Talk:Keyboard concerto

Merge

Please vote using the following format: * '''Agree/Disagree/No opinion'''. Comments. (If you want to merge the articles, leave '''Agree''' before your comments. If you do not want to merge the articles, leave '''Disagree''' before your comments.

• Agree. I would like to merge piano concerto and harpsichord concerto. Both are very similar, and a good history of the keyboard instrument could come from merging the two. Essentially, both articles are about the same topic, especially since harpsichord concertos can be performed with a piano instead. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything, so I went and did it. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for merge. The harpsichord, fortepiano, piano, and other intermediary instruments are very intertwined through history and musical heritage. Many pieces of harpsichord music can be adequately performed on the modern piano; thus, solely attributing a piece of music to only harpsichord is misleading. Since the instruments are so intertwined, it is appropriate to have one article for the type of music that can be played on the instruments. Furthermore, the separate pages were short and provided little distinct information. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The harpsichord has its own distinct literature of concerto music from the piano. Of course this includes modern concertos written for it (which cannot in most cases be performed on piano) but also baroque pieces written before the piano was invented, which, while sometimes played on piano (rarely nowadays), represent more of an arrangement. It is absurd not to have a separate 'piano concerto' article, as this has a huge amount of potential history and information on its own, and organ concertos represent something else entirely from both harpsichord and piano. It can easily be pointed out that the harpsichord preceded the piano (which most people know anyway.) But the harpsichord, unlike the fortepiano, does not represent an early form of the piano - it is distinct structurally and sonically. They should no more be confused in this article any more than they should share the same article on their nature.

I would like also to point out that the harpsichord concerto article is of a fair length and with a good amount of content, none of which need be duplicated in the piano concerto article. Plus there is much room for improvement and this is more easily done on distinct pages.

So to sum up, while there is overlap between these topics, it is relatively minor, and they each deserve a separate page: this is wikipedia, we have the space. 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.30.238 (talk • contribs)

Such massive changes should be discussed first, not second. I have reverted your changes. If you disagree, then please discuss this topic here. A number of editors have reviewed the changes I made without finding fault in it. Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia does not have an infinite amount of storage space. To even think that's true is very odd because these pages must be stored somewhere. Wikipedia does have space limitations and does not promote redundant information. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It has become clear that this page is just a personal project of User:Chris53516, who is virtually the only major editor and reverts almost everything he disagrees with, so while every other Wikipedia has separate pages for piano concerto, organ concerto and harpsichord concerto, and the differentiation between these is of a very reasonable nature, it will be impossible for me or anyone else to make this useful distinction on Wikipedia. Incidentally, the 'keyboard concerto' article is currently very short and uninformative, considering its scope.

"Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia does not have an infinite amount of storage space." - obviously, but we are talking dividing an article into three, with storage space of a few kilobytes each at most. The whole of wikipedia is only 4.4 GB [1], that is, much less than the average PC hard drive.

I was discussing the topic here, as you did, and I think I have made my points with clarity. Your response has been just to revert. "Such massive changes should be discussed first, not second." - what you did originally did not constitute a discussion; you stated your intention and then changed it after no-one wrote anything. And Wikipedia is not a democracy - reasonable changes rule, not just popular ones WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY; I am pretty sure that editorial guidelines would support my division of this article into three, and I may find the section when I have time.

In conclusion, I think I made my argument clear before, so I may do the division into three pages. And with regards to your question below, I am fairly knowledgeable about this area, perhaps more so than you. Clavecin 00:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to be arrogant: "I am fairly knowledgeable about this area, perhaps more so than you." This is a completely unnecessary and unhelpful comment with the intent to only do harm. That behavior is not necessary and does not promote good intentions or community. Is that really what you want to do?

I waited for a response from someone, but heard nothing. The content of the three articles largely overlapped, and the instruments have a common history. Thus, it makes sense to have one cohesive article about all three, and maybe even more (e.g., organ). I believe that if there were three articles, they would be short or would overlap a great deal.

If you examine the old articles, you will see that this is the case. The old articles overlapped in content, the listed musical works that were listed elsewhere, and the articles did not provide a cohesive overview of keyboard history. They were stubs, and there will not be enough information to go beyond stubs unless the information were to overlap. Thus, it's a waste of time to do anything other than improve this article until it's too big. Then it can be split into three, if necessary. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On another thought, I also think it will be very difficult to unwind the actual music. How do you differentiate between harpsichord concertos and piano concertos when clearly much of the music can be played on either? Sure, some music is made specifically for one or the other, but during the late Baroque and early Classical period, such distinctions are blurred. How do you propose separating the two other than repeating them on separate pages? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am fairly knowledgeable about this area, perhaps more so than you." - This was not meant as arrogance, or to insult you. In this (now drawn-out) discussion, you have made many assertions about the history of keyboard instruments, how closely they are linked and the history of the concertos written for them. You present your comments as self-evidently true, while the evidence from the article and your contributions here seems to indicate you have limited knowledge of this area (the article itself is not very detailed). I meant to indicate that perhaps my knowledge of this area was more detailed and my opinions should therefore be given some weight, which you do not seem to agree with.

"The content of the three articles largely overlapped, and the instruments have a common history." - The articles do not have to overlap, I will see to it that they do not, with relevant links to the other articles near the top, with an explanation, for clarity. The instruments certainly do not have a common history. See their main articles for an explanation. They all developed separately. They are different in sound quality, etc. (I wrote about this earlier) and all are in common usage today. The only reason harpsichord concertos are thought of as piano concertos is because the harpsichord fell out of use in the 19th century.

Limitations in previous articles are not a reason that they should not exist. All articles start out badly and improve. I think people would be more willing to expand articles on each specific instrument (I would, certainly), rather than a large article on three instruments together.

If we are going to have pages devoted to concertos for different instruments, then each should be about the history of that instrument's relation to the orchestra: since piano, harpsichord and organ are entirely different instruments with different methods of producing sound, they cannot have anything in common on this point. See also that we have separate articles for violin concerto, viola concerto and cello concerto. If you are looking for an article about musical form, the relevant articles are those about the concerto, sinfonia concertante, or concerto grosso.

The main issue about the division (or lack) of these pages is specificity. If someone was looking for an organ concerto, they would want to read an article confined to that subject, likewise for piano concerto and harpsichord concerto. A harpsichordist would want to know about the repertoire for their instrument, an organist likewise, not being interested in the piano concerto. I did an internet search to give some idea of how commonly used each of the terms are:

Google search:

• 3,200,000 results for "piano concerto"
• 98,300 for "organ concerto"
• 53,700 for "harpsichord concerto"
• 42,300 for "keyboard concerto"

Composers overwhelmingly wrote specifically an organ concerto (Handel, Vivaldi, Poulenc), a harpsichord concerto (J.S. Bach, C.P.E. Bach, Mozart) or a piano concerto (Beethoven, Mozart, etc. etc.). It is odd to call an article 'keyboard concerto' in this light.

"during the late Baroque and early Classical period, such distinctions are blurred" - Not really. Mozart wrote some harpsichord concertos specifically for that instrument, then piano concertos specifically for the piano. CPE Bach wrote a concerto for piano and harpsichord, not a blurred distinction but specifically utilising two separate instruments. The only people I can think of who wrote for 'keyboard' are Haydn and Thomas Arne, but essentially the piano concerto begins with Haydn and the harpsichord concerto ends with him, so this small amount of crossover can be maintained, I think. As I said before, the instruments were in use together for only about 20 years. This will take up no more than about a sentence to explain on each page. Before 1750 the piano did not exist (or at least was unknown to all major composers), so baroque harpsichord concertos cannot be considered piano concertos, whether they are played on the instrument or not, becuase they were not conceived for it; likewise with the many modern concertos which were conceived specifically for the harpsichord.

As far as the lists go, I would prefer to see a separate list of piano concertos (at the moment, I think we have a keyboard concerto list), as the number of these is so large. I would list the harpsichord concertos on the harpsichord concerto page and the organ concertos similarly, as they are relatively small in number and would fit well on those pages. Clavecin 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I no longer wish to engage in discussion with you. You are ignoring my points and misreading my statements (e.g., I stated that the pages overlapped--which is past tense and does not imply what could be done with the pages), and you continue to be arrogant about your knowledge of the instruments. What are your qualifications? And who cares about your qualifications if you're going to act this way? If you wish to have these pages all to yourself, then fine. I am not going to fight an arrogant, self-righteous editor. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing your points closely, not ignoring them. You have not replied to any of the points which I have raised in detail, which I have done to your points. If I am being arrogant about my knowledge, address the points at hand, rather than accusing me: on what matters can you prove yourself correct? My knowledge is based on reading about, listening to and playing all keyboard instruments. I am not an expert, and if you can demonstrate that you are right, so be it, but you have simply not done that.

How ironic that you are accusing me of having these pages 'all to myself' when it is you who have immediately reverted everything you disagree with, despite our discussion (going against the established situation in the first place) and failed to address the argument completely after my last two detailed posts, resorting at last to insulting me (while still reverting the pages to match your preferred appearance). Please condsider WP:AGF.

This discussion is now a good candidate for WP:LAME. Let's spend more time improving the article(s). This is going nowhere. Clavecin 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have better things to work on right now than addressing your concerns. I don't have time to argue with someone like you. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Responding to 3O request: I have left this discussion listed at 3O in the hope of attracting an expert in the subject. In the meantime, I will try to help you in a more general way. You need to find a balance between the article's size and scope. Short articles should not be split unless there is a compelling reason to do so; for example, because the content is far too general in its scope and/or not sufficiently interrelated. If the differing types of key concerto are really sufficiently dissimilar to warrant separate articles, then you could easily find enough material to fill them. As it is, they would be little more than stubs.
I think that you both need to put aside your disagreement for now and work to improve this single article to its maximum potential. Then see if you have enough distinct material to warrant separate articles. If you can avoid creating content forks, it might be viable, but I think you need to get to that point first. Adrian M. H. 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Organ concerti

As has been noted above, we should add information about organ concerti. Anybody knowledgeable in that area? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Harpsichord Concerti Throughout the Baroque

The article says: "Concerti for the harpsichord were written throughout the Baroque era" However, as even the article itself states, J.S Bach's 5th Brandenburg concerto was probably the first concerto to feature harpsichord as a solo instrument. It is also believed that it was written in 1719. Therefore, if we accept the general notion that the baroque era started in 1600 and ended in 1750, we can see that harpsichord conerti only began to be written near the end of the baroque period. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.220.106 (talk • contribs)

If you have a good reference, then change the article and cite the source. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody cite a baroque harpsichord concerto that was not written by J.S Bach? I've searched quite a bit and did not find one. the article contradicts itself: it states that "Concerti for the harpsichord were written throught the Baroque era" and at the same time it says that "Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No.5 in D major, BWV 1050, may be the first instance in which the harpsichord appeared as a concerto soloist". This concerto was probably written in 1719, so we ought to fix this outrageous mistake right away. note: we have to remember that while the formal notion is that the Baroque era and the classical period ended and began respectively in 1750, this is a somewhat arbitrary division. the two styles coexisted for some time, and works which can be considered classical (or pre-classical) in style were written as early as the 1720's. If no one can find a Baroque harpsichord concerto that isn't J.S Bach's, then I will edit the page to suit reality....89.139.228.117 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you have a good reference or can't find one, go ahead and change it. I'm not sure who originally wrote that, so you may want to look at the history of the page and ask them directly. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Another third opinion

My piano playing days were long ago, and I spent few days (not years) on either harpsichords or organs. I am new enough at Wikipedia that I can't find the previous articles; I hope that they were better than this one (sorry, Chris.) If I was to look for "keyboard concerto" I would expect to find very modern works, for synthesizer, not the piano, .... On third thought, I'm of the opinion that this page should be a disambiguation page, pointing to piano concerto, harpsichord concerto, organ concerto, and synthesizer concerto (assuming that there are such.) htom 00:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what it would become if or when enough material can be found to make three/four articles of reasonable length. Adrian M. H. 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

YATO (yet another third opinion)

I am not sure whether I should consider myself an expert, but perhaps being an active amateur in classical music is enough.

There is no question that "piano concerto", "organ concerto" etc. are terms by themselves, and very different in many respects. The piano concerto is one of the major types of concerto, and withou any doubt deserves its own page. (And one which is better written than the current one, I am sorry to say.)

I am not aware of "keyboard concerto" being a term usually applied to all of these; is there a verifiable source for that? If so, it would be worth having at least a disambiguation case. It may well be that you can make a case that there is something unifying to be said about all of these concertos. In that case, the best option would be to have a *separate* article on "keyboard concerto", which will (in addition to the general aspects) sections on "piano concerto", "organ concerto" etc., each with its own 'main article', linked via the standard macro. LR 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Those sub-sections with Main article links would potentially create a content fork situation, particularly unless/until significant expansion of these subjects takes place. Now that we have more responses, I will delist this issue from 3O. Adrian M. H. 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Opinion

This is probably like a 4th opinion but here goes:

Another issue you must consider is what to do about List of compositions for piano and orchestra and List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra. For this article, I agree you should work together on expanding each section before you separate the pages. Once each section is a decent length, turn this page into a disambiguation page linking to Organ, Harpsichord and Piano concerto. Also note Category:Compositions for piano is a subcategory of Category:Compositions for keyboard.

So maybe for the two lists you should make List of compositions for piano and orchestra and List of compositions for harpsichord and orchestra and have them disambiguated from List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra. Centy – – 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The title

After rather more years in music than I care to admit, I've never before heard the term "Keyboard Concerto." It would appear to be a Wikipediaism. In music there is reference to concertos in general of no particular kind, and piano concertos, violin concertos, organ concertos, and harpsichord concertos. But not keyboard concertos. While the term is a convenient generalization, we should avoid inventing vocabulary for titular convenience.

I suggest a move to "piano concerto" with the closely related harpsichord concertos as a separate topic.

The organ concerto is a wholly separate form with an independent history and as such should be treated separately. Hayden wrote a dozen of them, recently republished by Barenreiter. The form all but disappeared during the classical and early romantic era (a time when little organ music was written at all), and then reappeared in the late Romantic/early 20th century era of French organists - Saint-Saenz, Widor, Gullimant. Widor used the term "symphony for organ and orchestra," eschewing use of the term "concerto" entirely.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the above comment (except that I have heard the phrase "Keyboard Concerto", informally used for Bach's harpsichord concertos BWV 1052-1065). There is a huge number of works that are unequivocally classified "piano concerto", from Mozart to Penderecki and Kapustin, and another that are unquestionably classified "organ concerto" (as I write, that's a red link!) from Handel to Poulenc and beyond. Reading previous discussions here, it seems that this article is called "keyboard concerto" because harpsichord concertos may be played on the piano. I would completely support a split of this article to "piano concerto", "harpsichord concerto", "organ concerto". The "piano concerto" article could have a comment that the piano concerto repertoire is often extended when harpsichord concertos are played on the piano. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While Google is not really a reliable source, "keyboard concerto" gets 1.5 million hits, and on the first page, the first link is to this article, but the remaining nine are mostly to particular recordings. htom 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I get 42,000 hits for "keyboard concerto" (with the quotes) and just over 2,000,000 for "piano concerto" (again with the quotes). Most of the "keyboard concerto" hits appear to be references to J.S. Bach's works that I know as the harpsichord concertos. I believe the term "keyboard concerto" would be applied retrospectively in this case since the original titles made it clear that the works were for "Cembalo," i.e., harpsichord. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion above as a consensus that this article should be moved to piano concerto, and the non-piano material should be in other articles. May I? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No answer came the loud reply. I'll take it that silence denotes consent. Thank you. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing this. It was very uncomfortable linking to this page from text saying "Piano concerto". ALTON .ıl 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)