Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 74

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76→Archive 80

Voice type initialisms?

At the moment, the article SATB needs some improvement. It lacks references, and it seems somewhat confused as to what it should be about; it includes a lot of information on voice part initialisms in general (although an article for SSAA choir already exists) and very little on SATB choirs specifically. With this in mind, I propose that the article be merged with SSAA choir (which also cites no sources at the moment) into an article titled "Voice type initialisms" or something along those lines. That way, SATB and SSAA choir (maybe in addition to TTB choir, TTBB choir, SA choir, et cetera) could simply be redirects to one page, which could explain the topic of voice type initialisms much more clearly, simply, and efficiently. Alternately, SSAA choir could simply be redirected to SATB, and we can accept that the article simply explains voice parts in general, but I think that in any case these topics probably ought to be consolidated into one page. I'd love to hear thoughts on this. Thanks, Noahfgodard (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Re.
  1. Merging content of both existing articles: proposed, see [1] and [2]
  2. Renaming to "Voice type initialisms" – you'd need at least a few sound sources that indicate this to be a common name for the concept. If so, please initate a WP:RM, which I'd more than likely oppose (I'm not the only Wikipedia editor having an idea about this of course) for SATB being a much wider used name for the concept.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I could support a merge, but I would also have to oppose a name change. "Voice Type Initialisms" sounds like it would be the title of a list of different voice types, not a discussion of the history, use/purpose of them imo. Either way SATB has a huge dominance over the others, at least from the common practice period onwards, so it wouldn't make sense to remove that as the title. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Maybe renaming SATB to Mixed choir might be an idea that could garner more support? – other types, which fall outside the "Mixed choir" concept might then be redirected to, and explained at, Choir#Types; Or, another idea, initiate a "Choir types" article, to which the content of SATB and SSAA choir are merged, which becomes the redirect target of other types too, and which is linked with a {{main article}} template under the Choir#Types section header. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    The proposed rename doesn't work with the present content. The same kind of abbreviation is also used for choirs not mixed, men's choirs (often TTBB) and women's choirs (often SSA), and for instrumental choirs such as saxophones, so "mixed" is too narrow, and "choir" in the sense of vocal groups also. Why not keep simple and as used in almost 1000 articles? The abbreviation is just practical for things such as SSATBB, - how clumsy would that be in words? - I support a merge of all other initials of voice types, and redirects of all kinds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    Agree that status quo for the SATB article title would probably be the best option (that's why I wouldn't change it without RM that would show a, thus far unlikely, consensus otherwise). But there is a point in the OP that the content is somewhat wanting, that it is not well-organised (with e.g. the SSAA choir satellite which doesn't give a satisfactory overview of choirs with exclusively high voices), and in any case under-referenced. So I was just thinking out loud about what a better organisation of the content might be, without prejudice about the other two aspects (i.e., content & references) that need to be addressed anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Noahfgodard makes some good points. I also think this is a classic example where what is required is: 1. to decide the topic covered by the article, then 2. decide the best name for it. (WP is not a dictionary, and does not have headwords.) I think there is clearly a useful topic here which can indeed be described as something like "Voice type initialisms" (or perhaps just "Voice initialisms"), being the generic expression of the parts in a choral work by the obvious string of letters. "SATB" is certainly not a term that describes this concept (AKAIK); it is the archetype of such expressions. But unless participants in the discussion are prepared to discuss both 1. and 2. (which is from past experience sadly unlikely) then this is all a waste of time. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Another point is that the S, A, T and B abbreviations are not exclusively used for choral singers, e.g. "vocal quartet" and "SATB soloists" would in most circumstances be understood as synonyms. Maybe "vocal ensemble" (which is not a synonym for "choir" although it currently redirects there) would be the right place to explain all the acronyms and other terminology relating to vocal forces, together with substantive content on ensemble formations? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Derek Paravicini

Is Derek Paravicini a child music prodigy? Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Italicization of various Medieval movements

Francis Schonken said I should bring this here rather than doing it myself, frankly I don't see why but if the answer is as obvious as I think then it can't hurt. I am suggesting that we should italicize all mentions of Ars antiqua, Ars nova and Ars subtilior because of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC that states "foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English" should be italicized – these three latin terms clearly do not fall under words that "do not have everyday use in non-specialized English". The four Medieval music books I have on me at the moment also italicize all mentions of these terms:

  • Abraham, Gerald; Hughes, Dom Anselm, eds. (1960). Ars Nova and the Renaissance 1300-1540. The New Oxford History of Music. Vol. III. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-316303-4.
  • Reese, Gustave (1940). Music in the Middle Ages: With an Introduction on the Music of Ancient Times. Lanham, Maryland: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-09750-4.
  • Yudkin, Jeremy (1989). Music in Medieval Europe (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-608192-0.
  • And Hoppin's 1978 Medieval music Aza24 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
If they're italicised in Wikipedia (I'm not convinced they should) it would probably be best to use the designated template ({{lang|la|Ars antiqua}}) instead of italicisation by accents (''Ars antiqua'') in most cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're "not convinced" – Wikipedia doesn't work off your opinion, it works of reliable sources and the guidelines. Any admissible disagreement should reflect that. Aza24 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I intended my "not convinced" as an invitation for others to comment. For the time being it can also be read as "no preference either way, while I had no time yet to look into this more profoundly" – the basis of my revert was mostly because of the haphazard implementation (italicising some, not italicising others), in which case de-italicising by two reverts seemed the shortest road to uniformity (and to what had been stable for a long time) – and because of the failure to use the {{lang}} template when this was partially implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Understood, I appreciate the clarification. Aza24 (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just bumping this thread... Aza24 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if italic or not if borderline "English term", but if italic then per the {{lang}} template, as Francis said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sad news: Jerome Kohl

Link to obituary at The University of Washington

Most of you are familiar with Jerome Kohl's work here, as for years he has tirelessly fact-checked, edited, and watched over many of the articles our project covers, particularly 20th and 21st century composers and their works. I'm probably speaking for many when I say I will miss him a lot. Ave atque vale. He was a wonderful guy. Antandrus (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry to see this. I held Jerome in the highest respect: a learned, courteous, witty editor, whose contributions to articles were of the finest quality, and whose thoughts on discussion pages were the voice of scholarly sanity. He will be sadly missed here. Tim riley talk 10:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)"

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)#Deprecate parenthetical citations, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may not know yet, parenthetical referencing has been deprecated. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Navboxes etc to which contributions are most cordially invited from readers of this page. Tim riley talk 09:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As you may know, Wikipedia:parenthetical referencing has recently been deprecated (see WP:PARREF RfC). At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 17#Template:Use Harvard referencing someone wrote: "I have seen that the inline Harvard referencing tended to be used more in musical articles. Currently, those predominate the nearly 600 at Category:Use Harvard referencing from May 2019!" I have reason to believe that the concerned "musical articles" are in fact mostly, if not all, articles in the classical music sphere of interest. So, two things:

  1. Please participate in the TfDs at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 17#Template:Use Harvard referencing and the related one at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Template:Use shortened footnotes;
  2. More importantly: all help in converting parenthetical referencing systems to a more acceptable referencing format (see WP:Citing sources for the acceptable alternatives) would be very welcome. I already did a few, but more help would be vastly appreciated.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would like to help with converting the parenthetical references into other ones, but I'm not sure about some points and navigating WP:PARREF is beyond tedious, while Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing remains outdated. Looking at your edit here, what was the issue with the wikicites moved into the text? Was it the "Anon" part, a lack of repetitions, or something else? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest! Regarding your question: that was an editorial choice. Before the conversion, the article contained Harvard references such as

(Anon. & n.d.(b))

Converting that to a numbered footnote would have looked like this:

[1]

References

  1. ^ Anon. & n.d.(b).
...which is not very reader-friendly (and not even a correctly formatted short reference). Thus I converted all references which had no author name and/or no date to direct references, as an editorial choice to avoid confusion and unnecessary complexities. Other conversions would have been possible, I suppose, but if you know a better solution that would probably best be discussed at the article's talk page.
Re. "navigating WP:PARREF is beyond tedious" – the closure section, WP:PARREF#Parenthetical citation closure may suffice to get a workable grasp of what was decided.
Re. "Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing remains outdated" – feel free to update it, and/or discuss the updating at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, I will try and convert some of the Medieval/Renaissance articles... Aza24 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Scale degrees

Not sure if this is the place for this question but what is the standard for scale degrees on articles about scales? Some articles use numbers, others use C as the default tonic. For example, the top of the Hexatonic scale article lists the blues scale as C E♭ F G♭ G B♭ C, but the blues scale can also be A, C, D, E♭, E, G, A. The Hungarian minor scale article refers to the scale in terms of a step pattern (W, H, +, H, H, +, H), and the Romanian major article describes it as 1, ♭2, 3, ♯4, 5, 6, ♭7, and gives an example of the C Romanian major scale. I couldn't find anything in the Music Manual of Style but would love to know if there's a consensus on how this should be. Shakuran13 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of scale degrees (as in, 1, ♭2, 3, ♯4, 5, 6, ♭7) is quite clear in certain circumstances, but because it is based on the Western major scale, it is not particularly useful as a means of describing scales from other cultures (except as a means of comparison), and is almost useless for describing scales with more or less than seven notes. How, for example, would one write out a whole tone scale or an octatonic/diminished scale using this system? Using C as a default tonic is perhaps the most clear to the average reader, but is also far from ideal, since the given scale could start on any note, of course. Moreover, this system is not particularly well-suited for scales like the whole tone scale and the octatonic scale. Personally, I am in favor of using the whole/half step patterns. They are easy to understand, very versatile (even for scales with quarter tones, for that matter), and fairly unambiguous. Written scales using C as the default tonic could perhaps be used as supplementary examples in certain contexts, but I personally don't think they should be the default. Another option is the use of set notation, but this would likely be unfamiliar to the average reader, and would not accomodate microtonal scales. Noahfgodard (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Upon further thought, it occurs to me that the whole/half(/quarter, where necessary) step system works very well until you have a scale which includes intervals larger than a major second, like the Romanian major scale. Moreover, in the description of scales like this (and the blues scale, for example), it may actually be best to describe them in relation to the major scale, using the "1, ♭2, 3, ♯4, 5, 6, ♭7" system. Perhaps a standard system of writing scale degrees would be somewhat counterproductive, since the effectiveness of each system depends on the scale it's being used to describe. That being said, I still think we should move away from the "start on C, go from there" system, except for use in examples in addition/supplementation to another system. Noahfgodard (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I definitely agree with most/all of this. C as the tonic is certainly useful and illustrative since many people will recognize it as a familiar "do" - but maybe better for a supplementary description. Shakuran13 (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Compare also the method used at Gamut:

T–S–T–T–S–T–T

where "T" is a tone and "S" is a semitone – this method defines the intervals instead of the notes. Compare also the Eastern Slavic Church Gamut defined at http://ecmr.fi/Scanned_Books_etc/AnnalesB340Harri.pdf page 165 (§ 4.1): this scale has a B natural in the lower octave and a B flat in the higher octave, meaning that defining this Gamut can not be done by running from one note to the same note an octave higher (more than one octave is needed to define the scale). If other intervals than tones and semitones are used, the abbreviations used at http://www.bach-chorales.com might come in handy:

Or ½, 1, 1½ for the same three intervals, in which case, for example, the major pentatonic scale could be written as:

M2 – M2 – m3 – M2 – m3

or, alternatively, as:

1 − 1 − 1½ − 1 − 1½

In other words, "Perhaps a standard system of writing scale degrees would be somewhat counterproductive, since the effectiveness of each system depends on the scale it's being used to describe" is maybe the wisest approach. I'd say, choose whatever that can make the issue as clear as possible for a wide audience. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sergiu Celibidache

I reverted a new user who added substantially to Sergiu Celibidache, was reverted back. Anybody familiar with the topic (Abbie Conant) which has dominated the talk page since 2017? I explained WP:BRD, and try not to revert the same thing twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Konstantin Scherbakov

Someone appears to have deleted the article on pianist Konstantin Scherbakov, asserting that he is not notable. Obviously he is notable, but now the article is deleted it is not possible to see how well written it was. There are several pages linking to the deleted page, and these links now lead to an unhelpful statement that the page has been deleted. He is covered by Wikipedias in other languages, and in fact the article in French fr:Konstantin Scherbakov states that it was translated from the English article. What can we do to restore this page? Thanks in anticipation. --94.196.234.146 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ask for undeletion, at WP:REFUND. Given the circumstances you describe, and that the deletion was via an uncontested PROD, this should be granted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I have attempted to do that. Hope I've done this correctly. --94.196.234.146 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Move request

There is a move request at Talk:Trio (music) that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543#Bach's Prelude BWV 543

If others could chip in here, that would be appreciated. In a nutshell Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) is claiming that equating BWV 543 with Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 is original research. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Carlos Kleiber discography at FLC

Carlos Kleiber discography has been languishing at FLC with out much attention for a while now. I would greatly appreciate anyone who could take some time to give any feedback. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Grand Mariscal of Ayacucho Symphony Orchestra

Flagging this for the project. Found it cleaning out a backlog and after determining what I think is the correct English-language common name, I found some sourcing but I'm not super familiar with the notability guidelines around orchestras. It is A7 territory right now following copyright cleanup, but not inclined to further lessen Wikipedia's coverage of non English orgs. Thanks! StarM 00:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

String quartets and Marmen quartet proposed deletion

Classical string quartets are under-represented in Wikipedia. Moreover, I am finding than when I create articles on them, such as the Marmen Quartet, they are being proposed for deletion on the grounds that they are not "notable". The reviewer said that the Banff International String Quartet Competition was "dubious" and treated them rather as if they were a pop music band. Could anyone support the discussion to avoid page deletion and likewise with other classical music groups? Hyperman 42 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven works in more than one category

Hey, for the List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven page, I was wondering what to do with works that could be listed under more than one category (specifically the Choral Fantasy). Should works in lists of compositions pages be listed just once or under as many categories as they might fall under?

Cheers, Hochithecreator (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That list can only be categorised as a list, as it is now. Works should be placed in as many categories as are suitable, but observe WP:SUBCAT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Need for inline citations and further research at Israel Borisovich Gusman

I've recently translated a small article for the Soviet conductor Israel Borisovich Gusman, but I'm having trouble finding English language sources that can be used for inline citations. If anyone has some time or interest, it'd be great to see further improvement to this article. Regards, -Darouet (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason not to cite foreign-language sources; see WP:NOENG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Michael Bednarek: I agree with you completely, but I don't have access to the Russian sources in this case, nor would I be able to evaluate them. Articles are certainly stronger if they have inline citations. One option is to find English language sources when possible, and add them: I've done that a few times and will continue to try over time. Another option — and this would be phenomenal — is to have someone with access to the Russian sources help create inline citations for those too. -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kermit Moore

Hello, I recently made an article for the musician and composer Kermit Moore. It is a work in progress. Feel free to contribute. Thanks! Thriley (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Society of Black Composers

Hello, I recently made an article for the Society of Black Composers. It is a work in progress. Feel free to contribute. Thanks! Thriley (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody please have a look at the recent edits at List of female composers by birth date? An IP editor is putting external (and apparently commercial) links all over the page, adding composers without articles to the list and even replacing Wikilinks with (commercial) ELs (example). I would revert those but do not want to violate 3RR. The editor has not responded to the messages I have left on their talk page. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the latest group of women from Sweden and Denmark and explained that while external links are unacceptable, interlanguage links would be. Please, y'all, help watching other such lists, including List of composers by name, as Jerome Kohl used to do. ... who still has no article, - anybody? Jerome Kohl --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Lists of compositions based on copyrighted catalogues?

Inviting to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 October 28#28 October 2020, first bullet, which puts into question whether Wikipedia can deduce a list of catalogue numbers (and composition names) from a catalogue which is still under copyright (which is the case for most of the catalogues listed at Catalogues of classical compositions). See also Talk:List of compositions by Fanny Mendelssohn#Copyright issues? (but the current discussion is at the first link given above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of symphonies by Robert Schumann (2nd nomination)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of symphonies by Robert Schumann (2nd nomination), thanks! Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

D or D.

@Debresser: the D vs D. abbreviation was decided as part of the extended discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 54#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed, in reply to your question on my user talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I would think "D." – with a period – better follows how we treat "K." (e.g. Symphony, K. 16a (Mozart)) or "Op." (e.g. String Quartets Nos. 1–6, Op. 18 (Beethoven)), although perhaps the latter is not an equivalent comparison. In any case, "D." makes more sense to me as marking it clearly as an abbreviation. Looks like IMSLP uses a "D." as well. Aza24 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, most music catalogues, including the "D." of Deutsch catalogue, are referred to by a code with a period. Even the name of the template itself includes the period. Moreover, the link in the template uses the period as well, as can be see in this part of the code: [[D. {{{number}}}. I am a huge fan of consistency, and abbreviations should have a period, and indeed the usage with a period seems to be the most common by far. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Returned to the earlier section title: this is, of course, about more than just usage in the {{D.}} template:
  • Usage in article text, lists, tables, ... implemented with or without the {{D.}} template
  • Usage in article titles, see WP:NCM: there are several dozens of article titles that currently use the "D" abbreviation.
  • Usage in other places, e.g. navboxes.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, you're right. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I had a look at just an example: Mass No. 6 (Schubert). I noticed that in the external links section, somebody purposefully removed the period from the external link *{{IMSLP|work=Mass No.6, D.950 (Schubert, Franz)|cname=Mass No.6, D 950}}. That is not a good idea in either case: whether we on Wikipedia use the period or not, but when bringing external sources, we should use the format of the external source, whatever it is. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
There have been endless discussions (in MOS context mostly) whether for formatting of the title of an external work the original formatting of the title should be used, or a formatting according to Wikipedia's style guidance. The MOS geeks (excuse my French) have it for the time being: i.e., follow Wikipedia's style guidance for formatting titles of external works. I am not going to refer to some of the rather painful examples in this regard, in order not to open old wounds for the classical music crowd. So, yes, "*{{IMSLP|work=Mass No.6, D.950 (Schubert, Franz)|cname=Mass No.6, D 950}}*{{IMSLP|work=Mass in E-flat major, D.950 (Schubert, Franz)|cname=Mass in E-flat major, D 950}}",as it currently is, is the way it should be under current guidance, whether you and/or I like it or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC) (updated, after changes in the article 12:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC))
Based on my long experience on Wikipedia, I doubt that is correct. Or at least, am surprised to see you say that. Could you refer me to some guideline or discussion regarding this issue, please? Debresser (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Oops, going straight for the old wounds, are you? Here it is, reluctantly, Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Won't raise this here. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually don't really see any discussion in that archive about removing the period. To the contrary, I see User:Drhoehl stating his opinion to keep the period, and User:Francis Schonken arguing that without the period there would be ambiguous names, which also seems to indicate he is in favor of the period. So why was it removed then? Debresser (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, was eventually settled at Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves. Sorry, should have remembered immediately that there was still another step before it was settled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I see. The consensus there was pretty clear, with 4 in favor. Although the argument that the BWV doesn't use the period is not conclusive, since 1. that is three letters 2. in the case of BWV the most common usage is indeed without the period, while in this case of the Deutsch catalogue I see that common usage is with the period. Although I have to say that if the New Schubert Edition omits the dot, then that is indeed a strong argument. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Debresser's general point about the sanctity of the formatting used in external sources (we should use the format of the external source, whatever it is.) Following the guidance at MOS:SIC and MOS:CONFORM, external links are regularly downcased, properly dashed, italicized, straightened, and occasionally have their spelling corrected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
You are right, very minor changes. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Where is this "common usage" of using the period? Just from my observation without the period is far more common. I checked a bunch of my recordings, nine had it without, and only three had it with (and two of those were on the same label in the same series). Arkiv and Presto (both large classical retail sites) also use without. Sheetmusicplus seems to use it too. Worldcat seems to use whatever the source uses. On the flip side, IMSLP as noted uses periods, as does a couple other 'academic' sources I found. So....*shrug* ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Such was my conclusion after opening a few Google search pages. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If it's true that neither is noticeably more commonplace, that would leave it to us to determine which method better serves the reader, and I would still think that's clearly marking it as an abbreviation with the period. Aza24 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works for an RfC that could impact a large number of classical music-related articles. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion for removal of Music eras template

Please join the discussion for the deletion of this template. Make sure you read through the conversation before voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aza24 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Large performing forces

My curiosity about what became of the St. Paul's Charity Children Concerts has led me to gather materials for an article, and also revealed some other gaps: Children's choir is currently a redirect, and I'm not sure if I've overlooked existing articles about mega-concerts. Category:Entertainment-related lists of superlatives is no help; Oxford online has a couple hits for musical Gigantism, in both 19c and microphone contexts, and Monster concert, a term I had though reserved for 16- or 32-hand piano events but which turns out to have to do with Mitch Miller as well. Has anyone worked on a List of largest orchestras or a category that Estonian Song Festival would fit into? Sparafucil (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Chopin and homosexuality

We're having an argument on the Chopin talk page on whether to include a section on Chopin's supposed homosexuality. There are a few issues:

  1. There is very little written on the issue; my search of JSTOR revealed only 2 articles (and considering how much has been written about Chopin in general, I feel that is very insignificant).
  2. Those who want to include the topic base their desire solely on a single source, a recent radio talk by a Swiss music critic (who doesn't appear to have much writing to his credit; searching Google in Germany and Switzerland will produce different results)
  3. One editor wants to base some of the article content on the actual text of the letter which would violate WP:NOR.

So I invite editors to have a look at this discussion and provide some input either on the content or the procedure of considering sources. - kosboot (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up: RfC launched

Please participate at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RFC: Chopin and Sexuality. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Article titles

I have written a new article Scherzos (Chopin), using Ballades (Chopin) as a guide. This seems to be the standard WP:MOS for article titles related to Chopin. Redirects do occur, e.g. for Chopin's Barcarolle, but Barcarolle (Chopin) is the accepted title. A new title

does not conform to the rules. Sometimes redirects like the Elvira Madigan concerto (yes!), Handel's Messiah, Fauré's Requiem are allowed, but there do seem to be rules. For example Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel) is standard. Mathsci (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying here what I already wrote at Talk:Chopin's compositions for piano and orchestra, but since the discussion has moved here (without proper notification BTW)...

Applicable guidance is at WP:NCM#Compositions (classical music) and WP:AT. Anyhow, descriptive titles (as opposed to a genre of composition with a clear name), such as "last sonatas" or "compositions for violin and piano", often combine better with natural disambiguation, hence, for instance:
Again, if this has to move anywhere, a WP:RM should be initiated first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC) (updated 08:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC))

Re. "... Schubert's compositions for violin and piano, which was formerly Works for Violin and Piano (Schubert), and should perhaps be changed back, using lowercase letters for the instruments" – rather nonsensical:

Please get your facts straight! This kind of muddling with facts, leading to unfounded suggestions (a page can not be "changed back" to an article title it never had) is imho hardly a useful contribution to the conversation. Besides, the "Works for violin and piano (Schubert)" and "Works for piano and orchestra (Chopin)" suggestions don't conform to the applicable guidance, so they can be rejected out of hand. I think I was right from the start: WP:RM is the only way forward if you want to see these article titles changed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This conversation is hard to follow, but at the least I don't think surnames alone should be used, especially when some articles uses full and some surnames. If we don't call Frédéric Chopin's article "Chopin" then we should call it "Frédéric Chopin's compositions for piano and orchestra". BTW "Schubert's last sonatas" is hardly an appropriate name, the typical reader will have no idea what genre is being referred to, should at the very least be "Schubert's last piano sonatas" though in my mind, "Late piano sonatas (Schubert)" sounds best – akin to Late piano sonatas (Beethoven). I'm not convinced titles like "Piano concertos by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" do anything but create a mouthful, especially when used inconsistently with ones like "Piano Concertos Nos. 1–4 (Mozart)". Aza24 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Just a comment on what redirects are "allowed" (User:Mathsci above): Surely our aim is to help users get to the information they want as quickly as possible. Hence, any search term that a user might reasonably use should be acceptable as a redirect to the actual article they need. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hence my recent redirect for Schubert's impromptus (although I'm a bit surprised to see the 3 concert pieces also there). But the correct titles are Ballades (Chopin), Scherzos (Chopin), Nocturnes (Chopin), Preludes (Chopin), Études (Chopin), etc with redirects to help readers. The title Piano concertos (Mozart) has a mixed history, e.g. Mozart piano concertos. The title Late string quartets (Beethoven) is what I expect. For Janáček, I'm a bit confused with where to list operas, quartets, sonatas, etc. A problem of accents? Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Using sheet music to determine scoring

So this has come up at Chopsticks (waltz). Would appreciate others add their input. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The IMSLP paraphrases are for the polka theme (in 2/4) for the primo part (one hand) and the secondo part (two hands). One of the versions is straightforward with variations labelled from 1 to 24. The other has very complicated syncopated cross rhythms in the secondo part, with 6/8 or 3/4 against 2/4 and whimsical titles, including a fugata on the theme of B-A-C-H, a gigue, a funeral march, a requiem, a waltz, etc. Whoever was trying to play the primo part would probably have had a headache unless they were one of the Russian collaborating composers, in which case they were probably ... Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Though the question itself is still kinda relevant for the general sense. Would looking at a sheet music to determine the scoring constitute 'original research', or standard knowledge? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not original research. It is the same as being able to read. If we have a book about music, with musical quotations and explanations, how could anybody write material? On the other hand, we cannot use the bare score (a primary source) for creating content. Taking the Late string quartets (Beethoven) as an example, there are plenty of well written commentaries, many with musical quotations. Unfortunately, for specific Beethoven quartets, some of these musical quotations have been rendered in raw lilypond code. These has been disabled for a long time. Usually jpeg, png or svg images can be created on commons; that has many advantages. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"List of compositions/works"

Please join the discussion at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Works (and see this bizarre CSD), where further input is needed. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Participation invited in Frédéric Chopin RfC

An RfC has been opened to add article content concerning speculation as to the sexuality and gender-related discussion of Frederic Chopin. Please comment here. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Already launched on this page over a week ago. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Sonatas

Please join the discussion at Template talk:Sonatas as to whether to delete the entire "By composer" section. intforce (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to requested move

Please see Talk:Lully#Requested move 18 January 2021. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_18#Category:Trecento_composers_etc.

Proposal to rename all "Trecento" or "foocentro" categories to the numbers. Please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Musical repertoire

Please join the discussion at Template talk:Musical repertoire regarding whether to remove the composers from the navbox. Cheers, intforce (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Busoni's list of repertoire pieces

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni. Please participate in the discussion there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: <score> broken

This is a six-month follow-up to the archived topic <score> broken.

The <score> element was initially expected to be broken for three days but has in fact been broken for over six months. This is due to T257066 Extension:Score / Lilypond is disabled on all wikis, which depends on several issues marked as "Restricted Task". Given that this outage has continued for over six months with little or no public movement, can we conclude that the <score> outage will continue indefinitely and therefore begin to make plans to transition from <score>? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I was never really a fan of <score>. Music notation is extremely intricate; producing high-quality results takes a lot of time and dedication. Just look at something like File:Chopin - Ballade No. 4 - M. 1-3.svg (which at one point combines four voices on a single stave): even using professional software like Dorico, it takes a lot of manual adjusting to get it to look right. While LilyPond can produce high-quality output, it may require manual tweaking to do so; using default engraving rules, LilyPond scores can be very ugly. And as you mentioned, <score> was never really a priority task for Wikimedia. SVG support has been proposed 8 years ago, and nothing has been done since. As a result, scores are an eyesore on high dpi displays. Not to mention the horrible support on Mobile. In summary: I would propose replacing <score> whenever high-quality engravings (preferably SVG or high-resolution PNGs) are available. They look better, don't clutter up the source, and work properly on mobile. intforce (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User adding many articles about women composers and promoting them widely

I'd like to get more opinions on the work of T. E. Meeks, a relatively new editor who has been embarking on a project to write many articles about women composers ... and has been promoting them very widely indeed; some of their edits have been very much concerning. Any thoughts would be appreciated at User talk:T. E. Meeks#Your edits. Graham87 05:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl

Jerome Kohl, as you could read in the DYK section earlier today, was a music theorist, known internationally as an expert in the music of Karlheinz Stockhausen. As a Wikipedia editor, he handled that topic almost alone. Let's watch the articles, - it's quite a legacy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

John Barcellona

I'm not sure this person is notable. It's been tagged for nine years. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bearian: after looking through the article, and online, I'm inclined to think they're not. However, they were nominated for a Grammy (see Criteria for musicians and ensembles #8), though coverage in reliable sources may be too lacking to support this. A good candidate for AFD I think, regardless. Aza24 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied

Hi. I have a situation that I think needs fixing, and it's the following. The article Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied is about a hymn by Matthäus Apelles von Löwenstern. There are, however, many other works with this name, which are all listed at Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (disambiguation). Based on pageviews, the hymn by Löwenstern is clearly not a primary topic, as it consistently gets less than 5 views per day. I also can't see another reason for why it could be considered the primary topic. Therefore, the current Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (disambiguation) should be moved to Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, and the current Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied should be moved to a more specific title. Having no knowledge of classical music nomenclature, what I'm here to ask is: what should this new title be? Lennart97 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The habit is (mostly) to have a hymn (text & music) at the page name without disambiguator for these German titles that may as well refer to a hymn as to any number of other compositions – that is, even if, e.g., a Bach cantata with the same name is many times more popular than the hymn itself. If you want it differently, I suggest a WP:RM. Note also, that the DAB page was only started recently, and that the somewhat more page views it got (less than 25 over the last month) are probably largely due to me getting it started & expanded in the course of that month. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Thanks for the reply! This is exactly why I decided to come here and not go straight to WP:RM. I understand why the hymn would be the primary topic, looking at it that way. I also hadn't noticed that all of the musical compositions listed at the disambiguation pages just redirect to lists of works, not standalone articles.
I do notice, however, that there is also Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), a hymn in its own right, though much more recent and (probably) less influential. Does that change anything? Lennart97 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, when the article on the 20th-century hymn was written I opposed it usurping one of the spellings of the German title without disambiguator. That's why I think a WP:RM is needed for any solution that would not agree with at least some editors. Pinging Gerda Arendt whom I remember to have had some opinion on the subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This one is extra tricky, because it's not a unique German hymn, but the translation of a line with which 3 psalms begin. In a way I don't care enough right now to sort it out. - I am quite happy with the uniform naming of the Bach cantatas, regardless of the "primary topic" evaluation, if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The point made by Gerda about it also being the opening line of 3 psalms is a good one. Because of both that and the potential confusion caused by the different spellings of it, I suggest to make Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied a disambiguation page, have the alternative spellings redirect there, and move Löwenstern's hymn to Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (von Löwenstern) (unless there's a better title for it?). If no one here objects to that outright, I'm quite happy to take that proposition to WP:RM. Lennart97 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Well, what I said is that starting a WP:RM is exactly what I'll do, if no one objects outright. Since you apparently object outright, I'm not going to bother trying to make this move happen in any way, because 1. I am in no way familiar with the topic of classical music and 2. I don't care that strongly about it. Lennart97 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be to write an article about the Löwenstern hymn. (no "von" in a disambiguation, btw)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied is an article about the Löwenstern hymn. It is short (room for expansion I'd say!), but no longer a stub. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
sorry, I didn't look deep enough --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Youngblood Brass Band

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Youngblood Brass Band and assessing it? It's not clear how the band meets WP:NBAND, but maybe this is a case of WP:NEXIST. The article was created in 2006 and over the years it might have been primarily edited by band members or fans. Its talk page had no WikiProject banners or formatting until I tried to clean things up a bit; so, the article never seems to have been properly assessed. I'm not sure whether this genre is covered by this WikiProject, but some other articles in the same category do have this project's banner on their talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

A formal notification to the project of an AfD mentioned in passing above. --Smerus (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin featured article review

I have nominated Frédéric Chopin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Smerus (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Image and media discussion on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

See an image and media discussion at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Excessive images and files; life summary? Aza24 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Titling

I'm preparing a new article about the suite that Fauré arranged from his incidental music for a French adaptation of The Merchant of Venice, called Shylock. I am unsure whether the title of the article should be "Shylock suite" or "Shylock (Fauré)". Grateful for views on this. Tim riley talk 16:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say either Shylock (Fauré) (stylized Shylock (Fauré)) or Shylock Suite (stylized Shylock Suite), but not Shylock suite (without capitalizing the "s" of Suite). I'd suggest the first of these proposals unless you're going to write nothing about the original 1889 incidental music for Edmond Haraucourt's Shylock play in the article you're setting up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that. It seems sensible, and I'll go with it, unless there are contrary suggestions here over the next few days. Tim riley talk 17:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Well if this focus is on the suite and not the original incidental music, Francis's second suggestion (Shylock Suite) might be the clearest. Though I would think the ideal format be an article focused on the incidental music—titled Shylock (Fauré)—with a later section on the suite (similar to the format of Peer Gynt (Grieg) or A Midsummer Night's Dream (Mendelssohn)). Aza24 (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
... and Pelléas et Mélisande (Fauré). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd go for Shylock (Fauré), like Francis, and cover the incidental music at least briefly, with redirects from the other sensible alternatives readers might search for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, created the redlinks at List of compositions by Gabriel Fauré. Suggested navboxes: {{Gabriel Fauré}}, {{The Merchant of Venice}}. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Any comments?

There are several points of disagreement about a new article, and comments would be most welcome at Talk:Shylock (Fauré). Tim riley talk 13:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_74&oldid=1020244527"