Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68→Archive 70

Relisted move request

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Nielsen works#Requested move 10 June 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  What's in your palette? Paine  12:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The RM closed earlier today as no consensus for a move. However, the closer's statement read in part: "... No prejudice against a new RM, possibly discussing Francis's proposal. My unasked for opinion: having two articles that by their title have the same scope is causing a bit of a mess." Instead of reinitiating a RM immediately after the previous, I thought it better to bring the mentioned proposal here for further discussion:
----
----
Ideas? Personally, I'd write some words on the preferred format for the title of a page that lists a composer's compositions in either Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the best idea is to first discuss here what lists of composers works should contain, and how they should be called, rather than performing individual move discussions, and move towards inconsistency. Two articles show extremes, related to the same composer List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni and Ferruccio Busoni works, which I created for his 150th birthday because I believe the full list is way too much for the ordinary reader. Other lists to be considered are Köchel catalogue (a useful list of Mozart's works), BWV (an extremely detailed list of Bach's works, see comments on the talk, not by me), Bruckner Gesamtausgabe (not individual works, but an overview of a complete edition), - and what else? Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

  1. A stand-alone list of a composer's compositions is titled "List of compositions by <composer name>". Alternatively, when the main list of a composer's compositions is under the name of a broadly used catalogue for these compositions, "List of compositions by <composer name>" should be a redirect to that catalogue page. Examples:
  2. [Two stand-alone lists:] Having two separate pages listing all compositions of a composer is only possible when one is a bullet list, grouped by genre, and the other a sortable table. Examples:
  3. [Partial lists:] For partial lists, replace "compositions" in the article title by another term that defines the list or add a qualifier at the end of the article title. Examples:
  4. ["Anhang" topics:] Catalogues of compositions of a composer often contain separate lists of lost works, doubtful works, arrangements and/or autograph copies of someone else's compositions. In most cases such "Anhang"-related items are contained in the main list (e.g. List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV Anhang). Exceptionally, when such works take a prominent place in the composer's oeuvre, they are listed on a separate page (e.g. List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni).
  5. ["works":] An article title starting with "List of works ..." implies creative works in multiple media (e.g. List of works published posthumously), otherwise a more precise descriptor of the works contained in the list should be used.

Would that work? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A good proposal.
  • I see a practical problem with titles such as "List of compositions by <composer name>", namely that you don't find them easily when you search for articles related to the composer. What do you think of consistent redirects such as "<composer name> works" (with name even the surname only for people like Mozart)? We have many of them already, see Schumann works (created in 2008). I don't have a problem with the clumsy title if I can use a practical redirect for searches and in links. Thoughts?
  • I don't see a solution for Ferruccio Busoni works, the access to his major works (open to expansion) which get lost in the detailed List of compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
A solution for the Busoni works list has been implemented, following the discussions below, which incidentally also illustrated how to go about with "<composer name> works" redirect pages. Any further comments regarding the five proposals above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
See below, - the re-redirect you applied seems not a good idea, breaking links and making people read the enormous titles of the works- and adaptations, instead of the elegant links of the first line here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Busoni specifically

  • It was consensus to move the works OUT of Kafka, could I make that clear? Talking about consensus, so far you seem to be the only one who still thinks the three articles can't coexist. A merge request was on the articles for weeks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't distort Smerus' words: "... I will rather reluctantly move that it be deleted instead, although I perfectly appreciate the good motives which Gerda had in creating it." (see below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You seem to have missed the introduction to that: "If it is decided to press with discussion ...", IF. There seems no need to "press" anything. I claim that the three articles (biography, short sortable list, complete list) serve different readers and don't need any merge. The last merge request was open for more than a month, with no reaction, not even the beginning of a talk page discussion, which would be the next step to take (not just merging without consensus). - Read (again) yesterday, and try to remember: If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith .... IF ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The "short sortable list" has the problems outlined by Smerus below ("...as there is no given rationale as to which works are included (or excluded) in Ferruccio Busoni works, the list is arbitrary and is essentially WP:OR and contrary to WP:IINFO. I appreciate that the 'works' article was undertaken because the complete list of works was overwhelming and unmanageable. But it is not if we are going to go by the rulebook really viable as an article..." – Maybe address those concerns – please remember that I invited you to the same before the RM on that article was closed? We can discuss procedures ad infinitum, but that's not the ultimate goal, is it? Once the practical problems (Ferruccio Busoni works not being viable "as is") being properly addressed, the procedural discussions are moot.
Here's a suggestion for addressing the problems of the Ferruccio Busoni works article not being viable "as is": why not, instead of the "Major" qualifier with which the intro of the list opens now, make this a list about compositions and adaptations that kept repertoire after the composer's death: the ones readers of the list article may have actually heard? In other words changing a few words in the intro, rename the article consequently (e.g. List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni), and there would be no need any more to suggest a merge with whatever? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, good, see below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my oppose comment below. To which I would add that, as there is no given rationale as to which works are included (or excluded) in Ferruccio Busoni works, the list is arbitrary and is essentially WP:OR and contrary to WP:IINFO. I appreciate that the 'works' article was undertaken because the complete list of works was overwhelming and unmanageable. But it is not if we are going to go by the rulebook really viable as an article. To adopt Francis's charming style of banter, I am not really interested in the concept of wedging it into another article. If it is decided to press with discussion of incorporating it into the main Busoni article I will rather reluctantly move that it be deleted instead, although I perfectly appreciate the good motives which Gerda had in creating it. - Smerus (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
But I understand you agree if the condition is "... without moving anything ..." (meaning: no content is moved from one article to another, nor are any articles moved)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I really think the best thing is to leave it all until the GA discussion, and bring it up in the discussion if you think appropriate. That would give us the opportunity to discuss the relative merits and purposes of the two listings articles and we can sort out everything in the light of that. To leave the merge note up now simply muddies the waters. It is perfectly acceptable for the mover to withdraw it, no law says it has to stand there for a week.--Smerus (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no GA discussion yet, and the merge can be discussed here. There's no muddying of any waters. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The article was nominated for GA in a certain state. It should not be changed substantially, or may easily be failed for instability. - For clarity: there is typically no "discussion" but a GA review by one other user. - In this specific case, the list mostly repeats the works mentioned in the biography anyway (that, and works with an article were criteria considered, and wishes by Smerus), so it would be redundant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
So "...leave it all until the GA discussion, and bring it up in the discussion..." wouldn't work anyway. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Question: why is Busoni's piano arrangement of Bach's violin chaconne not mentioned in the Busoni biography? There's a long contribution about that topic on the article's talk page, which is "too much information" to be included in the biographical article, but surely there can be found a middle ground between "too much information" and "not mentioning at all"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Another question: in Ferruccio Busoni#Writings Sketch of a New Esthetic of Music is called a "significant publication": what are the sources for calling that publication "significant"? Where does that leave his other writings (less significant?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: Brendel discusses the second bundle of Busoni essays in his 2015 Music, Sense and Nonsense. The second bundle is for instance also discussed in this book --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
These questions belong on Busoni, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Dunno, my first impression is that the article isn't ready for GA. Hoping that I'm wrong, and these questions can find a reasonable answer here, I didn't want to disturb the article (or its talk page) any further. I introduced the other writings of Busoni in the article with a two-sentence paragraph (hoping that merely mentioning them doesn't signify instability), but don't want to add subjective qualifiers for these other writings, so that the additions can go down as "minor".
Mostly it is not a good idea to start a new discussion somewhere else, as long as something is actively discussed in one place. Also, discussions on the content of a single article don't really belong in user talk space: it is too hard to find for unaware editors who want to improve the article, and have only the article and its talk page for getting started. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The normal thing if you miss content in an article is: you add it, preferably using the reference style of the article. It can be a welcome addition or not, - if not, then it's time to discuss. Keep simple. (This goes also for BWV 4, - please add what you think is missing.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been behaving perfectly normal, tx. Asking a question regarding something I'm not sure about is perfectly normal too. As said there's a concern not to destabilise the article in view of GA (or: FA in the case of BWV 4) procedures, so it is perfectly normal to ask more often instead of showing too much bold/revert in article space.
Any thoughts regarding my suggestion above to recast the "works" article as a "repertoire pieces" article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead, please make the changes you suggested, per the above, - edit boldly, just turn to discussion when reverted. (You will probably not be reverted here. I only took "major" works for lack of a better term.) A good edit is nothing to "destabilise". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please leave the redirect alone, revert your re-redirect, - the name has a history. People who arrive at the page (now repertoire, - or should it be repertory?) is supplied with three (easy to read) link in the first line, - and without the redirect, links from archives are all broken, - or at least rather surprising. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Mainspace coherency may be of greater concern. The article was not viable, despite its April Fools' Day main page appearance. I think I invested a lot in it to salvage it (only my fifth or so proposal for what to do with it found consensus), the initiator provided little or no suggestions for how to get out of the conundrum, and started spelling out what was "normal" instead, etc. So I suppose archive cleanup may be left to that person, if indeed the April Fools' banter needs to be salvaged in this case (most of such jollity is simply deleted the next day). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem, for Mainspace consistency, with the link Busoni works to the works section of the biography, where the readers can study

See also: List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni, List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni, and List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni

I, however, created an article with a short name (Ferruccio Busoni works) which supplies the same links in a fashion that I believe is more readable and less of a sea of blue: "Many of Ferruccio Busoni's compositions and adaptations ...", as a service to readers. Landing in the middle of a biography when you expect an article is a disservice. Please restore the normal redirect after a move. - We can't help that Busoni was born 1 April. This article appeared on DYK on 8 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for misreading the date. Regardless, the article was set up in haste, with a lead sentence hardly suitable, an unbalanced history section, etc. I proposed solutions that would have allowed to keep the redirect to the moved article. You were having none of it, instead returning to an earlier stance that it would need to be a limited selection of works. When editing bold, one may get reverted, that includes the creation of an article: in this case I fought hard that such ultimate "reversion" (=deletion) wouldn't be needed for this article, although others suggested it in this thread. I hope you can live with what looks like collateral from your point of view, but a "works" redirect should not go to a place that systematically excludes works. Busoni works going to one place and Ferruccio Busoni works going to another would also be mainspace inconsistency, so in that case it would probably be better to delete both redirects. In the case such redirects would confuse a reader, they also would be better deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
What do others think? I support to leave Ferruccio Busoni works a redirect to the new title of that article, List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni, to lead to readable links (not a sea of blue), and to keep links to the name working as they were intended. The title "works" made no promise of completeness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The "sea of blue" argument is a red herring: afaik "Many of Ferruccio Busoni's compositions and adaptations ..." only occurs in the List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni article, and I don't see how an incoming redirect would be a "solution" to making that opening sentence less blue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ferruccio Busoni (list of selected works)

I am against the proposal (see above) to move Ferruccio Busoni works into the main Ferruccio Busoni article, which would be unduly disproportionate to the article. Of the 36 pieces listed, 30 or so are already mentioned in the article. The other six are not especially notewwrthy. And in fact this proposal is particularly not helpful at this time, when the article is awaiting a GA review. Can I suggest please that the proposal be removed for the present, and then raised if editors wish in the GA review discussion, which would mean it would get more extensive discussion. - Smerus (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Was not aware of the GA procedure. Not interested in it. Merge suggestion is valid until decided (may take a week or so). Wouldn't change forum for it again (this is already the third page where the "works" list is discussed). Sorry for the inconvenience. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you telling us that you propose a merge to an article and don't even look at the talk, Talk:Ferruccio Busoni? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No comparable merge had been proposed or discussed on the talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I mean: how could you not be "aware of the GA procedure" mentioned on top of that page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the GA listing, sorry again – what can I say? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Minor/Major Works

Hi all, please can you take a look at Talk:Wedding Day at Troldhaugen#Major Work? and give your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks. :) ‑‑YodinT 15:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: WikiProject Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales

Hi there, just to say I've proposed a project Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales .

It's scope would include everything in the now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and_Scales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) project. But it adds "Microtonal Music" to the title. This makes it broader in scope, for instance to include microtonal compositions and composition technique, microtonal chords, microtonal composers, microtonal organizations, microtonal regional and national music, etc etc. The idea is that as a larger project we would get more participation.

If you support the idea please add your name to the #Support section, or if you have any thoughts on it that you want to share, do add your voice to its Discussion section. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Research Help - Nocturne in C-sharp minor (attributed to Chopin)

I'm trying to find some additional sources to improve this article, but I don't have journal access and I'm not getting anything useful by websearching. Things I am trying to do is to find out just when the piece was discovered, under what circumstances and just when it was published as well as the major arguments for/against Chopin's authorship of this piece. The ultimate goal would be to replace the MuseOpen reference with references to named sources.Graham1973 (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt whether this topic figures in any way as WP:NOTABLE without any solid references or citations; seems more like a candidate for AfD.--Smerus (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
No need to go to AfD for something that can easily be turned into a redirect ([1]). No prejudice against un-redirecting when more reliable sources would turn up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Francis, I agree this is the right solution.--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Whoa! I go to sleep and all of a sudden this stub article is turned into a redirect, before people had a chance to do anything about it. I just took a look at the Kobylanska catalog and there are about 20 (yes, 20) bibliographic references concerning this piece. So maybe it could be restored? As far as notability, I think any composition by a leading classical composer (even a spurious work) is potentially notable. - kosboot (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
kosboot, with enough sourcing, YOU can just revert the redirecting and expand, don't wait for others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for finding additional sources kosboot, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Just make sure you cover the points I raised when I started this thread. Graham1973 (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Salzburg Festival

Can people please keep an eye on this newly created category? It is being added to articles where it is not a defining category. I have already removed it from seven articles. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a strange category, because a) it's not part of any other category; b) it's criteria for inclusion is exceptionally vague: "Contains relevant articles about the Salzburg Festival" – which apparently doesn't include the article Salzburg Festival itself. Apart from that obvious omission and the, equally odd, article Salzburg Festival: history and repertoire, 1935–37, I can't really see for which other subjects this category can be seen as "defining", per WP:CAT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
All the names currently in that category need to go, frankly. They are people who conducted there on occasion, wrote a play that was performed there, etc. Two served as its director for a period, but even there, those facts are not defining characteristics of these people. I suppose it could be set up like Category:Metropolitan Opera, which does have subcats Category:People associated with the Metropolitan Opera and Category:Opera world premieres at the Metropolitan Opera, but in its current state, Category:Salzburg Festival is pretty pointless. Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Any category name starting with "People associated with ..." is a WP:OCASSOC liability (which means "unstable" in the long run), so I'd advise against going that path for Salzburg Festival related categories.
I suppose Gerard Mortier would fit in a "Salzburg Festival directors" category (of course Mortier had a quite elaborate career, but being a Salzburg Festival director was one of its defining stages afaik).
I suppose such "directors" people category, with the current Category:Salzburg Festival as a parent cat would be a viable categorisation scheme (of course, with proper category definitions, and properly filled). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Meister und Margarita: pinging the initiator of the category, also letting you all know I proceded with implementing the category scheme I proposed above. May need some further attention, but I think the setup is viable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Francis Schonken, thank you very much for your solution to this problem by re-working the category by removing it from articles where it was a non-defining category, and by creating a sub-category of directors. However, in my opinion you continued the original problem when you added the category to Jedermann (play); although the play is performed at the festival yearly it is not restricted to the festival and has been widely performed elsewhere, therefore the category is not a defining category of the play and I removed it. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with that category's removal from Jedermann (play). It's true that the play is performed elsewhere, but Salzburg is the production most readily associated with that play and its cast is unrivalled, only the Berlin Jedermann-Festspiele (1987–2014) come close. All other productions are only of local or regional significance. Jedermann without attribution refers to Salzburg. I've added that category again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
All right, no worries. As I worked on that article and researched the play more and more, I began to have doubts myself as to whether I should have removed the play. It does stick out from the other Category:Salzburg Festival entries though. I'm wondering if there is a case to be made to add a sub-category of Category:Salzburg Festival founders to the main category so that those people can be added. Also, now that we're on the subject, I see from the Salzburg Festival article that Jedermann was not performed at the festival between 1937 and 1946, and that needs to be reflected in the article on the play, which is currently incorrect on that score. (Update: I've now noted the hiatus in the article on the play.) Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There is however a problem with references to IMDb (such as nine of the refs added yesterday), see WP:UGC (guideline), WP:RS/IMDB (WikiProject guidance) and WP:CITINGIMDB#Disputed uses (essay: "...Sections such as (...) release dates, (...)") --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no reason to doubt the release years of the particular films added; if you find reliable sources that appear to disprove any of the release years, you can correct the information or post the information on the article's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It fails WP:V as IMDb is not a WP:RS, see link to that guideline I gave above (WP:UGC). Apart from the release dates (explicitly mentioned as disputable in the essay), IMDb is not a reliable source for crediting the von Hofmannsthal play for each (or: any) of the listed films. It's not up to anyone to find flaws in IMDb content (which would be a reversal of WP:BURDEN), anyone can remove content that doesn't pass WP:V while not based on a generally acceptable WP:RS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
IMDB can be used as a citation to support the existence of and release year of a film. This is universal throughout Wikipedia. If you find any information that contradicts the cited facts, please post the information on the article's talk page. I'm not interested in discussing this further here. Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no, WP:RS trumps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by a wide margin. And again, please stop putting WP:BURDEN on its head, it's not up to me to find contradictions, if anything, it's up to you to find a broad enough consensus for bypassing WP:RS in this particular instance and/or other more reliable sources to verify the content. Until that happens (which is far from certain in this instance), it would be largely preferable not to have this content in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(I'm baffled why the details of some edits at Jedermann (play) are discussed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music".) Ad rem: I agree with Softlavender's point that the IMDb links are only used to demonstrate that these films exist, which is established practice in many Wikipedia articles. The article is not called "Jedermann in film" where a higher standard of sources would be needed. They are sufficient to establish that a considerable number of films on the subject have been made. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Three-hand technique

User:Kazvorpal has created the article Three-hand technique, a reasonable and useful topic. However, s/he insists on adding to it a list of pieces which are either unsupported by sources, or (for the most part) simply pieces for two, three or four hands, or for keyboard and solo instrument, not representative at all of three-hand technique which, as s/he correctly reports, is "a means of playing three registers simultaneously on the piano, as if one were using three hands." When I twice removed these pieces (on the last occasion one by one, explaining why they were not appropriate, and adding a further explanation on the article talk page), Kazvorpal reinstated them, adding helpfully on the second occasion that "Again you show that you're a bad editor, as well as incompetent to curate this article." In view of my wickedness and incompetence, perhaps other editors might care to look at the article and offer their opinions. --Smerus (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the sources were in the article, but you were either too lazy or incompetent to notice them. I have now duplicated three of the footnotes in the list you kept foolishly deleting without checking for yourself, as well as adding a new one for two more. You can be a big boy and check the others, or at least a real editor who tags them as questionable until I get around to it, instead of a bad editor who wipes out whole swathes of an article simply because you are ignorant of whether such sources exist.
—Kaz (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I invite editors to check for themselves the citations which Kazvorpal offers. Inspection of IMSLP will indicate that nearly all of these pieces are in fact originally written for three hands, pedalier, duet, or keyboard and solo instrument. A number of them in addition are either by non-notable past composers or contemporary amateurs who have self-uploaded their works to IMSLP. Kazvorpal's other remarks speak plainly for him/her.Smerus (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no citations in this article, only to the individual works. Kazvorpal would get a better hearing if there was less antagonism and more focus on improving the article. - kosboot (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Kosboot is of course correct, but inspection of the actual works in IMSLP (whither the citation links) reveals to any music-reader their non-"three-hands technique" status.Smerus (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There are indeed problems in the article: can @Kazvorpal explain how the *Turkish paper (ref 1) is related to playing three parts with two hands? (* Sample sentence: "However, it’s considered to be some deficients about teaching three-hand piano pieces, which are the preliminary of four-hand ones." Can anyone say what this means?) As @Smerus has said, many of the listed pieces are titled "For three hands", and are thus irrelevant to the topic as described by the first sentence of the lead. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of the phrase "three-hand technique" used except in this article. There really is no "three-hand technique'; composers sometimes use 3 staves to delineate musical lines. As such, it's not a technique but a way of clarifying musical notation. - kosboot (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Re. "There really is no 'three-hand technique'": apparently there is, seems like it was first described by François-Joseph Fétis in 1837 as invented by Sigismond Thalberg ([2] – I suppose our article on the technique should mention that article by Fétis). See also Sigismond Thalberg#Thalberg as composer which touches on this (and cites some Fétis but not sure whether it's the same article). In our Thalberg article also this source: Belance-Zank, Isabelle: The "Three-Hand" Texture: Origins and Use, in: Journal of the American Liszt-Society 38, 1995, p. 99–121 – which may be a useful source to Wikipedia's three-hand technique article. Anyone with access to that Belance-Zank article? Further: Mendelssohn got interested & composed three-hand technique pieces: [3] – [4]
This does however not solve the issues with the haphazard list of pieces, apparently rather for three hands than well-chosen examples for the technique. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Some better examples would be Liszt's Un sospiro, as well as some of his Schubert song transcriptions (e.g. Sei mir gegrüsst, Ave Maria, and Der Lindenbaum). But sources would be needed (and preferably, sources explicitly listing them as examples, which would be even better than just citing a score). Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, sources are only mandatory for controversial claims, in Wikipedia. You just named one of the most famous three-hand technique pieces, by one of the three men most famous for using the style. That would be an example of something that does not absolutely need to have a citation. Overdoing demands for citations is a bad habit that new editors pick up when they run into people trying to censor valid information from articles using wikilawyering: Taking general guidelines and demanding they be followed to an extreme, and completely removing anything they can on a technicality, instead of actually fixing them. — Kaz (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Francis for this. Can you or someone advise on editing the actual article, since as you say the pieces in the list (which are not exactly, or at all, "well-known" as the article states) are clearly not examples of 'three-hand texture/technique' and this section of the article (at least) is therefore erroneous and misleading. As Kazvorpal seems unprepared to accept this, is this a case for going to an administrator?--Smerus (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You say that as if you had not deleted three pieces that already had citations proving they were actual three-hand technique pieces, as well as others that were easily verified, something I demonstrated by immediately footnoting two of them. The problem isn't my not accepting your bad edits, it's you making them. When you delete large chunks of an article wholesale that are at least partially valid, you are committing bad editing, especially when your mistake is pointed out to you and you do it again. Perhaps you only have a handful of edits, since clearly you don't understand how Wikipedia works yet, but you need to learn before you go around mutilating articles in your ignorance and general incompetence. — Kaz (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest less discussion of procedures and ripping on co-editors, and instead continue with providing refs and adding of verifiable material (gave some suggestions above), and/or removing of unverifiable material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Einojuhani Rautavaara

Einojuhani Rautavaara, great Finnish composer and one of my favorites, died on July 27, aged 87. I would like the article to be featured on the main page in Recent Deaths section, and I nominated it at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#July 27. However, the article is so poorly sourced that it's not going to fly. I would appreciate a helping hand there, as I'm going off to sleep and can't get to it before tomorrow morning. No such user (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Musician AfDs

I've been tracking AfD cases for a few weeks and today a couple popped up that have me scratching my head: In particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Tazawa, there is a profile page (not her own website) that lists the competition awards she has won and so on... not sure if major or minor. So pinging folks here to trot over there and comment one way or the other. Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See also other articles listed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Susman / Sommacal – all of them now at AfD, apart from Native New Yorker (film). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's very helpful when that discussion is linked at the AfDs. I always have mixed feelings with COI articles wind up at AfD, some may meet GNG but others don't, and while I hate to see actually notable articles deleted, the time sink is incredible to sort them all out. Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on hidden comments

At Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment, there is an RfC which may be within the scope of this WikiProject. Comments would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Rudolf Rojahn

The recent removal of all content at Rudolf Rojahn and conversion into a REDIRECT to Guerilla Opera, without any transfer of content, seems like a speedy delete. It should have been taken to WP:AFD. I have no interest in the article, but I think proper process ought to be followed. I've raised the matter at Talk:Rudolf Rojahn and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted, so that discussion can take place.--Smerus (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: now nominated for AfD by User:Michig.--Smerus (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Genre - subtitle - form

On Talk:Bells Across the Meadows, a discussion began about the composer's addition to the title. As pictured, it reads: Bells Across the Meadows / A Characteristic Intermezzo. So far I understood that the genre is light music. What is characteristic intermezzo? - List of music genres redirects to List of music styles and is of no help. As long as no article mentions characteristic intermezzo, how would we know it's a genre or subgenre, not a composer's caprice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Compare (Busoni):
    • BV 81 – Suite campestre, 5 pezzi caratteristici [Pastoral suite, five character pieces] (1878)
    • BV 100 – Racconti Fantastici, 3 pezzi caratteristici [Fantastic Tales. 3 character pieces] (1878 or 1882)
    • BV 185 – Una Festa di Villaggio, 6 pezzi caratteristici (1881)
Possibly Ketèlbey meant something like a "character piece" that is also an "intermezzo" (dunno, never heard the piece, and somewhat out of my league). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. If it was that particular article alone, I would have stayed on the talk page. It's more general: do we have certain genres of compositions, or is the freedom of the composer to invent them unlimited? Would character piece be one, intermezzo another, for the same piece? What genre are orchestral works with optional chorus? Is secular cantata a genre, or just cantata? Where would a newcomer to this project find help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Composers can, of course, write whatever they like. Accessory to the title they can write "drame symphonique" or "symphonie dramatique", to give only a few examples. Whether or not such qualifiers/descriptors/subtitles/additions/... indicate a genre/style/type/form... is not up to Wikipedians to determine (WP:OR). So we go to the reliable sources describing these pieces.
Examples:
  • A certain composer indicated his O Jesu Christ, meins Lebens Licht as a motet. In the 19th century it was published as a cantata. Only in the 2nd half of the 20th century it was again unanimously listed as a motet in relevant scholarship. Wikipedia shouldn't list it as a cantata, that's why I proposed to include "motets" in this navbox, so that that composition can remain listed there.
  • For another composition by the same composer it is not known what the composer would have called it (while the first pages of the manuscript went lost). In relevant literature one can find its genre indicated as quodlibet, and that became the title by which this work is best known. As it is the only vocal Quodlibet by that composer, groupings "by genre" of that composer's works generally don't make a separate "genre" group for this composition, but group it alternatively with the "songs and arias" (BWV Chapter 6) or with the cantatas (NBA Series I, Vol. 41). Wikipedia can follow either without wrongdoing (as long as it is clear where the classification originates).
  • A few days ago I found BWV 34a indicated as a "secular cantata" in the lead sentence of its Wikipedia article. As neither Bach-digital, BWV nor NBA nor any other source I could find indicates that composition as such I added a {{cn}} after the word "secular" in that lead sentence ([5]).
I think it is all very clear that Wikipedia editors don't make these discriminations: they rely on relevant literature. A difficulty arises when there is a "genre" column in a sortable table listing compositions, and no apparent secondary sources that give a genre specification (an issue that was discussed for instance here). In that case, imho, there's no OR when deriving the qualifier that goes in the "genre" column of the table from the score. In the Ketèlbey example mentioned above I'd probably go for "intermezzo" in that case. Since the article on that composition does not have a table with a "genre" column, I'd just render the subtitle as it is on the printed score, and not elaborate beyond descriptions in reliable secondary sources (as far as I understand none of them offer any specifics on this, so Wikipedians should not "invent" an explanation), so in this case there is no issue to be solved afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
A few more examples:
In fact in none of these cases Wikipedians need to provide an answer, as can be seen in the relevant articles.
Here's one that needed to be solved (for the table with a "genre" column at List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni): the piano piece BV 252 is known as "Berceuse" and as "Elegy". I chose the first for the "by genre" column, as the orchestral version of the piece was titled "Berceuse élégiaque". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • From a note I posted on the Bells Across the Meadows talk-page: For what it's worth, no musical dictionary I am aware of lists 'characteristic intermezzo' as a form or genre, and unless anyone can show different, the words 'A characteristic intermezzo' are undoubtedly a subtitle, not a formal descriptor. Perhaps relevant is, e.g. H G. Wells's Love and Mr. Lewisham. The author appended to his title: "The Story of a Very Young Couple". It is, indeed, the story of a very young couple, but that doesn't prevent those words being a subtitle. See also Conrad's The Secret Agent: "A Simple Tale". These sorts of subtitles were common in English fiction in the Victorian and Edwardian era and were regarded as a relevant part of the titling of the work. The same, I suggest, is true in the present case.--Smerus (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "Compositions by year" categories

I recently got into a dispute with Cote d'Azur in regards to this edit, which, in short, pertains to whether the "Composition by year" categories should correspond to the year the composition was completed versus when it was first performed. I had always assumed in my editing that these categories reflected the year that the piece was composed (or at least completed), but Cote d'Azur offered a different opinion on his talk page. Has consensus been reached on this issue before? If not, I welcome any insightful comments toward a swift resolution. Jg2904 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think composition or at least completion dates make more sense, since the titles of the categories include the word "compositions". Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me more appropriate to use the year the composition was completed. There are many examples of works not being performed until many years after their completion, sometimes after the composer has died. A further complication arises where a composer revisits a piece later in life that had previously been completed and performed. I'm thinking of Stravinsky, but also Panufnik and Rautavaara, who were habitual revisers of their work. In these cases, do we use the date of first completion or the date of revision? Does it depend which version is most often played nowadays? Or do we place works in more than one year category? --Deskford (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd go for more than one year category. It's the chronology that I want to preserve most, because it says the most about a composer's stylistic development. The important thing for me is to avoid nonsense like putting Schubert's String Quintet in Category:1850 compositions. (This hasn't been done yet, thankfully.) Double sharp (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I support Double sharp's interpretation.--Smerus (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this can be complicated. Composing a work often takes many years, but when it's published at the end of that process, that year should be used. For heavily revised works, the last revision, the one that is performed today, is sensible. If more than one version is still performed, more than one year can be used. If the 1st performance was much later, the year of completion is more relevant. In the cited example, at Glamorama Spies, I'd agree with Côte d'Azur that the year of the work's 1st performance, 2000, should be used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(e.c.) Generally, these are dates that, depending on circumstances, can be used to sort compositions chronologically:

  1. First version composition start
  2. First version composition end
  3. Final version composition start
  4. Final version composition end
  5. Date of earliest extant manuscript/autograph (start, partial or early version)
  6. Date of earliest extant manuscript/autograph (end, partial or early version)
  7. Date of earliest extant manuscript/autograph (start, final version)
  8. Date of earliest extant manuscript/autograph (end, final or early version)
  9. Date of earliest extant manuscript/autograph (start, popular arrangement)
  10. Date of earliest extant manuscript/autograph (end, popular arrangement)
  11. Popular arrangement, start of composition
  12. Popular arrangement, end of composition
  13. First publication (in part and/or early version)
  14. First publication (complete final version)
  15. First publication of popular arrangement
  16. First performance (private concert, in part and/or early version)
  17. First performance (private concert, complete final version)
  18. First performance of popular arrangement (private concert)
  19. First performance (public performance, in part and/or early version)
  20. First performance (public performance, complete final version)
  21. First performance of popular arrangement (public performance)
  22. First recording (in part and/or early version)
  23. First recording (complete final version)
  24. First recording of popular arrangement

Most compositions don't have the luxury (or nuisance) of having this full set of possible dates associated with the composition. But the dates can be far apart, e.g. Air on the G string: c.1730 (date #7) or c.1895 (date #15)? – Fantasia contrappuntistica: 1910 (date #1/2/13/14), 1921 (date #12) or 1922 (date #15)? – For the Petite messe solennelle: which date is more important: the date of completion of the piano duet version (1863)? Its private premiere (1864)? Completion of the orchestral score (with another movement added)?

As an example one could take a closer look at the Deutsch catalogue, a chronological list of Schubert's compositions. In principle the compositions are arranged by the #1 date (see introduction of the catalogue), but occasionally such date isn't known, and then the composition is ranged with "similar" compositions (e.g. songs with lyrics of the same text author if there's a prominent group of such songs), or date of first publication, if that publication was during the composer's lifetime, etc.

For Wikipedia's purposes I'd categorise according to date #4 in most cases, or the most relevant other date if date #4 is not available or not generally used (e.g. I suppose a lot of operas go by their premiere date). I'd not generally put composition articles in multiple by year categories, that is, unless there is a consensus among editors that more than one year is highly relevant for the composition. For clarity, the "date" column in the table at List of compositions by Franz Schubert#Works listed in the Deutsch catalogue is intended to sort for date of completion, so compositions that weren't completed on the day they were started (and have enough information on the period of composition) are sorting in a different order than the Deutsch numbers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We have new side bars, {{Lists of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach}} and {{Lists of music by Ferruccio Busoni}}. If there was a discssion, I missed it.

  • I don't like side bars, because they try to navigate away from an article when a reader just enters it. I'd much prefer to have the information in a navbox at the bottom of the page, modestly below the navbox for the composer himself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Nobody likes to scroll through a very long list if you want to be on another page, e.g. (in Bach's case) when one prefers a bullet list over a table.
Re. prior discussion – this is where the idea originated: Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Page length. Somebody apparently couldn't find the bullet lists any more, and indeed before the sidebar they were further down the long article than half its length. None of that is addressed by a navbox at the bottom (which was and still is present in the long Bach list). Yes this is something for long lists that exist in split-out versions: it gives a quick overview as to how the lists are split. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to find a better way to handle split lists. It doesn't need an image. Your proposals don't supply any information about a list being a table or bulleted or both, so don't help a reader with a preference for one or the other. The replaced "boilerplate links" are not needed if you ask me. I have no idea what "external links" means here, - the infobox can have external links, for example a website. - Wikipedia typically has navigation at the bottom, and I think our readers know that. They will also know to click on the last entry in the TOC if they want to get there. - Francis, I don't think that you can expect us to all watch Bach's talk, - and I confess that I have it on my watchlist but rarely look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion should not be in a thread titled "Page Length". It should be in a thread or RfC titled "Sidebar". Thus far no one (except the creator) on this projectwide talk page supports the sidebars, and so far at least five editors disagree with them. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Well then, how difficult can it be to create a separate talk page section title? I did so at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Navigation of articles relating to Bach's compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't personally think they aid the reader (or the article). They appear to me to be confusing blobs of text that the reader isn't going to read. Navboxes at the bottom serve the purpose much better and much more easily and in a better place and better format. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I've followed up on what appears to be a strong community preference by removing the sidebar from three "substantive" articles. I've left it in place for the "list" articles. Opus33 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Information regarding New Age artist Ray Lynch

Before I have begun editing his page on August 2016, most (if not all) of his information was from his official website. After really researching about Lynch's life on Google Books and news articles from "American Radio History", I have discovered that Ray Lynch is extremely notable in the 80s and 90s. The most shocking discovery that I have made about the guy was that sued (and later left) his original music label company "Music West" for allegedly not paying artists like him. There is so much information on the guy on both Google Books and "American Radio History", especially the latter. I really need your help fixing Lynch's article once and for all. You can see many of my sources on the Article's talk page. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_66&oldid=1089922953"