Talk:Octet (Stravinsky)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Igor Stravinsky#Neoclassical period (c. 1920–1954)|this phase of his career]] The anchor (#Neoclassical period (c. 1920–1954)) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Title of Article

Shouldn't the title of this article be the piece's full and proper name, Octet for Wind Instruments—rather than its simple nickname, Octet? Startswithj (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Classical music titles, and compare the corresponding octet article Octet (Mendelssohn) (not "Octet for Strings"), Octet (Schubert) (not "Octet for Winds and Strings", and Octet (Reich) (not "Octet for Two Clarinets (Doubling Bass Clarinets, Flutes, and Piccolo), Two Pianos, and String Quartet"). Besides, the "full and proper name" as printed on the score's title page is simply "Octet". The phrase "for wind instruments" appears only as a subtitle. This was discussed a few months ago here. The article Wind Octet (Beethoven) should probably be changed to correspond (or at least a redirect should be made), since it is impossible to find if you do not know its title begins with W. See also the similar articles Septet (Beethoven), Sextet (Reich), etc.

—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style referenced describes how to format classical music titles within an article (such as whether to write in plain, italics, or caps). More relevant to this case would be the Manual's section on the naming of Wikipedia articles, subsection for music <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music)>, which states, "As a general rule, when naming articles about pieces of classical music, use the most common form of the name. Do not include nicknames except when the work is almost exclusively known by its nickname."

Reprints of older scores commonly differ from publisher to publisher. How many publications were checked? Regarding the article on Beethoven's Wind Octet, I am not familiar with this piece, but it seems quite easy to find from WP's splash page <http://www.wikipedia.org/>—it's the first result whether you search for Wind Octet, Beethoven Octet, or Octet Beethoven.

Startswithj (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Beethoven Octet is almost universally referred to as "the Beethoven Octet" (after all, he only ever wrote the one, which is also the case for Stravinsky). As it happens, when your message blinked onto the screen, I had a book open in my lap with a paragraph on this work at the top of the page, describing "the first performance of the Stravinsky Octet on October 18, 1923". This is only one anecdote, and of course the author was certainly thinking in French, for the "original" title of the work as presented in Paris was "Octuor". But how does one establish "the most common form of the name" in this case? As I have said already, the form on the title page of the score is just "Octet", with the specification "for wind instruments" as a subhead. This is the Boosey & Hawkes score of the 1952 revised edition, and it is true that I have not checked the earlier Boosey printings. If there were any earlier editions, they would probably have born the title in French, which would not be of any use in establishing the "most common" form in English. In the scholarly literature, it is most often just "Stravinsky's Octet" (as it is in the New Grove article on Stravinsky; in the accompanying work list, it is "Octet, fl, cl, 2 bn, C-tpt, A-tpt, trbn, b trbn"), though the forms "Octet for Winds", "Octet for Wind Instruments", and "Wind Octet" also occur. The US Library of Congress uniform title is "Octet, woodwinds, trumpets (2) and trombones (2)", which is both vague and internally inconsistent (how many woodwinds, and of what kind? why not "woodwinds and brass", etc.). It seems to me (though it might require some time to compile the requisite statistics to back this up) that the just-plain-vanilla "Octet" is as common a form as you will find, and has the added advantage of simplicity. What are your arguments for using the more cumbersome title?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my question was based simply on my understanding of the MoS (and its caution against nicknames), and my personal experience with this piece's title. If multiple sources were checked as to what is its "most common name," than that would outweigh my personal experience. Thank you.

Startswithj (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikificationalizationism

Is this article now sufficiently Wikified (per banner at the top)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't place the banner, but looking the article over, it seems to have no Wikipedia-formatted references. Startswithj (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INCITE parenthetical references are fine. You may want to check out other articles in WikiProject Classical Music or other relevant projects to see if this is consistent, but the page looks sufficiently wiki-fied to me. Nice job, Jerome Kohl. Cnilep (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We endeavour to give satisfaction! I take it that we may now remove that silly banner, which went up within minutes of my having started this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1952 version

We do say that there's a 1952 version, but not how it differs. Do we know? I suppose I'm asking whether it was a humongous great revision or just a bit of tweaking which happened usefully to renew the copyright … purely as a side-effect of course. DBaK (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]