Talk:List of symphony composers

Numbers and words

This article should be systematised. One paragraph says "Nomen Nescio wrote 6 symphonies", while the next one says "Nomen Nescio wrote six symphonies". Suggestions? --Toccata quarta (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think each entry should read [Name] (dates), [Nationality] composer of [X] symphonies, then any special/extra notes at the end. - Stara729 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any controversy about this layout; what Toccata quarta was asking for (and it is shameful that this question has gone unanswered for twenty-one months) is whether the value of X should be represented by numerals or spelled out. According to Wikipedia:Numbers#Numbers as figures or words, the small numbers (single digits) should be spelled out, and for numbers up to one hundred it is optional. For consistency here, I would say that spelling out numbers up to one hundred is preferable, especially since very few composers have written more than that number of symphonies.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Jacob

Gordon Jacob wrote 2 Symphonies plus A Little Symphony, Sinfonia Brevis and A Symphony for Strings. Please include him in your list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Geoff Ogram (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is free to edit Wikipedia, but if you feel reticent, I will be happy to add Jacob to the list myself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I have just provisionally restored John Kenneth Graham to this list, on grounds that there are forty-four other redlinked names who have not (so far) been removed. It seems unfair to single out Mr. Graham, simply because his article has been recently deleted from Wikipedia. If a criterion for inclusion on this list is that the composer must have a Wikipedia article, then surely all of these names should be deleted, and not just one of them. That said, at least two of these composers (Werner Heider and Hans Kox) are actually quite well-known as symphonists, and should probably have biographical articles created, instead of having their names deleted from this list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this issue has provoked such a storm of interest, I am taking the bull of notability by the horns, and begun removing all names without Wikipedia articles. In conjunction with this, I have rewritten the lede, borrowing a useful sentence from the List of composers by name.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Jerome Kohl, judging by this edit summary, it seems that you did not look at the diff of the edit that you reverted. "(born [date])" is the standard format on Wikipedia (see Carter (name) for just one example). Toccata quarta (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toccata quarta, I have absolutely no issue at all with the "born [date]" vs "[date]– " formatting (though I have tried and failed to find a style guideline that confirms your assertion that this date formatting is "standard" on Wikipedia). What you seem to have overlooked is that your simple reversion also sent back hundreds of corrections of hyphens to en-dashes. Just one example: "Elie Siegmeister (1909–1991)" reverted to "Elie Siegmeister (1909-1991)". Such edits cannot be easily done en masse, since there are many legitimate hyphens in the list. If you must change back to the "born [date]" format, kindly do so without undoing a massive amount of my work to which you cannot possibly have any objection. Incidentally, from a practical point of view it is a lot easier to simply add a year of death to the "[date]– " format, as opposed to re-editing the "born [year]" style every time we discover a composer to have died.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, I'm all fine with en-dashes since that's actually very, very good style for connecting two dates. ELSchissel (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the realm?

Do we really need all the knightly Sirs? (I mean, in the unlikely event that a certain former PM of Italy, renowned for his chivalrous deeds, turned out to be a closet symphonist, would we perhaps be listing him as Cav. Silvio Berlusconi, Italian composer of...?) 86.162.136.32 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering about that myself, and even went so far as to check the Manual of Style to see whether it is regarded as appropriate. My search turned up nothing useful. It is not normal in indexes of books to list such titles, unless it forms an integral part of the subject's name ("Sir Lancelot", "Dame Edna Everadge"). In a list like this these titles look odd to me, and I would certainly not object to their removal.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alkan?

Should the list be restricted to composers of orchestral symphonies? Or should we be including, say, Charles-Valentin Alkan (1813–1888), French composer of a symphony for solo piano (Op. 39, No. 4–7)? Or should Alkan perhaps be included anyway for his lost symphony for large orchestra? 86.162.136.32 (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be done, should not the title of the list be changed to "List of composers of orchestral symphonies"? (Logically, parallel lists could be formed for composers of symphonies for piano, symphonies for choir, etc., though some of these might be very short lists indeed.) On the other hand, the article Symphony includes discussion of symphonies for wind band, chamber ensembles (chamber orchestras?), and unaccompanied choirs, as well as the organ symphonies of composers like Widor, Tournemire, Vierne, and Sowerby. The piano symphonies of Sorabji and Alkan are not included there, but probably should be. Since this is the case, why should non-orchestral symphonies be excluded from this list?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think that approach is more informative to readers and it can easily be highlighted in the introduction. I suppose a related question might be whether there's an argument for segregating non-orchestral symphonies into separate subsections... (inelegant, imo)86.162.136.32 (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inelegant, indeed, especially considering the fact that composers sometimes re-orchestrate their works or—worse—others do it for them, for example Rudolf Barshai's arrangement of Shostakovich's Eighth String Quartet as a "Chamber Symphony". And how would one proceed with symphonies intended to be orchestrated, that only got as far as a piano score (e.g., Debussy's 1880 Symphony), or a particell with very sketchy indications of instrumentation (such as Schubert's E-major/minor Symphony)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sort of questions I was asking myself too. Overall, I'd favour an inclusive approach to facilitate exploration and a feeling for the spectrum of works that carry the name of symphony. 86.162.136.32 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth vs date of composition?

In this List the sections are arranged by composers' dates of birth. Counting a composer's eligible symphonies by their dates of composition (eg [1]) seems to me to be potentially confusing to readers expecting an indication of what symphonies a composer wrote (rather than what they wrote in a particular century/half-century). 86.162.136.32 (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composers' dates of birth are comparatively easy to verify. Otherwise we might have to have separate entries for every year in which a composer like, say, Alan Hovhaness composed one of his 67 symphonies. Then there are the early symphony composers for whom we often have no idea of the dates of composition. As for the edit you cite, I presume you are referring to the edit summary, noting that Kox composed a fourth symphony in 2000. This was not meant to place the composition in time, but rather to explain why the list might be out of date (the composition having been completed rather recently). That un-numbered symphony, on the other hand, was composed in 1956.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, my misunderstanding. 86.162.136.32 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Debussy and Respighi belong?

Just curious: I have never before heard of Debussy or Respighi having composed symphonies, certainly not numbered ones in the traditional sense. The Debussy entry references two symphonies, one of which is La Mer and the other of which is not named. Not being a Debussian, I have no idea what it could be ... and think it'd be good if someone who is in the know were to clarify; moreover, if La Mer is sometimes considered a symphony, rather than three symphonic sketches, may I suggest a citation verifying this claim from an academic source (i.e., just as I did last year for Sibelius's Lemminkäinen and Kullervo)? Same for Respighi: the entry references unnamed programmatic symphonies, but I know of none (the Roman Trilogy?); again, I'm no Respighian ... so those more knowledgeable might need to intercede. At present, my gut tells me he should be excised from the list. Thoughts appreciated. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also am surprised to see Debussy and/or Respighi on the list. Marlindale (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy did compose a symphony, very early on. He did not orchestrate it, however, though other hands have attempted the task, I believe. I have only heard it myself in the surviving two-piano version.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The List of compositions by Claude Debussy by genre contains "symphony for piano four hands (1880), L10 (L=Lesure, Debussy's cataloger). It should be possible to find the 2-piano score in IMSLP? Meanwhile we have not resolved about Respighi? Marlindale (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the chap! My memory was slightly faulty, mistaking piano four-hands for two pianos. I'm afraid I cannot help with Respighi.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I'll leave it to someone else to elaborate the Debussy entry as we have discussed (as it seems as though he does belong), but for now, I'll cut Respighi pending better documentation (which I can't find). Please feel free to undo if this seems drastic. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? Respighi's Sinfonia drammatica is definitely an unprogrammatic, but titled, symphony. ELSchissel (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shostakovich 7th premiere

The article Symphony No. 7 (Shostakovich) says the premiere was performed in Kuibyshev (now Samara) 5 March 1940; indeed, it was broadcast. The phrase "Leningrad premiere" should apply to some later performance, irrelevant to the list I think. Marlindale (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand I guess. We had agreed (Jerome and I, albeit on my talk page) that providing a blurb for a composer in the list makes sense, as long as it notes important information and doesn't opine. We settled on: unfinished symphonies (and their completions), choral or vocal symphonies, and unnumbered symphonies (or other works that are symphonic in name). This is what I have applied to other composers in the edits I have been making (surely which you all have seen) the last week and a half, in order to improve upon the existing list. It would seem odd, for the sake of consistency, which I value, to not provide this service to Shostakovich as well. If the trouble is with the mention of the seventh, I can understand why it might seems superfluous; but the Nos. 2, 3, 13, 14 seem appropriate to list. Might we compromise on cutting the long part about the seventh and keeping the rest?

And, I'd like to also add my reasoning on the blurbs: I think lists are often, and too the determinant of the reader in search of information, too bare-bones...they merely list, when listing and explaining (albeit judiciously) is more helpful. Just because other articles exist on Wikipedia with the information doesn't mean it is useless to reproduce it elsewhere, again for the reader's ease. This is obviously nothing new to two experienced pros like you (it was, pretty much in a nutshell, the crux of the infamous infobox for composers wars of yore). So, true...the Shostakovich categories link provides links to all 15 symphony pages, and each of them elaborates upon instrumentation. But what is easier for the reader: to read a short blurb in a list of symphony composers that says which four have vocal parts? Or, go to the categories page, open all 15 symphony pages, and read the instrumentation section (or the lede) in order to discover which of the 15 have vocal parts? I think the former, which is why I'd argue for keeping the aforementioned sans the seventh. Thanks for discussing. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest version by Sgvrfjs, the sentence beginning "of historical importance" and containing "Leningrad premiere"" has been omitted. I'm glad to see that. The current elaboration, mentioning choral parts, seems normal, as with Beethoven for example. So I have no objection to the version. Marlindale (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, agree that this version is acceptable. With respect to Sgvrfjs's more elaborated reasoning, I find problematic the idea that a list such as this should supply more than the most basic of information. The word "basic" may become the central issue here. On Wikipedia, lists such as this one usually function primarily as an index, pointing the reader to articles with more detail. Taken to its extreme, the idea of supplying the reader with everything there is to know about each symphony would obviate the need for those separate articles entirely, at the expense of turning this list into a comprehensive article of mammoth proportions, thereby rendering it virtually useless. Since the various Wikipedia guidelines about lists do not seem to provide limits (no doubt by intention), it is up to the editors of each list to establish such limits. I think Sgvrfjs's proposal is a sensible place to start, with the discussion of Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony as an example of where the boundaries should lie.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Some composers are described as British, some as English, Welsh etc. I take it that this is not a musical distinction, in the way that describing a Soviet composer as Latvian or Georgian might be. It might lead to readers searching for, say, "English" to be misled. Nick Barnett (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent user of Control+F+nationality, I, too, have thought this. Might the solution be 'British composer of Welsh origin' or 'Soviet composer of Georgian origin'? Jerome K. will likely have the right solution, as he's worked on this page more than most. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real can of worms (or a nest of vipers, take your choice). I suggest to start by reading Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, where the nature of the problem is laid out though, alas, no solution is offered. Perhaps this is a case where we must trust the readers to understand that several different words might be used for the same thing (like "autumn" and "fall") or, at least, terminologies overlap considerably.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetic order

Class them by alphabetic period within the same era! Come on how would anyone find a precise composer in that pile of names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.204.159.175 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Access to liner notes

As I make edits on various composers, I am trying to also provide citations from liner notes (often the only definitive source on a composer and his dates of composition). Right now, I'm in need of the cpo liner notes for Van Gilse's 4 symphonies. They're not on Naxos.com. Does anyone have them? Thanks. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the quality of some liner notes (cpo's are among the better, I grant), if they're often the only "definitive source" we're truly doomed. Please augment with RISM and other sources when possible, etc. ... (And just as Valen wrote 4 symphonies, not 5, Van Gilse wrote 5.) ELSchissel (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know it's four years later, but for Dutch composers like Gilse, here's info on 4 of those symphonies: Donemus on symphony no.1 (1900-1) ; Symphony no.2, 1902-3 rev. 1928; Erhebung, 1906-7 (sym. 3 in d); Donemus information, year not provided, on symphony no.4 in A (published by Kistner, copyright 1916 )(Musicweb claims composition "1910-1915", fwiw), so composed not later than, anyway. Also, there are articles on nl.wikipedia.org on the first 3 van Gilse symphonies, too, which may be helpful. (See e.g. No.3 (Dutch) (no.3 composed 1906-7, premiered 1908 in Stuttgart.) Ah. The 5th is a fragment, 1922. Ok. ELSchissel (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wynton Marsalis

Wynton Marsalis just wrote his 4th symphony; he must be included! 2804:388:9012:BD0E:0:17:9657:1B01 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valen

wrote 5 symphonies? He did? ELSchissel (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]