Talk:List of composers by name

The creation of this article

This article was created using the "unclassified composers" on the List of composers. The discussion which lead to the creation of this new list may be read here - Talk:List_of_composers#Request_for_Comment:_List_of_composers. To summarize, the discussion was centered around the position that the list would be too long, redundant and uninformation on one hand, and on the position that an alphabetical list was a useful research tool for those who were not well-versed in the music history and that the length issues could be settled by creating shorter sublists as the need became apparent, using alphabetical classification to create such lists, on the other hand. The idea of differentiating between "composers" and "songwriters" was also discussed, and although that issue was not completely settled, it would seem that this list of "composers by name should also contain songwriters, according to the dictionary definition of the word.

• The list is currently not complete, as it was being dismantled to be classified into period and nationality lists. Contributors are encouraged to add composers who should be on this list, which should ultimately include all composers of music. Musikfabrik 10:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Musikfabrik wrote: "it would seem that this list of... composers by name should also contain songwriters, according to the dictionary definition of the word."

I disagree. I would object to reclassifying all songwriters as composers on utilitarian grounds, since most readers looking for information about composers are unlikely to want information on people conventionally referred to as songwriters, and vice versa. The distinction that the general public makes between "composers" and "songwriters" is a real one, even if it is somewhat arbitrary, and even though there are certainly overlaps between the two categories.

However, wishing to avoid further dispute, I withdraw myself from this matter, and leave it to other editors to determine the appropriate inclusion criteria. I do suggest, Musikfabrik and Dafoeberezin, that you limit your contributions for now to those people conventionally referred to by the general public as composers, in case other editors contest the classification of songwriters as composers. I am sure you will find plenty of such material to keep you busy for a while. You also ought to seek wider input from other editors, through WP:RFC, or by posting a request for input to appropriate discussion pages concerning composers and songwriters. Rohirok 14:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I did understand that you disagreed with this, but even you had to agree that the dictionary definition of the word "composer" had to include songwriters. I did point out that no conclusion was reached since the point was not completely discussed. I believe that I presented a fairly strong case for inclusion. I have not seen a strong case for exclusion, other than "that's what's done"...I wish a stronger case would be made.

• I do think that your logic makes quite a few assumptions about what people who are not specialists would or would not do. I don't believe that most people make a huge distinction between composers and songwriters as it never occurs to do so. However, I do agree with you that this should be put to discussion, so I will put the question through WP:RFC and see what the general reaction is. Since the question is about how the general public would react when searching this type of inforation, it seems more appropriate to me to ask this question to non-specialists to see what they think. Musikfabrik 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should "Songwriters" be refered to as "Composers"

This is a dispute about whether or not "Songwriters" may properly be listed in the general list of composers by name16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I don't agree with the distinction being made between "composer" and "songwriter". To quote the dictionary definitions in two standard dictionaries-

• Merriam-Webster = [1]

one that composes; especially : a person who writes music

• Cambridge Dictionary of American English = [2] A person who writes music

There is no distinction bectween the person writing and what is written. So, someone who writes symphonies and someone who writes songs are both composers.

The definition of "Songwriter" is as follows -

• Merriam-Webster = [3]

a person who composes words or music or both especially for popular songs

• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary = [4]

a person who writes the music and words of songs

So, clearly, given these definitions of the word, a composer may not necessarily be a songwriter, but a songwriter must be considered to be a composer.

The second point is that many works considered to be "classical" in terms of music history taught at universities is actually popular music: John Gay's "The Beggar's Opera" is in every general music history book that I know of, yet it's very clearly a book musical with popular songs. Much of the Instrumental and religious music of the Middle ages and the renaissance is also clearly popular song. What does one call a Steven Sondheim Musical when it's being done at the New York City Opera? What about Philip Glass' Songs of Liquid Days? The lines between so-called high-art and more popular forms have never been clearly defined and are probably less clearly defined now than in any other period in history.

Thirdly, the argument that "In contrast, a composer is generally understood to be someone who writes pieces or works (usually longer than "songs") within various classical genres, but also jazz or even ragtime. When's the last time you heard a pop songwriter referred to as a composer, or a classical composer referred to as a songwriter?" which has been put forth fails to hold up to analysis- "understood" by whom? If a composer writes works longer than "songs", than what happens to Fauré, Schubert, Duparc and any number of composers? People do call songwriters composers and they also do call composers song writers.

This last point is probably the most important because "people" (or the "general audience" refered to in the principal in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions "articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.") generally don't know enough about the subject to make the distinctions in the first place. The entire point of setting up this general alphabetic list was to provide a way for the "general audience" to be able to find materials without having to take a music history class first. If these people don't know what "baroque" means or whether or not William and Robert Schumann were related, how can you expect them to make the distinction between "composer" and "songwriter"? And why should they? Encyclopedias are for breaking down hierarchies, not building them. Musikfabrik 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have already made my views clear earlier on this discussion page, and on the discussion page of List of composers, but I will repeat them here for the last time. I have concluded that lumping songwriters in with composers will be less useful to the reader, not more, since readers looking for information on composers are unlikely to desire information on people conventionally referred to as songwriters. I also believe that expanding the scope of this list in such a way will make this list more of an indiscriminiate collection of information, and thus a probable candidate for WP:AFD in the future. List of composers in its former state was kept from deletion only because there was no consensus. The problems that list possessed will be possessed by this list in even greater measure if all songwriters are listed as composers. It's not the role of Wikipedia editors to break down hierarchies, or to build them, but to accurately report information in a way that is most useful to the reader. Sometimes this includes using pre-existing hierarchies and popular distinctions, even if there are technical quibbles and exceptional cases that must be acknowledged. Having voiced my opinion, I leave it to other editors to determine consensus on this matter, as I have no further interest in the dispute. Rohirok 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC from third parties

I have created this section for those responding to the RfC, who don't necessarily want to get involved in dialogue, but simply to make a statement. I hope this will be respected. Tyrenius 01:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is purely a personal response without any authority, but I would look for songwriters if I wanted to find out who had written songs (short pieces with lyrics) and for composers if I wanted to find who had written extended music, usually (but with some exceptions) without lyrics. Some people would qualify for both. Tyrenius 01:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Composers of popular music are composers in their own right; they simply work in another genre than the "classical" (with a small "c") composer. However, not all songwriters may be considered to be composers. A songwriter generally develops the lyrics to a song, and may or may not create the melody (or at least the primary melodic themes, or "hooks" in popular music parlance). For me, the crossover from songwriter to composer occurs when songwriter also is a major (if not the only) collaborator in the orchestration of the song. (And, yes, I'm using the term "orchestration" loosely here; one typically orchestrates a rock song for an ensemble of lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass guitar, and drums, though other combinations are possible and likely.) The distinction between the two terms is not always clear, and inclusion/exclusion in a "list of composers" needs to be taken on a name-by-name basis, possibly.

Examples: Bob Dylan is a songwriter; Elton John is a composer (especially considering he typically creates only the music, and not the lyrics, to "his" songs). OscarTheCat 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the exclusionary arguments above have held water. The distinction being made with this list is related to the typical audience a composer attracts rather than the mechanics of musical production. There are rock composers, jazz composers, Indian composers, film score composers, broadway composers, etc etc. If we want to follow the intuitions of prospective readers, as mentioned above, then I suggest we construct a Virtual Record Store with the typical Rock, Pop, Jazz, Alternative, Classical areas seen in those establishments. One problem with that will be that the actual Classical era of Mozart et al will become Classical-Classical, but that places the problem exactly where it should be. paramucho 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Paramuchoparamucho 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Since indiscriminiate collection of information, which is an official policy, has been invoked, it would seem that a closer look at that would be indicated-

The policy lists several cases in which this policy has been seen as qualifying as an "indiscriminiate collection of information"-

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
2. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
3. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
4. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
5. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
6. Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
7. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article.

This article is none of these and if a general list of composers does not have its place here (with inclusion governed by Wikipedia's own notority guidelines regarding music), then I must confess that I don't know what does. However, other editors should comment on this issue, to see what the general consesus would be. Musikfabrik 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As a non-expert, I would expect songwriters (who write melodies and not just the text) to be included in the list/category of composers. That seems logical for me at least. --GunnarRene 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should include songwriters who write the tunes and tones and not just the lyrics. Peter O. (Talk) 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeremiah Jacquet

Is this guy a composer? Mathiastck 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I have just reverted an edit by David Shankbone, which removed the name of one Paul Wehage on grounds of non-notability. I indicated in my edit summary that I was reverting this edit regretfully. This is on grounds that (1) the list does not specify notability as a criterion for inclusion, and (2) there are a great many other names on the list, also redlinks, that may be no more notable than Mr. Wehage (e.g., Pierre-Nicolas La Hossaye, Michel Angelo Mendoza, Keir Ramshaw), so why single him out for special treatment? Wikipedia policy of course discourages inclusion of non-notable information in general but, if it is to be applied to this presently indiscriminate list, it seems to me that some criteria must first be established. Second, a notice ought to be placed at the top of the list, specifying that it is to contain only "notable" composers, and define notability for the purpose of this list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I understood so far that notability was established by an article. Now I see many red links with an article in a different language. Are they wanted? If yes, shouldn't we use the template for interwiki-links, example Ingemar Åberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

An interesting question. In the four years since I posted the above remark, the redlinks were weeded out and a notice added at the head of the list, which currently reads "it includes only music composers of significant fame, notability or importance who also have current Wikipedia biographies". Several weeks ago I began to notice the wholesale addition of names by an obviously well-informed editor who unfortunately does not have a User page. Most of these names were bluelinks, but a few were not and so I deleted them. Then this new device was added, which I think has the merit of identifying which names have not got articles on the English Wikipedia, but are nevertheless sanctioned on other Wikipedias. I think there are two questions here: (1) should retention of a name on this list require an article on the English Wikpedia, and (2) if not, should the interwiki-link format be substituted? I have to admit that this is the first time I have seen that template—up until now, the only way I knew of linking to an article on another Wikipedia was to use, for example, [[:ca:Isaac Albéniz|Isaac Albéniz]], which not only does not warn the reader that the article is not on the Wikipedia of the language currently being read, but will display a bluelink regardless of whether the indicated target article exists, for example: Nonexistent article. Is it possible that there are "bluelinks" of this sort embedded in this list?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

To the last question: the blue of those is slightly more pale. The template was introduced to me by Michael Bednarek, and indeed, once there is an article in English, the "other language link" will disappear. As long as the lead just says "current Wikipedia biographies", but not specifically English, the additions seem valid. (I removed one before I noticed, but would restore if that's the decision.) How will it be determined? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, a composer is notable if there is an article that satisfies notability criteria on any Wikipedia (even though standards do vary from one to another), and it sounds like you agree with me. If this position is to be adopted, it will of course be by consensus. Since there is no question that composers in this list should be notable, and criteria have already been established for some time now, the only question is whether the phrase "who also have current Wikipedia biographies" should be interpreted to mean "on any Wikipedia", or "just on English Wikpedia". Does this really require a formal process of announcement and casting of opinions, or is it sufficient to allow a week or two for further comments to this discussion, in order to see whether there is actually any opposition? It appears that I owe Michael Bednarek a "thank you" for passing on information about that ingenious template. I shall stop using the other one immediately, since it will continue to show as a bluelink, even if the linked article on another Wikipedia is removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am with you to just wait for further comment, and brought back the one I had removed, for consistency, with the template ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Include songwriters?

There's a section above that's now nine years old, about this subject. So maybe time to address it again. I see there are some songwriters included in this list, like Irving Berlin, Stephen Foster, Frank Zappa. Should they be included in this list? If we open the gates to all songwriters, then the list will become unmanageable. Of course, songwriters who composed other stuff in addition to songs would be fine for this list. Composing a score for a musical play would apparently be enough to qualify for this list, but maybe not writing a standalone song that merely happens to be on the same album with other songs. What do people think about this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is well-taken. I notice that you include Frank Zappa in your list of examples, and he certainly falls into the category of songwriters who also "composed other stuff". (On the other hand, Schubert was also a "songwriter"!) Since List of songwriters redirects to List of singer-songwriters, perhaps something could be negotiated with the editors involved on that list to get the redirect changed to a self-standing list, and then put a link in this article. There remain the difficulties you mention, concerning how to determine the distinction between "composer" and "songwriter".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that there are a lot more songwriters than there are other composers, so it might make sense to use more than one Wikipedia list to cover songwriters. For example, in addition to the list of singer-songwriters, there's also the list of Songwriters Hall of Fame inductees. If we exclude from this composer list people who are songwriters (and haven't composed anything else), would we have to remove many people who are presently listed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

References?

This list of exclusively people with an article has so far relied on references in these articles, and a reference list would get rather clumsy if complete.

I am not sure where to place Magister Franciscus, a name of a title and a given name, but no surname. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Aza, do you hear me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry was not watching the page (will do so now). Franciscus should be placed in F, as he is referred to as "Franciscus" not "Magister" of course – this is how it's done with Grimace who sometimes has the "Magister" title. I can remove the references if you want, but I don't think there's any guideline that actually supports such a decision, since this is a list, not a category. Although looking at the scope of the list, maybe common sense veers on the side without references since as you say, it would get rather clumsy. Aza24 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)