Talk:Instrumentation (music)

Comment

Does anyone else think this section is quite sparse? Or, should the main details be left to the orchestration section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathgregory (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 November 2006‎

I assume the section was "Instrumental properties", given that in October 2009 it was the only article body section besides the heading, but perhaps the comment above refers to the lead. Perhaps "orchestration section" refers to the Orchestration article. Regardless, the article has been fleshed out since then. Hyacinth (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated deletion

To my mind, this revision by Jerome Kohl contradicts the rules of Wikipedia. According to them, we are to support our assertions by WP:Reliable sources. And that fully applies to the items in the "Further reading" section. It seems these items have been chosen at random here. There is no doubt about the necessity of mentioning the Treatise on Instrumentation. In contrast to this classical work, other books in the section are open to question. What make you think that e.g. Alfred Blatter’s book (1997, i.e. twenty years ago) is the most relevant one? Is Alfred Blatter the only author who wrote about instrumentation? Or is his book the most notable guide for those who are studying the art of instrumentation? Why should a reader prefer this publication to other textbooks on instrumentation? Does the book reflect contemporary music that has been elaborating new styles of instrumentation for twenty years since 1997? Maybe Blatter's book has been recognised as a must for the students who take the course of instrumentation in conservatoires, yes? A selected bibliography must be substantiated by WP:Reliable sources. If you can't provide such sources, your list of recommended books for further reading becomes arbitrary. That is why I submit a comprehensive bibliography compiled by an expert. James E. Perone's Orchestration Theory: A Bibliography points out works published by the greatest masters of instrumentation from different countries including Italy, Czechoslovakia (Základy aranžování moderní populární hudby), the Soviet Union (Ivanov-Radkevich), etc. If you do not agree with this annotated bibliography, then adduce WP:reliable sources in order to prove that a book should be recommended instead of another one. --Cubanoid de Castro (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Cubanoid de Castro, you added Perone's work to the section "Other works featuring distinctive instrumentation" and Jerome correctly removed that with the edit summary, "book, not a composition". Perone's work could possibly be used to improve referencing some facts in the article, e.g. for the full citation of Prout 1876 (sic). Alternatively, it can be listed under "Further reading". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Yes, it turns out that the bibliography was added to a wrong section. I aimed at the "Further reading" section, but failed. I don’t understand how it happened. Perhaps I was not completely sober after the New Year. Yet I think that Perone’s bibliography must be added to the article because the coverage of his book is extremely wide, whereas the article’s references are given to the long outdated publications. As for Ebenezer Prout, Perone only points out other works:

1. T229. Prout, Ebenezer. Instrumentation Boston and London Ditson, 1876.
   Original language: English.
   Reprint New York: Haskell House, 1969
   (See also: T230) (See also: GB387)
2. T230. Prout, Ebenezer. The Orchestra. London: Augener & Co., 1899.
   Orignal language: English.
   Reprint: St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Scholarly Press, 1972.
   (See also: T229) (See also: GB387)
3. GB387. Prout, Ebenezer. "Orchestral Combination." Althenaeum 1900:57 (January 13, 1900).
   (See also: T229 and T230)

--Cubanoid de Castro (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please move Perone's paper into its proper alphabetical position. Regarding Prout: I know those citations; I've read the paper. You could use the 1st entry to provide a full citation as requested; there seems to be disagreement about the year: 1876 or 1877 – according to the DNB, 1877 is correct. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)