fact that you don’t consider the specific transcribers as important shows how little you actually know/read/performed in the wind band genre. It is preposterous to assume that ALL transcriptions are created equally. Perhaps if you spent five minutes in a real band rehearsal you would understand this. There are numerous transcriptions of Wagner’s “Elsa’s Procession from Lohengrin” but only the Cailliet version has EARNED its place through years of performances. I assume you have spent SOME time in a wind ensemble, perhaps you haven’t heard of Cailliet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomas83 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally the Calliet is important. But then why don't you add the names yourself to the list instead of just reverting and reverting and reverting? Justin Tokke (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to all. Justin Tokke (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my opinion! What the crap, does mine not count? You suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.88.88 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Third opinion. Justin Tokke (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion. I find the dual column formatting by Justin to be more readable, but I think the transcribers can be massaged into that format. For instance, it could be done like this:

Plain enough? Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Might want to clarify it a bit though. Schaefer OR Mark Hindsley? Which is it or both? If an individual piece has a specific transcriber, where should that go? Justin Tokke (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which guy was the most notable? Which transcription is the most widely played? Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth opinion.

1. The multiple column layout, from a design standpoint, is much more readable. From a semantic standpoint, the two are equivalent, so go with multiple columns. There is nothing confusing about the multiple columns, and a reader is more likely to actually read what feels like a shorter article. A single column list would have much more wasted white space.

2. The transcriber / arranger must, must, MUST be listed. Please tell me I don't have to go into all the reasons why this is true.

Keep Justin's layout, but add the transcribers back in. I'll do it if I have time. And Paulthomas83, for what it's worth, you have done little to back up your opinions except to make personal attacks against Justin, which really does nothing to prove anything except that you can't seem to have a civil discussion. Did he fail you in a class or something? Knock it off. Or I swear I'll add a bunch of Jim Swearingen pieces to this list. Shawn Dessaigne (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this fourth option a lot. Lets do it!
BTW, the jab at Sweaningin was absolutely hilarous! Thanks for adding a little humor to this situation. :D Justin Tokke (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're all hugs and grins and slapping-each-other-on-the-back I'll go take out the 3O tag from that section. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the transcribers back in what seems to be the cleanest way, visually. If anyone can improve on it, please do. I'm not sure if all of the names listed are the standard transcriptions, but I don't have a convenient band library to check through. Shawn Dessaigne (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice. There are a few inconsistencies though. I think the transcriber should always be listed under the piece, not the composer. Justin Tokke (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good, guys. Give me shout if you need an opinion in the future. Bink out. Binksternet (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

[edit]

Aren't we supposed to cite sources to back up statements of opinion? On whose authority are we ranking and selecting these works? (The fact that the contents of this list are plausible doesn't mean that it's fine to omit reliable sources.) TheFeds 02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I doubt there would be any objective sources that could back this stuff up short of a literal census of what band libraries contain today. And that will be biased as well by choosing which bands to measure. There is no real "authority", which is the inherent problem with this article. I've only used my own experience and what I've seen over my years in several different bands and edited the article accordingly. Does that count as original research? Probably. But is there any other reliable way to establish this information? Personally, I'd be fascinated to see a sociological survey on which pieces are indeed considered "standard repertoire." It has been done with the orchestra before showing that Beethoven generally takes about 15% of all repertoire play. What is it for band? Sousa? Maybe. But it hasn't been done, to my knowledge, so there's no way to know short of an approximation based on personal observation. Justin Tokke (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick web search for "concert band repertoire", and came up with this. That page is apparently based on a study by a researcher named Jay W. Gilbert (itself based on a dissertation by Acton Eric Ostling, Jr.). That might be a good starting point for a verifiable list of repertoire.
Also, this might link to some useful references.
It probably isn't a good idea to base it on your own experience—though your observations may well be correct. In some sense, it's fortunate that this article is about a relatively esoteric branch of music. Imagine the mess that a list like this would become if it tried to rate pieces of modern popular music. TheFeds 15:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To provide some actual "authority" to this article, I would suggest that editors turn to the three surveys that have cast a light on what the core of the wind band repertoire is:

These three documents are recognized ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) by the wind band community as authorities, and, as doctoral theses and dissertations, all meet the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP for use on Wikipedia. I'm busy with other projects at the moment, but will do what I can to improve the status of this page so that it is backed up with some true authority and not merely the feelings of its various authors. Sycamore (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music for Prague

[edit]

I'm not sure how we can not be considering Music for Prague as a cornerstone of the band repertoire while touting Jerry Bilik's "American Civil War Fantasy." Seriously, this is laughable. Music for Prague is one of the most important works written for winds, composer by a Pulitzer Prize winner, and is performed much more frequently than -say- the Persichetti Psalm or the Bennett "Symphonic Songs." If you want to make this a serious endeavour, it might be worth it to compile several "Best of" lists (there are plenty around) and then flag the works that appear on several lists...surely, those would be somewhat of a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.91.48 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give some links of some of those top ten lists then. Justin Tokke (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. Bilik's American Civil War Fantasy has been moved. 99.159.28.228 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also second the movement of Music for Prague to the Cornerstone Works column. Work moved. 99.159.28.228 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schwantner's "...and the mountains rising nowhere"

[edit]

Could I get a consensus on who thinks this work is a Cornerstone or a Respected Work? It's been around for 35 years or so, and is incredibly often performed, especially for being as daringly avant-garde as it is. I would vote to keep it as a Cornerstone Work, but I'd like other opinions. Thanks! 99.159.28.228 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bird's Suite in D, Op. 29 as a cornerstone work of concert band?

[edit]

I thought maybe I missed out on some hugely important work when seeing this listed under the cornerstone category (there's always cracks in what we know, right?), but from what I'm seeing relative to the other listed cornerstone works, there are very few notable performances of this work. It's also a chamber work for 10 instruments. If the list were to include chamber works, surely it would feature more prominent works like Beethoven's Octet and Mozart's/Strauss's Serenades. Am I missing something? Kevin James Carpenter (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dvořák Serenade in D minor, op. 44 as "concert band" literature?

[edit]

Regardless of this work's relevance or importance in the western cannon, I think labeling this chamber piece as "concert band literature" is not particularly accurate. Kevin James Carpenter (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Maslanka and the Issues with this Article

[edit]

Maslanka's Give Us This Day is currently listed both under "Cornerstone Works" and "Recent Works". While the piece has definitely gained some popularity, it is far too recent (2006) to be listed as a cornerstone work, which is described as standing the test of time over multiple decades. Seeing as it has been performed by multiple big name ensembles I can certainly see it belonging on this list under either recent or maybe respected works, but it doesn't have the age to be a cornerstone work. With that note, the world premiere of Maslanka's Hymn for World Peace (2014) was only six years ago. That's not even a single decade away, and it is listed as a cornerstone work. The same is true for Maslanka's Traveler (2003), which has almost made it to two decades.

It is a known issue for this page that there is currently no objective measurement of what is and isn't a cornerstone work. My idea of a more objective measurement would be looking at how many big name ensembles (known music universities, military bands, well-known state/country ensembles) have performed the work as well as how many smaller ensembles (non-music universities, high school concert bands) have performed the work. Time should also be a factor- are many ensembles still playing the piece decades after initial publishing? There is still a lot of subjectivity in this measurement, but at least it is a start.

If I were to apply this metric to the works of David Maslanka, it would be something along these lines. To start out with, I'll arbitrarily decide that the "test of time" is four decades. Immediately, four out of his five "Cornerstone Works" are ruled out. They have not existed long enough to verify they pass that metric. Finally, his work A Child's Garden of Dreams. This passes my arbitrary four decade test, and in the past 3 years it has been performed many times by various universities and high schools, so perhaps it would pass for respected or cornerstone. For now, I will leave it where it is, and move the rest of his works on this page to the "Recent Works" category.

The final issue with all of this was that in order to determine this, I had to perform original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. In order to determine the categories of these works, I had to research what ensembles have played these works. The Wind Repertory Project could be somewhat of a source for this, however it does not appear exhaustive enough to be completely useful for this goal. A resource such as this page would be incredibly helpful to have on the internet, but in my opinion, it doesn't appear Wikipedia is the correct place for this. Cjkellner (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_concert_band_literature&oldid=1238151664"