Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

Szymanowski, Blumenfeld and the Neuhauses

I am endeavouring to nail down the exact genealogical relationships between Gustav Neuhaus (1847-1938), Heinrich Neuhaus, Felix Blumenfeld and Karol Szymanowski.

  • It seems clear that Heinrich Neuhaus was Gustav Neuhaus's son. This is stated here. Heinrich's patronymic was Gustavovich, and his father was a piano pedagogue, so that fits.
  • It also seems clear that Felix Blumenfeld was Gustav Neuhaus's brother-in-law. Gustav's wife was Felix's sister Olga Blumenfeld. Therefore Felix Blumenfeld was Heinrich Neuhaus's uncle by marriage.
  • The uncertain bit is Karol Szymanowski's relationship to these people. He is sometimes referred to as Blumenfeld's nephew and Heinrich Neuhaus's first cousin; sometimes they're just described as "related".
  • It seems to me that Szymanowski could not possibly be as close as first cousin to Heinrich Neuhaus. For that to be the case, they would have a set of grandparents in common - but they didn't. Felix's father Mikhail married a woman named Szymanowska, who was Heinrich Neuhaus's great-grandmother. We're told Karol Szymanowski was descended from that side of the family, but in exactly what way? We know his father was Stanislav Korwin-Szymanowski. Even if Stanislav was the brother of Mikhail Blumenfeld's wife, that would make Karol the first cousin of Olga Blumenfeld Neuhaus, and first cousin once removed of her son Heinrich Neuhaus. But there's no evidence that I've seen that this connection existed. More likely is that Korwin-Szymanowski was a nephew of Felix Blumenfeld's mother, making Karol Szymanowski the second cousin of Heinrich Neuhaus, and first cousin once removed of Gustav Neuhaus's wife Olga, and of her brother Felix Blumenfeld. But again, I’ve seen no actual confirmation of this, and the truth may be that they're ever more distantly related than that. But either way, Heinrich Neuhaus and Szymanowski were certainly not first cousins, and Blumenfeld and Szymanowski were certainly not uncle and nephew as the article asserts.

So, can anyone help in sorting these strands of genealogy out? I’ve obviously googled as far as I can go. and consulted whatever dead tree resources I can find. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

they were 2nd cousins (i.e. shared a set of great grandparents) - I am on the case and hope to come back with detailed answer.--Smerus (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
well, here is an answer from Jonathan Powell - with whom I visited the Neuhaus museum in Kirovograd a couple of years ago....

This is a quite obscure one. They -- Szy + Blu -- are linked by something at the beginning of the 19thC, possibly through the celebrated composer-pianist Maria Szymanowska (of the Nocturne "Le murmure" etc). I've got it in some Soviet book of the 70s, but it was so fascinating I appear to have completely forgotten ... I think I wrote an article at some point about this (well, not just this) ... Blumenfeld did speak Polish, and set Mickiewicz, and was possibly the first non-"real" Pole to do so ... and Kirovograd area (and much surrounding Ukraine) was seen as an extension of eastern Poland (Lwow, Ivano-Frankivsk [Stanisławów then apparently] etc) and inhabited by Polish landowners, as you know. So they're all a bit mixed. The Neuhauses I think were Austrians and father had come to that area and set up a music school in the 1870s or 80s ...

best, --Smerus (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, they're all Jewish, yes? Ask on the JewishGen email list (devoted to Jewish genealogy) - you might even find a distant living relative. -- kosboot (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, particularly Smerus. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Berenice und Lucilla

de: Berenice und Lucilla oder Das tugendhafte Lieben ist eine Barock-Oper in drei Akten von Christoph Graupner (1683-1760) auf ein Libretto von Osiander.

Question: which Osiander wrote the libretto? One source says L. Osiander, Lucas (elder - younger) but I doubt it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

According to this article, it's the same Osiander who wrote cantata libretti for Bach – which suggests Lucas Osiander the Elder, incidentally (or not) the only Osiander who has a Grove article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking! Well, cantata libretti, - that man wrote chorales that Bach used in cantatas, no more [1], does that qualify him enough for an opera libretto composed 100 years later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

La Petite Bande

Please look at La Petite Bande, massively tagged as a whole because an affiliated editor added. I removed (commented) a picture but think the article is factual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that a huge amount of work has been done on this article since you posted this message. I could find only one very minor thing to fix (a left-over quotation mark in a block quotation). It looks better documented than most Wikipedia articles, though I am puzzled by one source (mainly for its format, which appears to be using a journal title in place of an author). Any suspicions about interested parties contributing to it cannot be seriously entertained.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
@Jerome; if you've more information on the source details, please add. I left a comment about the Continuo ref; it needs more details, and I'm not really certain {{cite book}} is the right template. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
If that is indeed an article in Continuo magazine, the "cite book" template would not be the most appropriate to use. (I avoid using templates myself, but surely there must be one called "cite journal", or something of that nature.) Unfortunately, my local university library's collection does not include Continuo, and the publication's website ceased to exist some time ago. This makes it difficult for me to consult the source in order to determine whether or not the article is signed. If it is not, the usual method is to replace the author's name with "Anon.", rather than to substitute the journal title. As I said before, except for this one little detail the article is now very good indeed. Congratulations on your fine work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I did not realise that Continuo was a magazine; in that case, {{cite journal}} (which does indeed exist) is the appropriate template. I'll use anon and stub-out blank volume and issue parameters if anyone ever finds them… Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks. I'm a little surprised that you did not know the nature of the source. I presume it must have been originally placed by someone else. As it stands, it appears to be a double issue, unless the boldface numerals (usually signifying volume numbers) are actually meant as page numbers. I'll see what I can discover about this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

incoherence on beethoven cello sonatas

See Template:Beethoven_cello_sonatas: why do we have a page for the first couple of sonatas, a page for the third and a page for the last couple? It seems to me rather incoherent.--Nickanc (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's simply by virtue of their Op. numbers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The template might be changed to avoid the impression that there are five articles. Properly labelled links to the three articles would be more helpful for navigation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

BL collaboration - music manuscripts

(crossposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers; apologies if you see it twice)

Hi all. I'm currently working as the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library; this is a full-time position working within the BL and aiming to help support collaboration between the institutional community and the Wikimedia community.

I've been speaking to the curator here responsible for the musical manuscript collections, and they're very keen to make contact with Wikipedians who might be interested in working on topics related to these items. The BL has a wide collection of MS, including the major collection of Handel's manuscripts and a significant amount of material representing 20th century British music. (summary; images)

If this sounds like something you'd be interested in collaborating on, please let me know and I'll put you in touch! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What can "Allegretto molto" mean?

I'm looking at several different recordings of String Quartet No. 9 (Beethoven), the fourth movement of which is given here as "Allegro molto", and most recordings do specify that tempo marking. But a few give "Allegretto molto". If Allegro is "cheerful or brisk; but commonly interpreted as lively, fast", and Allegretto is "a little lively, moderately fast", what does it mean to be "very much a little bit lively" or "very much moderately fast / moderately very fast" (depending on just what the "molto" modifies)? In other words, if Allegretto is interpreted to mean not quite as fast, brisk, lively, etc, as Allegro, does "molto" then slow it down more, or speed it up closer to Allegro? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's "allegro molto" in every edition I've seen. (More and more, quartets are playing it nosebleed-fast. Listen to the Emerson. Lines and inner parts blur at their manic speed.) I'd question "allegretto molto" -- is that for real? Antandrus (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking at recordings rather than sheet music. With these you never know who wrote the liner notes, or where they got their information. There will be all sorts of minor discrepancies from one to another, some giving minimal tempos and others noting most tempo changes throughout a movement; adjectives sometimes look like they were just ad libbed. (It's usually obvious that different people write the liner/booklet notes, as opposed to what's printed on the box, the latter always being very untrustworthy.) That's why I try to look up everything here while cataloging these. What I have in front of me right now is the Budapest String Quartet in their 1951 version; both their 1941 and their 1960 recordings do say "Allegro molto". But it seems to me that sometimes conductors or groups or soloists do in fact depart from the printed score this way, and might specify their preferred tempo markings. So it can be hard to tell whether something unusual is deliberate, or just an error.
I'm not familiar with the Emerson's Beethoven - just some Bartok and Prokofiev - but I know exactly what you mean. Nearly everything I'm working with in this collection is in the date range 1925-1975, a time when personality was much more important than today's cold sound-alike precision and literalism. I've heard some of the Tokyo's Beethoven, but I can't listen to it; it doesn't make any sense to me.
My question was really more to whether there can be such a thing as "allegretto molto", and what it might mean. (I'm not a musician.) Milkunderwood (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok -- "allegretto molto" doesn't make any sense to me as a musician (although I'll defer to an Italian speaker, if there is an idiom I don't know). Sometimes you will see "allegretto molto" if there is a missing third word, like "allegretto - molto marcato" "rubato" etc. Antandrus (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
No recondite Italian idiom I know of there (though "foreign" composers tend to enjoy creating them). Beethoven's manuscript score (here) seems to call for Allo molto. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, MistyMorn - I had to call up an edit screen just to see how you did that. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Milkunderwood - Somehow, I resisted the Messiaenic temptation to insert colour markings. For more family entertainment, try clicking on the introductory video here... —MistyMorn (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, here's another weird one from that same 1951-52 set of the Budapest: the first movement of String Quartet No. 12 (Beethoven) is given as "Maestoso - Allegro teneramente". Now, that adjective didn't just fall out of a hat; does this mean that in 1952 these guys decided to give a bit more tenerezza in their allegro than they did in 1942, or again in 1961, or than anyone else ever does at all? Maybe it did fall out of hat - I don't see any other teneramentes nearby that the copy editor's eye could have fallen on. But at least this hiccup isn't illogical, like allegretto molto. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, teneramente is printed under Allegro in the first edition, but it appears to refer specifically to the melody in the first violin part. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You're right! They might as well have added sempre piano e dolce. (If you found that in the Beethoven-Haus Bonn upload, you've better eyes than me. I note John Morriss omits the teneramente.) I've had to hunt for scores at IMSLP before, but not reading a note of music, if what I'm looking for isn't obvious in the first few pages, I get thoroughly lost.
I've also never quite figured out what and how much detail recordings decide to include in their notes. Is there any logic to it, in your experience? For instance this, from Op. 131, mvt. 4, which exactly follows what WP shows:
  • Andante, ma non troppo e molto cantabile - Più mosso - Andante moderato e lusinghiero - Adagio - Allegretto - Adagio, non troppo e semplice - Allegretto -
-- why here, and not other such places?
Interesting about Messiaen's synaesthesia. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Or this, returning to Op. 127, mvt. 2:
  • Adagio, ma non troppo e molto cantabile - Andante con moto - Adagio molto espressivo - Tempo I
as opposed to simply
  • Adagio, ma non troppo e molto cantabile as given here on WP, or
  • Adagio, ma non troppo e molto cantabile - Andante con moto, as at IMSLP.
Milkunderwood (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the key of A-sharp minor so rarely used, or even talked about?

Greetings, friends. I really need to get a handle on why the key of A-sharp minor is so extremely rarely used as the principal key for a piece of music. This relates to an article I'm working on, looking at the sets of works traversing all 24 major and minor keys. There was some discussion at Talk:A-sharp minor last year, but it hasn't gone anywhere.

A-sharp minor has 7 sharps, which is decidedly trickier than C major, but not impossibly tricky. It has no double sharps, for example, so it's not yet in the realm of a theoretical key. It’s no worse than C‑sharp major, A-flat minor or C-flat major, which all contain 7 accidentals, and for each of which there are many examples in the literature. (Less so for C-flat major, but it’s far from unknown. Given that C‑flat is the same as B, one might expect there to be fewer works in C-flat major than almost any standard keys including A-sharp minor, but the reverse seems to be the case.)

The list of pieces written in A-sharp minor in the classical repertoire is so small, I can just about list them all here (I'd be very pleased to hear of any others):

It turns up in the midst of a few pieces, such as:

This calls A-sharp minor a "bizarre" key. And this says he's never seen a piece in this key at all. Honestly, what is "bizarre" about it? I can understand that composers would generally favour B-flat minor, having 2 fewer accidentals, but there are many examples of composers writing technical exercises, studies, preludes etc, which collectively traverse every key imagineable, including those they would not choose to write a symphony or a concerto in – but poor old A-sharp minor seems to be the forgotten orphan of the key family. I haven’t even found proof that Czerny ever used it, and his tally of individual pieces must reach into many thousands. Good old Bach in his Well-Tempered Clavier was happy to write preludes and fugues in C-sharp major (7 sharps) when other composers generally preferred D-flat (5 flats) in their sets of 24 pieces; and he chose A-flat minor (7 flats) when most other composers chose G-sharp minor (5 sharps). So he was certainly not averse to writing in a key with 7 accidentals. But when it came to A-sharp minor, even he shied away from it and used B-flat minor.

I’ve looked for even some discussion of exactly why it's so rarely used, but in vain so far, and the above represents pretty much the fruits of my labours. So, I come here in search of answers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I can offer you a couple of ideas, but they are pure speculation. The first is that, in a just-tuned instrument, A sharp minor sounds lousy. To find out if this is true, you would have to look for documentation about different tunings. Of course, this ceases to be a consideration once equal temperament becomes the rule, but it could explain why the key is eschewed at least until the mid nineteenth century.
The second reason has to do with violin fingering. Of course, you can use just about any finger to play any note on the violin, but fingering an A sharp minor scale as the key signature suggests would be much more awkward than fingering the same scale as though it were B flat minor. Starting on the A string, you would most naturally play the scale in half position, as though starting on B flat. This is largely a psychological thing, but it could well direct composers to think in B flat rather than A sharp. A place to look for confirmation of this idea would be in Flesch's book on violin fingering. I will look there, but I can't say I'm optimistic.
Anyway, good luck. I look forward to reading the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ravpapa. Yes, I can see it would be a barrier to string writing, and to orchestral writing in general. But not for keyboard writing, not for a second. Any decent pianist can play an A-sharp minor scale as easily as an A minor scale, and a piano piece in that key would present no particular difficulties. All those thousands of pianist-composers who wrote trillions of technical exercises in every key, half the time just to show it could be be done - where were their brains when it came to A-sharp minor? I'm getting the feeling that it's become a tradition not even to talk about it, let alone actually write something in it. But why such a total lack of recognition, that's the question. We even have an article on F-flat major (!!!), which was not too abstruse and theoretical for Haydn, Beethoven or Bruckner to write in (if not always notated as such). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Handel has to be some kind of mistake—or hoax. See Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), where I can see no mention of an A-sharp minor waltz, not to mention:

"The peasants of Bavaria, Tyrol, and Styria began dancing a dance called Walzer, a dance for couples, around 1750."

...or about 15 years after Handel's Op. 4 was composed and published.
However that may be, you do raise an interesting question, one for which I can think of no suitable answer. "All those thousands of pianist-composers" had no problem with D-sharp minor, nor did Bach, so why did they so neglect A-sharp?—Mahlerlover1(converse) 08:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that so-called Handel piece was obviously at least a mistake if not a deliberate hoax, but I don't make these things up, I just report my findings. The really intriguing aspect of this is that surely I am not the first person to ever wonder about this and ask questions about it, and surely there is some discussion about it somewhere. Obviously I'm looking in the wrong places. Curiously, of all key signatures, C-sharp major/A-sharp minor is given pride of place at Key (music).
By the way, I am pleased to announce for general information the birth of Music written in all 24 major and minor keys. I'm sure it can be improved, so have at it. I did a lot of research for this article, but managed to find only two more obscure pieces in A-sharp minor. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting new resource if you understand German

I came across this new resource which may be of use in assembling biographies: The Biographie-Portal, containing entries for over 100,000 persons of significance in German-speaking lands (not just music-related). It is a combination of 6 biographical dictionaries (see the "About" page). Give it a try: http://www.biographie-portal.eu/en/search -- kosboot (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Olaus Andreas Grøndahl

Anyone know anything about this composer/conductor, currently up for deletion? It's a one-line stub of an article, and the Norwegian WP article isn't much better. --Deskford (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Imput on Gottschalk's

Been working on Gottschalk's compostions and noticed that many composers here have their pieces standardized like Schubert's and Chopin's, so I thought about doing the same by moving Souvenir de Porto Rico, Grande Tarantelle and The Banjo, not for disambigation purposes ! Well, I don't know if there's any convention in this project as for using or not an opus number or composer's surname for title, or both. Thought about taking this issue up with you guys first and do the right thing instead of following my beliefs. How should I title future articles on this matter, or should I leave this behind ? Thanks for yout time. Krenakarore TK 10:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think of opus numbers as part of the title. Opus numbers were useful when they distinguished works that had a generic title (for example, "Sonata" or "Symphony" or in the case of the Strauss family, "Waltz"). However, nearly all of Gottschalk's works have distinctive titles, so I wouldn't think it's necessary to include them in the title, although it can be stated in the first sentence of the lede. -- kosboot (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation terms should only be added if they are necessary. As Kosboot points out, almost none of Gottschalk's works need them. Note that disambiguation terms must not be confused with or used as descriptors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As for Souvenir de Porto Rico, Op. 31 (Gottschalk), Bamboula, Op. 2 (Gottschalk) and Le Bananier, Op. 5 (Gottschalk), should I move 'em back or not ? Krenakarore TK 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes, back to Souvenir de Porto Rico. 2) Bamboula & Bananier are different; I suggest Bamboula (Gottschalk) & Le Bananier (Gottschalk). Other opinions? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Comply. Thank you for your time.......................:) ! Krenakarore TK 14:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How to make sub-categories?

Hey folks, I'm interested in writing a few articles on specific music manuscripts. It seems to me that the category should be "Music manuscripts" which would be a sub-category of "Manuscripts." I can't find any information on how to make sub-categories - is it something that only administrators do? If not, how does one make "Music manuscripts" a sub-category of Manuscripts? (Thanks in advance.) -- kosboot (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a category is the same as creating anything else on Wikipedia: click on the following link and you're on your way: Category:Music manuscripts. You ought to have some articles for such a category or it will be soon be deleted if it remains empty. As with articles, it is important that categories get categorised; the obvious one is Category:Manuscripts, or might Category:Manuscripts by type be better? I believe every category should be part of at least two other categories, so some other category from Category:Music is needed; Category:Musical notation? Category:Music history? Category:Music sources (which has some manuscript-related subcategories)? Depending on the scope and number of articles for your suggested category, this last one might well be the best place in the category tree for it, or possibly instead of it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response - Music souces does look like an appropriate place. (There's also manuscript categories by century and geography which I'll use.) I'll give a heads-up when I complete one. -- kosboot (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How can we make Wikipedia better?

At Wikimania, someone had the creative idea to photograph attendees' suggestions for improving Wikipedia. Worth looking at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fabola/sets/72157630578652390/with/7571390244/ -- kosboot (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The current edition of the Wikipedia Signpost has a summary of Sue Gardner's speech at Wikimania (Sue Gardner is the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's worth reading to see what are the criticisms of WP. One of the interesting suggestions is having a mentoring program for newbies. I'd volunteer for such a program if WP:Classical music was going to implement it. -- kosboot (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move - Classical music to Western classical music

Discussion at Talk:Classical music#Requested move. - Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Biographical infobox

At the risk of creating unnecessary conflict, I'd like to ask a question I feel is rather valid: On WP:ANI#Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban, it was pointed out by User:Oculi that "the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use". I think this is a valid question: why exactly do we have an infobox if we discourage it's use? We say that it may be used if consensus is reached on individual pages, but seeing as people working on these articles are often members of the project, wouldn't members tend to oppose the use of the infobox, meaning that consensus will more likely than not be to no use the box? Which leads to the question then, of why have an infobox if it is unlikely to be used? Brambleclawx 04:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone in the project opposes boxes (I generally oppose them, for reasons outlined in WP:DISINFOBOX, but can think of some other members who like articles to have them). This gives the option to use one that we've gotten consensus is OK -- at least that's how I see it. I was honestly surprised that it was unused; guess I'd just never checked. It was one of those things I thought was there if wanted to reach for it, and was disturbed to find had been sneakily deleted. Curious to know what others think.
Regarding that thread, really I just want the guy to work with us collegially and without making every thread a battleground. Antandrus (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I, for one. think an infobox is not all that bad. And, truth be told, I would have used it at Joel Engel (composer) if I had remembered that we made it. I am going to go ahead and replace the one I put there. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I see... it probably just seems to outsiders that the whole project opposes the boxes because it's unused. Brambleclawx 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And guess who added an infobox on today's featured article Georg Solti in mid-day? The article passes several layers of review without having an infobox but one just had to be added today.DavidRF (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The stable (long standing version) should be the one implemented until such time that a talk can take place - I see the addition was reverted - now is the time to talk - because the bold action has been reverted. Keep in mind that whether to include an infobox at all, which infobox to include if any, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.Moxy (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oakville Chamber Orchestra

This article is being discussed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakville Chamber Orchestra. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

London Irish Symphony Orchestra

Another one up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Symphony Orchestra. Unreferenced and I'm struggling to find any reliable sources. --Deskford (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Papa Haydn

By accident far from my wiki-home I discovered Papa Haydn without any project banners, although talk is relatively recent.

Its only category is Joseph Haydn. The article may be more about classical music than about Joseph, eg:

"Papa" as founder
Another sense of the term "Papa Haydn" comes from his role in the history of classical music, notably in the development of the symphony and string quartet.

So I "assigned" it to you as well as to Biography and Composers. --P64 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Antonín Dvořák

Lately, I have been thinking about doing a GA/FA push for Antonín Dvořák. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. Comments, additions and ideas on how to improve the article are always welcome. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Classical Barnstar

Template:Classical Barnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 19:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian Lee and Sébastien Lee

Sebastian Lee and Sébastien Lee were both cellists who lived from 1805 to 1887, but the articles claim one was German and one was French. It looks like they are the same person, who was born in Germany and eventually moved back, but spent a significant amount of time in France. If this is correct, the articles should be merged. TimBentley (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same person. I've merged the information and redirected to Sebastian Lee, as he is better known (and his music is still published) under this name. His "40 Studies" are still well known among cellists. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mozart GA/FA push

Hi. Just so everyone is aware, I am trying to help improve Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to GA/FA status. The discussion is at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#GA/FA Push. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Elimination of Latsabidze Giorgi biography in French Wikipedia

Hello my name is Adolfo, I have 39 years and I studied piano for 30 years, I'm writing from Spain. My teacher was from Georgia and he spoke of his country's best musician Latsabidze Giorgi, I study their records and know well their work and career. First I want to congratulate you for your good article on Latsabidze in the English Wikipedia. I'm writing because I need your help because Latsabidze's biography has been removed from the French Wikipedia, they have told many lies about Latsabidze, they say they have never won the international competition Rubeinstein of Paris, who has never received the scholarship Carol Hogel, who has never recorded an album etc .... As you can see here:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Giorgi_Latsabidze/Suppression I wrote to administrators to demonstrate the lies they tell: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:LPLT (August 12) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Wikinade (August 15) After demonstrating that they lie, I have requested that the biography is restored in the French Wikipedia as you can see here:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Demande_de_restauration_de_page#Giorgi_Latsabidze (August 17) They've given the reasons as you can see and I have proven to be lies. I need your help and the help of the English Wikipedia, I need people to write to show their disagreement with the decision because only tell lies about Giorgi Latsabidze. I can not and I just need people to agree with me that it is written in the French Wikipedia showing their disagreement. Thank you very much for your attention--Carlitosbull (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Adolfo, some of those links are dead. gonflé. Aucune trace de notoriété It seems that they were worried about (i) Notability, (ii) puff-piece. I'm a bit surprised on count (i), and (ii) can easily be dealt with. Did they not even give you the option of a sandbox while you work on it? (that can be tricky, BLPs are subject to sourcing requirements whether in or out of sandbox). I don't edit much on fr.wp but enough to feel entitled to support an article there if 1 or 2 others did. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts not working?

Is there something wrong with alerts? I was wondering why there's been no WP:CM editor input to Talk:Tôn-Thất Tiết RM, and now I see that the alert didn't pick up the RM. I have put in one for the other well known French-Vietnamese composer, the Messaien student Talk:Nguyen-Thien Dao → Nguyễn Thiện Đạo per EMI and Erato LP covers (no sign of a CD reissue...) we'll see if that kicks the alert trigger. (not that all music editors automatically support funny names) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • ...Ah, because the article affected actually has to have WikiProject Classical music tag on Talk page, not just WP Composer Tag. Subproject tags don't get picked up by alerts... Fair enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass in B minor

On the talk, I had a question in April 2010 about the tempo markings, it's still open. Right now, the Mass is mentioned on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not waiting any longer, I started a table Mass in B minor structure. Please check it for omissions/mistakes, and please check if it should replace part of the Main article, I didn't dare to go that far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Planned edit-a-thon

From 8–14 October 2012, Australia's primary classical music broadcaster, ABC Classic FM, will be holding a countdown of the top 100 French works of classical music as voted by listeners to the radio station. Some Australian Wikipedians including myself are planning to be involved in an edit-a-thon and related meetup in Sydney to create and improve articles about the works on the countdown. Feel free to join in if you'd like! Graham87 13:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! For those of us non-locals, perhaps you can have participants create a list of articles created/edited, so members of this group can examine and perhaps expand. -- kosboot (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I've copied your comment to the editathon's talk page. All comments should go there rather than here so the conversation is kept in one place. Graham87 05:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The project page now includes a "to do" list which we will keep updated with all of the things we think of that need fixing/creating etc. Please feel free to add your own ideas there, comment and take tasks from that list! Here it is: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October_2012#To_do. Wittylama 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Since this takes place in a library, you should add your editathon to the events at: Wikipedia Loves Libraries. kosboot (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Good idea; done. Graham87 03:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré

May I nominate Gabriel Faure for Today's featured article on November 4th? I asked the most significant contributor, Ssilvers, and he said it was alright, but to ask here, so I am.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I need to know.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Musopen: adding free music to articles

I've recently come across Musopen, which not only serves as a repository for free (i.e. freely licenced) music, but has also commissioned recordings of professional orchestras performing famous pieces which have been released into the Public Domain. A list of the "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" recordings can be found here (under Music, not Most Popular), and it would be great to have these added to the articles that don't currently have a recording for readers to listen to. In order to add them, follow these steps:

  1. Register at Musopen (allows 5 downloads a day)
  2. Navigate to the page of the piece you want to add (you can click on the piece's arrow button on the right under "Learn More" for the piece you want from the link above)
  3. A list of recordings should appear, with buttons "Bookmark", "Download" and "Play Music" (note that some, such as the Coriolan Overture do not seem to have the recordings uploaded)
  4. Click on the arrow on the far right of the "Download" button, and click on "HQ File" from the drop down list that appears
  5. Download the file, and convert to FLAC (dBpoweramp Music Converter is very easy to use once installed)
  6. Convert this FLAC file to OGG Vorbis (the format Wikipedia uses) using oggdropXPd for best results (even easier to use once installed)
  7. Upload this OGG file to Wikimedia Commons (give the page URL as the source, Musopen as the author and specify "Another reason not mentioned above" with the following code: {{PD-author|[http://www.musopen.org/music/piece/1568 Musopen]}}, but repeating the source page URL in place of http://www.musopen.org/music/piece/1568
  8. Use a simple filename (I've been using "Musopen - Piece name.ogg") and then add it to the article using the following code: {{Listen|filename=Musopen - Piece name.ogg|title=''Title''|description=''Title'' performed by the [[Musopen]] Symphony Orchestra}} (replacing the filename with the name you uploaded it as, and the title)

It may seem complicated at first, but once done the first time is really very straightforward. I've added recordings to a couple of articles, but am having trouble downloading the tracks from Musopen at the moment (which I put down to my internet connection), so if anyone else wants to help out here either follow the instructions, or if you'd rather just download them and email the files to me, I'd be happy to convert, upload and add them to the articles. Thanks. --xensyriaT 21:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! However, it'd be better to use the lossless files. See [[this related discussion from last year. IMO it would also be a good idea to add the composer's name in the file name. Graham87 12:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Also see WikiProject Free music and its talk page, a project that dealt with many of the original Musopen uploads. You may want to contact Sven Manguard and/or Raul654 about Musopen. IIRC the latter user negotiated with the founder of the site to allow recordings from Musopen on Wikipedia in the first place; the former user instigated the proposal I mentioned above. I don't have much time to work on this at the moment but I wish you well. Graham87 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, my half-baked solution (I used the suggested general preference for ogg files, down to the encoder software - I hadn't seen the discussion you mention at the time) was based on the disappointing lack of good quality examples on most of the relevant articles, and an assumption that many of this project's users may not be very tech savvy (which seems unfounded in hindsight). Thankfully it seems to have spurred another user to use a much better set of steps than I'd taken and add many other Musopen pieces; I hope they continue to be added as Musopen produces them! --xensyriaT 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The code in step 8 above should be {{Listen| filename= Musopen - Piece name.ogg | title= ''Title'' | description= ''Title'' performed by the [[Musopen]] Symphony Orchestra | type= music}} - i.e. with an additional |type=music. That sets the appropriate icon and allows tracking of where free music is used. (I've also added white space for readability and ease of editing; but that's less critical.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Musopen}} should also be used in the source field. --xensyriaT 03:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Nitpick: that should be Commons:Template:Musopen, to be used in the file description at Commons.
Re steps 5 & 6: The conversion from MP3 or FLAC to OGG can also be done with Audacity (audio editor). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That's the template, perhaps I should have said one only needs to type {{Musopen}}. And I'm not sure about Audacity, but I know that some of the other encoders aren't at the same standard as the preferred Hydrogenaudio-recommended encoders: dBpoweramp for example gave awful results, stripping all metadata and started at about 1 minute in when played back through VLC (hence why I didn't merge steps 5 and 6). Also, the lossless audio files for most of the tracks that I saw (and I was mostly looking at the newly commissioned "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" pieces) were in m4a format, which is propriety, though it seems the HQ format for their older files is still FLAC; it might be best just to convert to FLAC and upload, but OGG's smaller file size is a strength. --xensyriaT 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you're using the free version of dBpoweramp, because the paid one keeps all tags just fine and tend to be the preferred audio converter from what I've seen. But it pains me to see people talking about going from Mp3 to Ogg in the first place. :-( Yes it's smaller but it also creates quality loss on top of quality loss. Not a problem for 30 second samples, but whole pieces, especially well recorded ones it's....just bad. As for M4A, those are AAC files, like you would buy on iTunes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Johann Sebastian Bach should be kept

Keep - My template for Johann Sebastian Bach was removed from several articles without proper discussion taking place. I believe that Template:Johann Sebastian Bach should be kept, as there are more than 5 articles related to him. Perhaps several "sub-templates" could be nested under this one.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see yet for which purpose we need this template. The articles appear on the main article Bach, and people looking up works can easily go there, I see no need to blow up hundreds of articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - If this is the case, then we don't need any navboxes on Wikipedia at all. The navbox is designed to assist in navigating between related articles. The article about JSB itself and the articles that relate to it are long, and the navbox makes finding these articles much easier. This navbox is in line with WP:ANOEP.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. I like the template Bach cantatas
and (almost) could not live without it ;) It allows easy links between articles of the same kind. I don't see a reader of the Mass in B minor article sufficiently interested in the Bach family, for example, to install links to those rather remote articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Given the number of Bach family members, I strongly believe that some type of navbox is in order, and recommend that people make suggestions instead of just eliminating the navbox outright. Instead of removing a navbox from all articles, which is the antithesis of consensus, it should at a minimum be brought to AfD, instead of making threats to involve an admin as was done on my talk page.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to threaten. I asked you to wait, you didn't listen, I felt a bit helpless. Perhaps you wait now, that Mirokado said it much nicer? ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since you have started this section to discuss whether the template should be added or not, please do not keep adding it until the issue is resolved. Generally we should ensure there is consensus to make wide-ranging systematic changes to articles, which is another reason to hold off until there is consensus to add this. If the decision is to add it, please look at WP:APPENDIX and other articles with navboxen to see where in the source it goes. I will think a bit before responding to the actual keep-or-not question. --Mirokado (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The template I removed was unsuitable for inclusion in any article. That's why I removed it. Following WP:BRD, this discussion ought to have been the next step. Now, that User:Hyacinth has made some sensible changes (and may possibly continue to so), it may be used on pages which are mentioned in the template, but it should not be deployed on every JSB-related article; see WP:NAVBOX, ("... every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." – Wikipedia:A navbox on every page is not an accepted guideline or even policy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Concur - I concur that the new navbox is satisfactory, and that whatever is related to JSB (and is not a Bach cantata) can be placed in the navbox. IMO, the navbox should have been trimmed, not deleted from all pages that it was on, including the parent article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Should birth/death dates be added in parentheses to members of the Bach family, or perhaps their relation to Bach? For example, "Anna Magdalena Bach" would appear as "Anna Magdalena Bach (1701–1760)" or "Anna Magdalena Bach (wife)". Hyacinth (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Concur? I said the opposite of what you claim to concur to; the Template:Johann Sebastian Bach cannot possibly be populated with "whatever is related to JSB" nor should it be used in articles which are not mentioned in it.
Jax 0677 has created another half-baked template, {{Bach family}}, which has inappropriate content and is mis-categorised; see Template talk:Bach family. Despite these flaws and without learning from the previous experience, Jax 0677 deployed this template immediately to 4 articles, 3 of which already had the controversial Template:Johann Sebastian Bach. I suggest to remove it from all articles, whether its obvious flaws are corrected or not, and discuss the need, name, content, and deployment of such a template.
@Hyacinth: Their relationship to JSB seems more informative to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The navbox does seem much improved. If the current "List" articles were added to the compositions section, it seems like it might be OK in the "See also" section of the main Bach article. Can't say that I care for the color though. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment
@Michael - What I meant is that articles that are related to JSB might be includable into Template:Johann Sebastian Bach. If this is the case, then they can be included in those articles. The Bach family has more than 5 notable family members, who can also be added to {{Bach family}} along with articles related to them. If there are many articles related to an individual, then an additional navbox for that individual can be created. I have deleted the portals and changed the category, which were oversights.
TfD exists for the purpose of deciding which navboxes to keep or not. Deleting a navbox from ALL articles is a lot like deleting the entire template from Wikipedia before consensus is reached, and opposes WP:BEBOLD.

BTW, why was the template removed from the Johann Sebastian Bach article?--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
1) Surely, that article doesn't need 2 templates with overlapping content. 2) The template seemed to be be still under construction. A template for the most influential composer ever needs careful consideration, which seemed to be lacking.
Being bold is the 1st step in the WP:BRD cycle, although in the past similar issues have been put up for discussion here first; this template might have benefited from such a discussion.
@Robert Allen: 1) Both template are based on {{Navbox musical artist}} and their colouring stems from the |background=solo_singer in the case of {{Johann Sebastian Bach}}, and from |background=group_or_band in the case of {{Bach family}}; this seems a strange choice as we use {{Navbox}} for other composers. 2) The "See also" section is not the proper place for navigation boxes, the bottom of the article is; see MOS:FOOTERS.
Nitpick: Both templates use documentation which claims they use the {{collapsible option}} but they don't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
State added to both templates so that they have the collapsible option. Hyacinth (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Leitmotif

Comments welcomed here to help resolve a disagreement. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the three templates be combined into one template?

I am wondering, should Template:Johann Sebastian Bach, Template:Bach family and Template:Bach cantatas be combined into one template, having the other two redirect to Template:Johann Sebastian Bach? Any family member with less than 4-5 related articles could be put in the related articles section of the template, and and family member with more can have their very own template. Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I vote against combining Bach cantatas with anything. It's complex and dedicated to the one topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda that the cantatas template doesn't lend itself to further expansion. As for JSB Bach & family: several editors have spent considerable effort to sort out their content (and that of {{C.P.E. Bach}}) – their content & deployment seems now about right to me and I suggest to leave them as they are. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Music for a Time of War

I encourage project members to review this newly-constructed article as well as its talk page. There are a few more sources needing to be incorporated into the article. Hopefully this will make a great addition to WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia once completed and reviewed thoroughly. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen

There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page right now about the current title. Maybe you guys could enlight the situation a bit ! Thanks Krenakarore TK 01:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Missa Brevis (Bernstein)

Promising new article by a new editor. It's still a little rough around the edges, so any help with polishing it up would be appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MusicBrainz

While checking over work done by the VIAFbot and checking out the article on WP:UID, I discovered that Wikipedia encourages unique identifiers for recorded music using MusicBrainz. In looking over the templates at MusicBrainz templates, it seems that it applies to recordings. Is it only popular recordings, or is classical music also involved? (I vaguely recalled someone posting about this here, but I can't find it in the archives.) -- kosboot (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_43&oldid=1137389629"