Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Sound Clip Duplications

How many different clips of the same piece do we think advisable? Mozart K622 has three. Eusebeus (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO one is enough. --Kleinzach 08:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are non-free, then one small sample is all that's allowed. If they are free, like in the Mozart, well that's a bit of a different issue. There's nothing wrong inherently with more than one, any more than a gallery of pictures is, though of course going overboard is bad. Though thinking about it a bit, it's probably best to limit it to one clip per 'version', so a Bach keyboard piece could have a harpsichord and piano clip both, a Brahms Hungarian Dance for both piano duet and for and orchestra, etc. So in the case of Mozart's Clarinet Concert, there really ought to be both a version with normal clarinet and with basset clarinet if possible. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I suggest we have only a single clip of each movement. To my ears (after a rapid sample), the Fulda version is the best (that's a pretty good sound from an amateur orchestra). If anyone else cares to listen, please let me know your thoughts. Also, I would like to delete the "Use in Movies" section from this article, and, indeed, such content from composition articles generally as essentially trivia; thoughts are warmly welcomed. Eusebeus (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One is enough, especially for multi-movement works. More can go onto an organized Commons gallery page, I would think. (Unless there is a specific reason, e.g. comparing versions.) Magic♪piano 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

William McColl seems to be playing a basset clarinet, as he goes down to a low concert A in the second movement. I don't think there's anything wrong with having multiple versions of a piece to compare to, as long as they're all of acceptable quality. I'm the one who added the two other free versions, not realising that McColl was playing a basset clarinet, and uploaded the McColl version to Wikimedia Commons. Graham87 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists of piano compositions

I would like to draw the attention of the members of this project to this discussion. A summary: after a large deletion discussion concerning lists of piano pieces, editor Timneu22 created a number of lists of solo piano compositions (he has actually made a request for assistance here earlier, but noone responded). Examples include List of solo piano compositions by John Cage, List of solo piano compositions by Olivier Messiaen, List of solo piano compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of solo piano compositions by Erik Satie, etc. Some of these articles are problematic, i.e. Cage and Satie lists are incomplete, the Beethoven list is a section removed from the main list of his compositions, etc. Furthermore, Timneu22 has stated that he does not watch or maintain these new lists. Several editors, including User:RobertG and User:Asmeurer, as well as myself, expressed concern over this, and have tagged some of the new lists with merge templates. These lists either duplicate information (Cage, Messiaen) or add confusion (Beethoven, Satie); and their function is either handled by categories or, if the main list of compositions is sorted by instrument, by the main list.

I suggest that we decide here (not at the page I linked, because Timneu22 has explicitly noted he is not interested in the articles in question) whether these lists should be eliminated (with content, where possible, put back into main lists), or kept and made a standard for composers who have substantial numbers of piano pieces (in which case we should perhaps decide on their formatting). It is difficult to continue editing and work on other composition lists while this question is unresolved. --Jashiin (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidently...I for one vehemently disagree with any splitting OFF of lists, be they piano pieces, operas, or whatever. It's fine to have their own pages, so long as the full works lists don't have nothing but a link. There's often potential for more info in specific lists, but size concerns should /not/ be had for complete works lists, and certainly not having everything but the piano on there, such as at List of compositions by Robert Schumann. This is...just wrong. No other way to put it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I will offer my two cents here; it is highly unfortunate that no one was around to stop the original lists from being created in the first place, or that no one was around to help with the cleanup process (a request was made on this page). As you can see, the previous list/list/list format was just terrible, and far too much data was duplicated. It didn't make any sense. The previous lists of lists of lists were easily the worst collections I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It all just got out of hand; data was duplicated, non-notable "composers" were added to the lists, etc. When we deleted the lists, I did some initial cleanup:

• All the redundant information from the lists was moved to User:Timneu22/piano cleanup. You can see that much of the stuff on that page will never be encyclopedia-worthy.
• A bunch of categories were created to make the data relevant, because it is worth having a way to see all piano compositions by German composers (or at least I guess it is). The categories replaced the lists and made redundant data no longer a problem. Categories allow the same page of works to exist in: Piano compositions by composer (alphabetical), Piano compositions by nationality, and Piano compositions by style (really, by era: baroque/classical/etc.).
• Some pages were split off the main list of compositions, primarily so the categories would make sense.

As I had no help in fixing all these issues, I find it odd that people are making a fuss over it now. (This is why I don't like the comments on my talk page; people didn't respond when I asked for help but now they are crying about what was done?) If you don't like the piano compositions broken out for a separate article, maybe you are right and maybe you aren't. I don't really know. But here are my recommendations for cleanup.

1. Whatever you do, don't use lists. Clearly this is a huge problem, because "List of piano compositions by American Composers" and "List of piano compositions by composer: C" will end up with the same information. As we saw before, the lists were never in sync (John Cage's list on the "C" page would be different from the "American" page).
2. If you decide to merge, maybe you could create new categories (if you think they are worthwhile). Something like:
   1. Category:Articles containing solo piano pieces by German composers??
   2. etc.

I don't really have all the answer with what to do. I only know what was wrong, and I do see how the categories might be relevant. The real question is how the data should be structured with the categories to make a better user experience. I am willing to see what you come up with (I like to participate in organization discussions) but I didn't appreciate the messages on my talk page — especially when no one was here to help with my initial request. Timneu22 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, each composition would have its own article which would then have the necessary categories to generate such lists on the category page. Frankly, I think that unless/until the wiki developers give us a way to make dynamic lists that can be split and re-categorized without duplication (which they already have, with items that have articles, with categories), that we should only have lists of compositions by composer. Consider this, how useful will a List of piano compositions by German composers page be? And for any good use that you can think of, would any of those include pieces that don't have articles? Because if all the pieces have articles, then we should just be using categories.

Also, see my comments on the Beethoven works page, the Beethoven Piano Works page, and Timneu22's talk page (although Timneu22 has requested that no further discussion take place on his talk page). Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 05:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that other members of the project did not offer any comments on this issue... personally, I believe that having a way to display "all piano pieces by German composers" is, well, not particularly useful? I did read some of the arguments in previous discussions; the strongest one seems to be the one about "comparing national styles" made easier using such lists/categories. But is it really? As outlined above, it is immensely difficult to organize such lists/categories nicely. Not only that, but the results are going to be humongous; we're talking thousands of entries. Anything of this size is not easy to use, and comparing national styles will be rendered quite difficult, as will any other task associated with "all piano pieces by German composers."

Furthermore, as I have already mentioned at Timneu22's talk page, if we create separate lists/categories for piano pieces, then there's no reason whatsoever to not create similar lists/categories for orchestral pieces, lute pieces, violin pieces, etc., with the same justifications. Will we have to separate a list of compositions by, say, Paganini, into a list of his violin works and a much shorter "list of compositions"? Should the Chopin list be re-formatted to create a separate page for his solo piano works? In other words, if we make separate lists "by instrument", there will be no sense in the main composition lists.

By all means, I don't wish to say that it is not useful at all to have a way to list "all piano pieces by German composers"; what I am saying is that the usefulness of such a way is very limited (problematic organization and size problems), and creating it would cause many more problems. So I suggest we merge the existing lists back into main articles. Timneu22's suggestion to create categories such as Category:Articles containing solo piano pieces by German composers seems like a reasonable suggestion and at least a partial solution to the problems I outlined above. But I'd really appreciate if someone commented further on this, as my understanding of how categories work is limited, and I'm unsure as to where these particular categories would fit (they'd be.. subcategories of what?) --Jashiin (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I often use Wikipedia lists of compositions at my job, when I need to find opus numbers or whatever quickly. They're mostly very useful and well organized in current form (also for common readers, not only for editors), at least in the case of "major composers". I can't find no reason for separation, it'll cause only complications and make searching more difficult. Honestly, I also don't understand the purpose of Category:Articles containing solo piano pieces by German composers. A comparison of "national styles"? In that case, we should have also Category:Articles containing solo piano pieces by German renaissance composers, Category:Articles containing solo piano pieces by German baroque composers etc. etc. A huge lists of all German/Italian/Russian piano compositions are useless in my opinion. I vote for merging. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a merge is in order. Again, the categories were created to mimic the piano lists of lists of lists. As I had no other feedback, I did what I could. I think one should eliminate all the separate articles, put them back with the list of compositions, and never ever create those awful list articles again. :o Timneu22 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To Vejvančický, of course, such categories are most likely of little use for the most part, but the nice thing about categories is that they are dynamic. Removing the category from an article removes that page from the category list. Editing the name of the article edits the name in every category list. And best of all, if you want to do bulk edits, there are nice people who will make bots to do it for you. And speaking of mass edits, does anyone want to mass merge back all those lists? Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Asmeurer, as we have stated repeatedly, the lists were the original problem and they have no encyclopedic value. The categories are a good solution, but apparently people don't like the separate articles of just "piano compositions" vs. "clarinet compositions", etc. There is no way those list articles ever need to exist again. Timneu22 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, I guess consensus has now been established, and we can now slowly start merging and/or deleting articles. --Jashiin (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Haydn + Mozart Sub-Project

Fellow editors, DavidRF and I do quite a bit of editing and maintenance of the various Haydn and Mozart pages. In order to have a place for centralised discussion concerning everything from sources to the whatnot of formatting and style, I am thinking of creating a subproject to focus on our articles related to Haydn, Mozart and their contemporaries (e.g. Vanhal, Pleyel, etc...). Would anyone else have an interest in participating in such a venture? It is probably best set up as a daughter to the composers project, although if anyone has a better idea please let me know. Eusebeus (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't like the composers project is overburdened with traffic. Why not just use that project? Much of the discussion might well be relevant to other composers as well. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I write various stuff on these composers and so of course I would sign up. But I leave it to others as to whether this is the best way to organize things. Maybe there are things about Haydn and Mozart that best would go on the general classical discussion boards? I'm not sure. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't know how formal it had to be. I've got all the pages watched anyways. If it wasn't a subproject, we could just use discussion pages for some anchor-like lists-of-works articles. But, yeah, if a new discussion page is created, I'm happy to watch that too.  :-) DavidRF (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be part of the Composer project (as a subproject), only in a dedicated space where specific issues of sourcing and so on can be worked through without interruption from other unrelated material. I don't envision formality to the degree of ranking/review etc... More a central dedicated page for pertinent discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Small projects have worked well in the past, enabling quality work in specialized areas, e.g. Wagner Project, a descendant of the Opera Project. A descendant project does however imply identified categories, special bannering (and eventually assessments) even if the general guidelines etc can be adopted from the parent project. (In the case of Haydn/Mozart, presumably both Composers and Classical music would be 'parental'.)

Alternatively a 'task force' (under either Composers or Classical music) could be set up which would avoid separate bannering etc. but be less prominent. (I'm personally not much of a fan of this arrangement as they seem to become inactive very easily, e.g. the Compositions task force here.)

If it is decided to take the project road, I'd recommend keeping Haydn and Mozart separate (and exclude all the contemporaries). One composer projects are much easier to structure, i.e. to determine what what is 'in' and what is 'out'. --Kleinzach 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have little interest in bannering and classification; the parent projects do a fine enough job at those as it is. The idea, rather, is to create a small, discrete space that interested editors can watchlist so centralised discussion can occur without distracting from the larger issues that occupy the CMP and CP. Eusebeus (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a task force (which has its own subpage(s) of probably Composers). In this case it probably need not be more than a project subpage (describing what's in and what's out of the task force), with the talk page for that being the common discussion point. As others have mentioned, interested parties will have another page to watchlist. On the other hand, you could also just try having the discussion here or at Composers; if it takes an inordinate amount of traffic, it can always be split. Task force banner modifications (a la MILHIST or Canada) could always come later. Magic♪piano 04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing ownership is what this is about. Eusebeus owns all the articles about Mozart and Haydn. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is gratuitous and incorrect. At least for the articles I have worked on (String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn) and Mozart and Freemasonry), Eusebeus has made no or minimal edits. And anything he has to add is welcome by me. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify. There was a recent content dispute at Talk:Clarinet Concerto (Mozart) pertaining to the removal of a "Use in movies" section which I believe is the source of the animosity. I backed Eusebeus up on that one, but I certainly don't anticipate agreeing with him on everything. We actually have some minor formatting disagreements -- nothing earth-shattering -- but the proposal would provide a nice location for talking out these types of things rather than spreading the discussion across 106 different symphony talk pages.

There's actually another disagreements regarding discography sections/performance practice (see recent edit history at Symphony No. 30 (Haydn)). Personally, I'm more ambivalent on that one, but the issue does apply to more than one article so a centralized discussion might be helpful.

Of course, we could just have those discussions here.DavidRF (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was a lurker in the discussion at Talk:Clarinet Concerto (Mozart), and I must say, I feel that Eusebeus's attitude toward trivia is far too draconian. I do, however, think that in this case the end result was quite good.

The issue of derivative works (aka "popular culture" or "trivia") saw some earnest discussion a while back. At that time I was on the losing side, and have kept my peace, but I would not object to seeing the issue revisited on this talk page. People interested can read the original discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force/Archive 1#Music in popular culture. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's give Eusebeus the benefit of the doubt. He did put Out of Africa back into the Clarinet Concerto page. But why that one? Because that's the one that I deleted when I was trying to rewrite that section based on ideas from Themfromspace and Belvdme. He didn't restore Breathless, on which Belvdme, myself and (halfway) David agreed on (because that one actually had a citation from the director as to why he chose it). That was a clear display of his authority: our interpretation of the policies and guidelines is irrelevant, because Eusebeus is the ultimate arbiter of what belongs and what doesn't belong, and anyone who disagrees with him can be dealt with a creative interpretation of the policies. In fact, Eusebeus is a genius: name any policy and he knows how to use against those who disagree with him.

I had a dream last night, in which Don Eusebio, a basso buffo, sang these words to a tune from the Clarinet Concerto: "La mia autorita nella 'pedia e totale / Miei nemici suffrarano un fine fatale!" But that dream was unrealistic: because Don Eusebio has never played or listened to any Mozart. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Trivia: We do have a guideline, see Uses in popular culture. (The classical music projects have similar guidelines, see Composers Project/Trivia and Opera Project/Trivia.) This general approach to the problem has enjoyed wide support. --Kleinzach 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi

Michael Bednarek and I have been working on this list. Obviously it's complex and we still have some stray information about concertos on the biography page here. I wonder if someone who has specialized knowledge and good access to the Music Grove etc. (which I don't have) would be able to join in and help us make a decent job of the page? --Kleinzach 03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I might actually have Ryom. I'll get back to you. Katalogo Kochela (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Purcell

Hi! WP:WikiProject Opera has been planning to try an improvement drive on Henry Purcell related articles before his 350th birthday, with the plan being to try and get at least one to FA (preferably the main composer article) so it can run on that day, and to improve the others to a decent standard. Would any members of this project be interested in helping out? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Repertoire Infobox

Can we set up an infobox designed for repertoire? There are certain key metrics of any piece that would be helpful to standardize, much like the album and movie infoboxes.

Constants

Composer:

Date:

Instrumentation:

Composition Type:

Length:

Publisher:

Commissioned By:

Premiered By:

Variables

Excerpted From:

Range:

Techniques:

Equipment:

Category:

Etc...

Those are some of the basics. The constants are germane for any piece, whereas the variables (too many to list) could be employed if applicable.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes never caught on in WP:CM. Most editors are against them. The most common argument against them is that generally simply repeat the first sentence of the article and they also force awkward decisions about hard to classify attributes of composers and compositions (classical or romantic or both?). You can check the archives for details, but you'll have to change a lot of minds before they are added here. DavidRF (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. They are a splendid way to summarize the basic metrics of a piece of music. Where are said archives?Trumpetrep (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There's one discussion in "Archive 8" in the upper right hand corner. There's more before that.DavidRF (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The "constants" part of the infobox doesn't seem like an entirely bad idea to me. The "variables" would just repeat, as David said, the first sentence of the article. But I wonder if anyone gives any thought to the content of the articles. For the less famous pieces, and even some famous ones, Wikipedia is no better than a music appreciation book. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There a huge amount of work to do here. I think those few editors who are working on new articles here would prefer not to have the distraction of either producing, or having to edit, non-essential ancillary information. There's also the feeling here that we'd prefer people to read the article rather than a box. --Kleinzach 08:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I support infoboxes, just that the idea should be discussed a little bit since it was brought forward by a sincere, honest user. Yes, there is a lot of work to do. But if you're not allowed to do it, is it really worth searching for what you are allowed to do? Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the infobox discussions have been quite exhaustive and few are interested in rehashing them. I tried to kindly point the (relatively) new editor to the location of one of the past debates and my impression from reading that debate (in archive 8) was that the issue already seemed to be a bit of a dead horse. Perhaps we just need a better way of collecting information from past debates on frequently discussed topics. This should get new editors up to speed on the history more quickly. It should also be useful if or when we decide to formally revisit these discussions. DavidRF (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to index the archives. See for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/archive index. This index is regularly updated by HBC Archive Indexerbot. --Kleinzach 02:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a minute that David tried to point the old discussion to the new editor in a kind manner. He may be the only regular Wikipedian in the entire project who actually heeds "don't bite the newcomers" (I don't know the shortcut for that one, in fact, I think it may have been deleted).

But even if it's said kindly, doesn't saying "It was discussed and decided long ago" also unintentionally convey the message "Your opinion on this doesn't matter one whit"? Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It tells the user that these debates have happened before. It gives them a chance to read over the previous debates and get an idea of what the pros and cons of each side are and how the consensus was reached. *Then* the debate can be re-opened if the new user has anything compelling to add. What's frustrating for everyone is when topics are frequently re-hashed from scratch every few months.DavidRF (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I keep forgetting. The comfort of editors with seniority is the top priority here; the slightest questioning of decisions made long ago is so detrimental that is ought to be forbidden. Jimbo Wales' ideas on newcomers are purely ornamental. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. I'm interested in consensus and informing people how the consensus was attained. I didn't think that was so terrible. But claiming there's a vast conspiracy against you when you disagree with the consensus isn't constructive, either. I mean, you give nasty reasons when you fix typos] now. What's your tactic here? Be as nasty and disagreeable as you possibly can until people give in and do it your way so you'll shut up? Is that how consensus is reached? Is that Jimbo Wales' vision? If you think WP:CM is conspiring against you, go ahead and take it to the admins. You've told me repeatedly that I'm the "reasonable one" around here, but you've lost me. Sorry.DavidRF (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy against me. I'm a person, not a fact. It's OK if draconian Stalin makes an example out of me. The important things here are facts, not personalities. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Eusebeus' ownership of Haydn symphony articles

Per WP:GAME #3, it is wrong to play policies against each other. Eusebeus uses WP:NPA to shut up those who point out his violation of WP:OWN (he owns the Haydn symphony articles and will unthinkingly revert changes made by his small group of approved editors - he himself said he wanted the Haydn-Mozart subproject be small). Now, Eusebeus hasn't violated the policy literally (he's far too clever for that). Thus,

• "Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor." - but Eusebeus doesn't do it on a daily basis. Still, he makes sure to impose his format as a Prometheus bed.
• "The editor may state that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article" - so Eusebeus instead often says that changes must be discussed on the talk page, but he never discusses his changes on the talk page, even when sane editors like DavidRF later restore what he threw away (e.g., the key of the slow movement of No. 48).
• "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not." - so Eusebeus claims the different editors who disagree with him are all one person
• "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions." - so Eusebeus claims to not "give a s---" and that I'm lucky for that reason (the threat of severe retaliation is then not explicit).
• "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source." - so instead Eusebeus derides books cited by others as not being "scholarly enough" even though they are not vanity-published books, much less blogs.

If Eusebeus is allowed to maintain his ownership, new (and even old) editors will be discouraged from contributing. Musicologists, conductors, players (in short, people who actually experience this music as a living, breathing entity) will have even less reason to help out. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of what you have written above just sounds to me like normal WP editing that can be scrutinized point by point, page by page in situ. However I'm not involved in editing these articles. Can you please say in plain English — without the WP jargon/TLAs etc. — what Eusebeus is supposed to have done wrong? --Kleinzach 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, treating these articles as his own personal manuscript and shutting out almost everyone else from editing them; going to great lengths to enforce this by deviously literal readings of the policies; and falsifying computer logs.

Now, Kleinzach, when you revert something, is your thought process: "Is this untrue and unsourced?" or is it "Is this the exact same way I would have written it?" With you, it's probably the former. With Eusebeus it's the latter. Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I did feel dirty using all those WPs and TLAs.

Clarinet choir

Listcruft 'on steroids'? Red link fest? I wonder if anyone can suggest how to make Clarinet choir properly encyclopedic, removing non-notables etc? --Kleinzach 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)