Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Finale (disambiguation)

There were several pages on works or composers that linked to the page Finale. That page is a disambiguation page. It currently includes definitions of finale in classical music, opera, and musical theatre, but none of the linked pages describe or define finale. As such, MOS:DAB suggests that they should not be included on the page.

Is there a better page for the DAB to point to? Should such links be redirected to Wiktionary:finale? Or should they simply be removed? I have opted for the last, removing internal links from La romanzesca e l'uomo nero, Matilde di Shabran, Ivan Susanin, The Scottsboro Boys (musical), and Taualuga, as well as non-music-related pages Rozen Maiden and It's Tough to Be a Bug!. I would welcome a better solution, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reorganized Finale, (per the style of Travesty, another case which came up recently). Finale is a commonly understood word, so not linking it seems fine to me. Finale could be moved to Finale (disambiguation), but maybe there's no point? What do other people think? --Klein zach 03:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. By the way, 'Finale (disambiguation)' is currently a redirect to 'Finale' per WP:INTDABLINK. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion is at Talk:Finale#Definitions. Cnilep (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Stoepel

I just created an article on this 19th century composer. Information is really difficult to come by - one has to piece it together from little bits & pieces from newspapers, and I'm kind of exhausted working on it. Help will be appreciated! -- kosboot (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That does look like a lot of hard work. Stoepel is mentioned (though only just) in Roger Savage's article on "Incidental Music" in the New Grove. Much more useful, I suspect, would be Michael Pisani's Eastman PhD dissertation from 1996, titled "Exotic Sounds in the Native Land: Portrayals of North American Indians in Western Music", which includes some material on Stoepel. Pisani has published portions of this, first as a chapter, "I'm an Indian Too: Creating Native American Identities in Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Music", in The Exotic in Western Music, edited by Jonathan Bellman, 218-25 (Boston, MA: Northeastern University, 1998; ISBN 1-555-53319-1; 1-555-53320-5), then as two articles, "Longfellow, Robert Stoepel, and an Early Musical Setting of Hiawatha (1859)", American Music 16, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 45–85, and "From Hiawatha to Wa-Wan: Musical Boston and the Uses of Native American Lore", American Music 19, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 39–50. I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: A second look shows me that you already were aware of one of Pisani's articles. I have tweaked the reference slightly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I know Pisani personally. A very nice guy, and thorough researcher. :) -- kosboot (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Classic 100

Classic 100 chamber (ABC) and Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC): What on earth are these articles doing in the Wikipedia? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

They strike me as nonnotable, and I'd be happy if you put them up for deletion. Opus33 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

They might be notable if these lists in themselves got independent coverage. Certainly the radio station is notable. But the articles don't give any background re how the lists were determined, so they're pretty uninformative, and they have no independent references. There's another problem in that lists can be copyright violations under U.S. law if there is creativity in them - in either (a) the way they are displayed or (b) the way information is selected, especially if the criteria are subjective. I'd say these may well be in violation of (b) in that they are not simple lists of all members of a partiular set, but involve ABC selecting and ranking the members in a particular way either through their own judgement or through surveys they've conducted. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are, it turns out, nine of these articles. I have nominated them all for deletion. You can find the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 2 --Ravpapa (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob Chilcott

I was alerted to Bob Chilcott, generally like to "rescue" a choral, but the first ref I found is more or less the article word by word, I wonder what to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you give the URL of the site that this article duplicates, so I can compare how close the paraphrasing is? In the meantime, I've removed the BLP PROD, as it now has sufficient references. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't any more. It was the ref with multiple uses, named choral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

One more copy-editor looked, could the tag go now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The copy editor made a few cosmetic changes re punctuating the song titles, and I just fixed an utterly nonsensical sentence. But in my view the article still needs extensive copy-editing for coherence. It's an incoherent jumble, cobbled together from random bits of several web pages, some taken completely out of their original context. It has no connected narrative, no time sequence and no organization. I'd leave the tag up until someone basically re-writes the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Brian Bonsor

An editor has added a date of death 22 February 2011 to the article on Brian Bonsor, but I can't find any news reports to verify this. The article is still in Category:Living people and tagged as such on the talk page. Can anyone help clarify the situation? --Deskford (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

His death has been announced on a discussion forum, but I still can't find any announcements on reliable news sources. --Deskford (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

An obituary has appeared in The Scotsman, so I have used this as a reference. --Deskford (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ligeti IPA

An anonymous IP editor has changed the IPA for the pronunciation of György Ligeti without any explanatory edit summary. I'm not familiar enough with IPA to know if this is an improvement or not. Any experts out there? --Deskford (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The sound /ɟ/ is represented in Hungarian by "gy" and it should be short, as in how the editor changed it. I do know however that Hungarian spelling is not perfect and there are several exceptions concerning consonant length. György may be an exception. ALTON .ıl 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Martinů IPA

Another anonymous IP editor changed the IPA for the pronunciation of Bohuslav Martinů back in January (diff). Again I'm not sure, but it looks to me like this has replaced the soft 't' sound as heard in the accompanying OGG file with a hard 't'. In this case I'm tempted to revert. Any thoughts? --Deskford (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert. There is no /t/ before orthographic "i" in Czech. ALTON .ıl 11:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted this one. --Deskford (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: you can get /t/ before /i/ if it's spelt "ty" /ti/ (as in the 2nd person sg. pronoun), but in all cases where it's spelled "ti" it is pronounced /ci/. /t/ and /c/ are phonemic, not allophones. ALTON .ıl 13:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Off topic, sorry I'm tired. ALTON .ıl 13:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Polo Piatti

An article has appeared on a composer called Polo Piatti. The article was written in userspace by Magiko (talk · contribs), then posted in mainspace by Zaza888 (talk · contribs). According to this posting, Magiko is Mr Piatti himself and Zaza888 is his wife. This looks like a bit of self-promotion, particularly as the record label Seafront Records and the publisher Impromptu Music Publishing referred to in the article both appear to be his own personal websites. There's also a page for his album The Tides of Time, which has previouly been deleted at The tides of time. I'm not convinced of notability here. --Deskford (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted a load of promo copyvio pasted in from his website. Note also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magiko/Archive. Polo Piatti was deleted 6 times. He might scrape a pass at AfD, but really, what a pain. I certainly have no intention of rescuing it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar of lead in Bach cantatas

A discussion was started about the grammar in the lead of the Bach cantata, please comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wagner and Mozart/Haydn Projects

The Richard Wagner and Haydn and Mozart Projects see little activity these days. Most of the Wagner articles are mature and require protection rather than development: any copy editing problems were probably solved long ago. The Haydn and Mozart project is arguably less developed. In each case, the projects group biographical and non-biographical articles (so they relate to both the Composers Project and this one).

What should happen to these projects now? Should they be consolidated into classical music (or Composers?) as task forces? Or is something else more appropriate? Any ideas? --Klein zach 01:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me what happens. As far as I was concerned, it's just a discussion page that I have on my watch-list. There was never much more organization than that. If traffic picks up then I'll be alerted, if not, then I won't.DavidRF (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re. Haydn/Mozart: I'd be fine with consolidation; there doesn't seem to be much traffic on the page. Keeping is fine, too. Opus33 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Making Haydn/Mozart into a task force would effectively preserve it and keep it from being deleted. --Klein zach 23:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I should be sorry to see the Wagner project disbanded - relieved of our burden, will we stumble about in the world exclaiming 'Bin ich nun frei? Wirklich frei?'. Must we really will 'das Ende'?--Smerus (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support all three becoming task forces of the Composer Project. Many of the Wagner articles could also be under the Opera Project's perview. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are only two projects not three! (Haydn and Mozart are in one project.) Re Wagner, Dogbertd was the main editor involved, but he is not interested in reviving it (see here). If Smerus is willing to have a go with it, that will be great. (If it is just left dormant it could eventually be deleted, definitively das Ende.)

When a task force is created it is attached to one particular project, but it can also be listed as a joint-task force with one or more others. The talk page banner has to be changed, but assessments can be kept. --Klein zach 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

When I started the Richard Wagner project I think the quality of many of the Wagner articles was highly variable. I really think that we've made some tremendous progress since then and anyone coming to the articles for information now will see a body of work of pretty consistent quality - even in respect of characters who may be of minor interest to a non-specialist (eg.Minna wagner.) I've added the Richard Wagner Template recently whch I hope ties together most of this work. For me I think the Project has achieved its goal, and would be happy to see us submerged into Composers, rather than spend our time in useless ritual like the knights of the Grail. There are still some outstanding issues for the articles on the operas, not least the poor coverage of discussion on the music, and I want to find some way to have more media in the articles that is not encumbered by copyright problems. So for me "die Frist is nicht um", and I look forward to seeing you all on the high seas...Hoiyotoho! (All metaphored out now....)--Dogbertd (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I started the H&M project as a place to combine relevant discussions about classical era composers & works together in a single place. Personally, extended periods of inactivity don't seem to me to demand attention - it is more a venue for discussions when and as they arise that may be pertinent to a range of articles (e.g. sourcing issues that affect multiple works). Moving it from Project to task force doesn't bother me, except insofar as it falsely implies that there are "tasks". Eusebeus (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "Die Zeit ist da." and I'm puzzled as to why WP:Composers is the suggested parent. Most of the articles under the two projects are about the works. WP:Wagner is currently a child project of WP:WPO. And I would have thought that far more articles in the M&H project are about compositions than about the composers. This project here would be as good a parent as any. "Mozart und Haydn - Haydn und Mozart - O brächten beide sich um!"--Peter cohen (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that this (CM) project is the most logical home, but as explained above a joint-task force with Composers can easily be set up. Making Haydn and Mozart into a task force will be very simple because the project never did assessments. I will go ahead with this shortly if there are no objections. (That will protect the discussions from possible deletion because of inactivity later on.)

Regarding Wagner - a much more complicated case - I'd be interested to know what Peter cohen suggests. Would he be willing to revive it? --Klein zach 11:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

His last note to me didn't sound like he would, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Haydn and Mozart. (In practice this should make little difference to using the pages.) --Klein zach 01:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left the Wagner Project as it is for the time being, as it's not clear to me how members (Smerus, Dogbertd, Peter cohen etc.) see the future of the project. Perhaps we can talk about this again later? --Klein zach 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Stats on music projects

See Table showing productivity/size of the 48 music projects for information about this project and other music groups. --Klein zach 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful piano sonatas by Mozart(?)

Done K. 547a at Piano Sonata No. 19 (Mozart), planning to do K. 498a perhaps tomorrow? As for the title for Piano Sonata No. 20 (Mozart), given that it's been proven that this is really by Mueller, is it possible to still use Mozart's name in the title, given that the sonata was once thought to be Mozart's work? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 20 (formerly attributed to Mozart) seems long-winded, though maybe correct. How many works like these exist? Should they be included in the List of solo piano compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, suitably annotated? --Klein zach 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody calls these #19 and #20. I'd rather they be titled with their K-numbers. K 547a is already listed in List of solo piano compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I know we try to use ordinal numbers where possible but these simply aren't part of the canon (and K533/44 already creates ambiguity as to how the late sonatas are ordinally numbered). My vote would be to keep these pieces listed in the miscellaneous section and not in the formal list of piano sonatas. Just to clarify, I like the new article and thanks for creating it. I'm only quibbling about the name. DavidRF (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Answering the more general question "how many works like these exist", the K6 catalogue as an "Anhang C" section for misattributed works. There are dozens of works in these lists. See here and here for the MozartForum's lists of these pieces with some citation notes included. People with access to the full published Kochel or the works cited by the Mozart forum might know more details. I would stay away from creating articles of "Anhang C" pieces as that opens a giant can of worms. The only place I know of that includes those types of pieces is Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity. There they are included only in list form (not a full article per piece) and the article title itself fully explains its focus on spurious/doubtful pieces.DavidRF (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, #19 as a number is definitely in some use (Wiener Urtext Edition). Not sure about #20. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll dial back my strong comments a bit then, but I would still prefer not to use an ordinal number in the title. I go mainly by books (non-scores) and recordings. K. 547a is quite hard to find and when it is recorded its usually as part of an odds and ends CD. I see only one case where its part of a sonata cycle. K. 547a has six recordings in print, K. 498a has two. The other eighteen all have fifty or more in print. Zaslaw's "Compleat Mozart" doesn't give K. 547a its own entry, its listed as a footnote to K. 547 as its solo piano arrangement. Zaslaw doesn't mention K. 498a at all. Neue Mozart-Ausgabe excludes K. 547a completely. That's all the facts I can find. Does anyone else have an opinion here?DavidRF (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I did some research and found the origin of the confusion. These two were posthumously published in late 1790s as Mozart originals but were soon found to be either spurious (K498a) or not for solo piano (K547a as the K547 violin sonata was not yet known). They stayed in some of the catalogues throughout the 19th century but they've long been removed. They aren't in NMA and modern scholars (Zaslaw, Eisen, Keefe, Irving) mention them only to dismiss them. I've renamed and rewritten the aritcles.DavidRF (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function

Two editors added to the List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, please discuss topic Lutheran Periskopes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik

As you may remember, Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik was up for deletion and "rescued" by expanding the article. A user is very eager to return to a short version, reverting more than once, not yet responding to the request to discuss first. Help, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Beecham FAC nomination

Thomas Beecham is nominated for FAC here. Comments should be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination has been withdrawn due to an ongoing peer review, which can be found here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

German Scales: proposed deletion

This article has been proposed for deletion. Should it be saved, or not? --Klein zach 13:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should be deleted. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why assessment is not supported by Template:Classical?

This means some key articles (classical pieces that don't fit into WikiProject Songs, for example) are not rated in quality... You can easily change this by requesting help at WP:VPT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This project has never been big on ratings. Search the archives above for "ratings" and see several discussions. We have several stub categories, but there hasn't been much interest in going into more detail than that. If newer editors are of a different opinion and are interested, then the discussion could be re-opened.DavidRF (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Classical music articles has 15,000 articles - far more than we could attempt to rate. Anyone who wishes to undertake a rating of a subsection of the articles, via a daughter project, is welcome to have a go. --Klein zach 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Adlam

The article on Adrian Adlam is discussed again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam (2nd nomination). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The italics issue

Up until now, all article titling has been in roman (upright) type. Last year, unknown to most of us, there was an Rfc in which some editors successfully (though controversially) argued for using italics for certain titles, including names of works, such as (in our case) The Wand of Youth, Quatuor pour la fin du temps, Also sprach Zarathustra etc. (though obviously not generic titles like Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)). (The Rfc — or part of it - is here. There's a suggestion it was improperly closed and the true result was no consensus.)

Few encyclopedias use italic titling. The two Oxford Dictionaries of Music and Opera (and apparently Grove Music) stick to roman for all entries, though it's been pointed out that Grove Opera uses italics (in elegant typography) for opera titles (though obviously without disambiguation ). Some WP editors have objected to the appearance of italics combined with disambigs in parentheses (such as the name of the composer or whatever). This is a problem that is special to Wikipedia, arguably made worse by ugly WP typography. There is also a general style issue. What exactly is gained by changing roman into italics? Is this something for which our readers have been clamouring? Do editors benefit or is it just an extra chore to think about. What do people think? (This issue is also being currently discussed by the Opera Project here and MoS (music) here. --Klein zach 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that italic title lends a sense of consistency to the article: if we italicise the title name in the article, why should the title not be italicised? The MoS states that we should be consistent, so I think that using italic title adds to that. Bramble claw x 01:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Technical aside: the template {{Italic title}} only italicises text before the first parenthesis, so disambiguation terms remain straight. In case of unusual titles which include parentheses, the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE:…}} can be used to apply italics to arbitrary parts of the title. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Partial italicization of the title could be regarded as the problem! It looks awful IMO! What other encyclopedia has anything as grotesque? --Klein zach 01:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the aesthetics, this is partly in the eye of the beholder. On another front, it could be a lot of work to do this properly, unless we use the navbox templates. I've been trying this but have not been able to work out the syntax which allows one to override the italics. I don't feel strongly about this issue, although I was interested to see whether it could be done in an easy fashion without a lot of editing. Maybe it still can, but it will take an editor with more template programming skill than I have. Anyway, I am certainly willing to go along with reverting this attempt, if the consensus is favor of it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to look for a broad, encyclopedia-wide consensus. This issue affects a huge number of articles, obviously most of them non-musical. --Klein zach 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wand of Youth? That's English. Why would that be italicized? What would the rule be? All titles or non-English-language titles? For example, Le nozze di Figaro and The Marriage of Figaro? All this seems like a lot of tedious formatting changes. Like when an anon went through and added inserted hyphens between in all the accidental-ed key names (B flat -> B-flat). Would it really be so "wrong" if everything stayed non-italicized?DavidRF (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As IllaZilla said on the Music Project: " . . . italic article titles are a classic case of a solution in search of a problem". --Klein zach 02:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The titles of works of art are usually italicized regardless of the language. This has already been done for films, books, and numerous other pages. Template:Italic title is currently used on 365,952 pages. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This must have been done by a bot. Do we know who did it? --Klein zach 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently this number includes pages using it via navbox templates, so we would have to determine whether it was added to the navboxes with a consensus of editors. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now referred this to the Village pump (policy). --Klein zach 04:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Discography edits by IP

There were a number of problematic edits by 79.39.119.34 earlier this year; most were reverted and the IP was blocked for six months. It seems that another IP from the same country, 82.187.24.170 is now continuing in that vein. Does anybody want to confirm that these edits to Verdi Requiem discography are kosher? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)