Talk:List of compositions by Anton Bruckner

Motets list

There's odd space breaks in the section and several pieces are listed as being named "I couldn't find it in Watson's book". Could someone who knows Bruckner better clean this up? Its not uncommon to have gaps in catalogue numbering and if the gaps are to be pointed out, there's better ways of doing so. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What's needed is someone who has Grasberger's WAB book. Other than that, it's just a matter of finishing the sorting. James470 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any reference to a Bruckner String Quintet from 1885 in the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. I have just aquired Ondine's 'Anton Bruckner - Symphony in F minor / Adagio' ODE 920-2. Ondine quote All Music .com 'The Adagio is top-drawer Bruckner from 1885'. Ondine tag it as 'Adagio from String Quintet' in Gb. I'm no expert, can a musicologist please advise. Does it have a WAB catalogue number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RPMeyer (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're expecting an expert to answer you question on Wikipedia? Don't hold your breath, pal.

Prior to writing the first draft of String Quintet (Bruckner), I consulted the score from the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe (this is the truth, but on Wikipedia I could just as easily claim to have doctorate degrees in theology, so you can't know for sure if I'm in fact telling the truth on this) and I saw that this F major piece, WAB 112, has a slow movement in G-flat major. Bruckner liked such relationships for slow movement—take the Third Symphony for example. James470 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-ordering

I have re-ordered the sub-lists, so that they are now more in accordance with the classification of the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WAB

Hi. I've just had another look. One thing I notice is that each entry has WAB. Maybe this is not necessary? Perhaps WAB could just go at the top of the column, with each entry just having a number? --Kleinzach 23:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This was a bit of a dilemma for me. I do see such catalog abbreviations in the columns back in various tables on WP and IMSLP and do see the benefits: it is short and simple and keeps the numbers in the columns short. On the other hand: it is not ideal either. See for example Brahms which has Op., WoO and Anh. numbers. This you could all have in one column called ID, or maybe 2 if you like to separate Op. from Catalog numbers. Also technically such practice is not resulting in a uniform column naming. But as I said a dilemma, on which I failed to have a conclusion for my self yet. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

List of compositions by Anton Bruckner

Dear LazyStarryNights,

Your current draft List of compositions by Anton Bruckner is ordered according to Grasberger's WAB classification.

I have several problems with the WAB classification:

• Grasberger's classification puts Bruckner's works alphabetically in arbitrary sub-ranges and does not put them in chronological order.
• Her classification contains some errors - e.g., WAB 20, which is a double of WAB 30 and thus does not exist.
• The names, which she uses, are referring to the first edition and are not always in accordance with those currently used in the Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition - e.g., the Messe für den Gründonnerstag, which she refers as Christus factus est.
• Moreover, she puts some works, as Am Grabe (WAB 2), in a sub-range, which is not in accordance with the Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition.

Therefore, a second page (List of compositions by Anton Bruckner) has been created, which puts the works chronologically by year of composition and in sub-ranges, which are in better accordance with the Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition.

Fore all these reasons I would suggest that your List of compositions by Anton Bruckner would be more inspired by the current page List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, which I have recently revised, than by the - for me quite obsolete - WAB Classification. I would put the WAB numbers as reference in the last column of your table(s).

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: The Apollo-March of 1857 (classified by Grasberger as WAB 115), was actually composed by Béla Kéler and should thus not been reported in the "List of compositions by Anton Bruckner". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually my draft list contents was based on List of compositions by Anton Bruckner and not so much on Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner.

I did not add or throw away data from the original article, just restructure, with the only exception of some additions from Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner for WAB 127, 128, 136, 139, 140, 141, 143 which were missing in List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. Ideally these articles may need to be merged if you follow similar merges that happened for other composers.

The default sorting is based on the WAB numbers, but since this is a sorted list table you can sort on date as well. Would you suggest that the date columns should be moved to the very left and become the default sorting? It is a possibility, only I am worried that is would made the list deviate from similar lists, where in most cases the catalog ID's are in the left column, regardless of whether it is a chronological catalog numbering or not.

As for the WAB 115: this poses another question: preferably I'd keep such works in the list for the sake of completeness, but maybe with a more clear indication of that it is no more thought to be Bruckner's. Maybe a strike through could be a solution? LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sure Réginald is making some good points here, however my suggestion would be to let LazyStarryNights carry on with the list based on the WAB numbers (as default sort), and then work in notes to deal with the various problems and anomalies. If Réginald still feels the information is misleading we can review the page again then. --Kleinzach 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Such comments are already in the Notes column as per the original articles, which already indicated the problems and anomalies (of which probably many are already thanks to Reginald's contributions). In the meanwhile I also have some extra info for our sorting dilemma. While it appears in the classical music lists sorting on catalog or opus numbering may be the most usual, this guideline of works in general Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Ordering argues for chronological order. Still intuitively would not give me enough reason to change default sorting though. And Bruckner is not the only composer with non-chronological catalog numbers...

I also followed the discussion on the Bruckner symphony info boxes a bit and this made me think about how to treat different version of a work. Because the Brahms List prototype is a merge with IMSLP data, it contains multiple rows in the list in case of multiple versions, arrangements, instrumentation, etc. This deviates from the current Bruckner prototype. Intuitively I prefer the Brahms example, since you are better able to put all data into the table in a structured way (eg Date and Instrumentation). If it sounds like a good idea to try out I can experiment with the Bruckner version in a similar way.

(I have a procedural - newbie(?) - question: the conversation of the Bruckner list is now on my user talk page, Reginald's talk page, the prototype's talk page, the Classical music talk page (for the general List discussion) and none on the original Bruckner pages.... should it be all on one page instead if so how should we move that?) LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To deal with the last point first. I suggest we move all discussions to the talk page of List of compositions by Anton Bruckner when you have moved your table over there.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Ordering seems to be based on literary works that don't have catalogue and opus numbers, so I don't think it applies. Dating musical works is difficult. Do we refer to the 'putting the pen down' date, the publication date, or the first performance date? And we have the problem of versions. In the case of operas we usually have a 'hard' performance date, but with a piano sonata this probably won't be known. In practice list will often have to have an explanation of the dates used.

Regarding " multiple versions, arrangements, instrumentation" I'm not sure this is a good idea — I think I'd prefer to see a list that is easy for the reader to understand — but perhaps we can look at examples later? Kleinzach 03:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem araised by the multiple versions and editions of Bruckner's symphonies is specific to this composer and referred as the "Bruckner Problem". In the table I would only retain the critical editions of the symphonies (18 in total), as reported in subsection "The critical edition of the symphonies", for Mass No. 1 the single version and for Masses Nos. 2 and 3 the two versions reported in Anton Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Ordering has now been revised. --Kleinzach 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

See further discussion on: User talk:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner LazyStarryNights (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Titles

Some of the titles seem to mix English and German, e.g. 'Festive Song St. Jodok, Spross aus edlem Stamm', 'Passion Chorale In jener letzten der Nächte'. 'Four Lancier-Quadrille aus beliebten Opernmelodien zusammengestellt in C major', 'The Symphonisches Präludium (Symphonic Prelude) in C minor'. I think it may be better to stick to published names, presumably in German. --Kleinzach 02:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. I read and speak German fluently (see my user page). I will check it and put the names used in the Anton Bruckner Kritische Gesamtausgabe.

Have you any suggestion by which terms we should replace the "?" in the second column? I find no corresponding link for "secular choir", "piano work", "aequale", "small orchestral work", etc . --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources here. My inclination would be to make the second column for genres, but what do the two of you think? (Incidentally I wouldn't use terms like "secular choir" and "small orchestral work" — surely these should be 'chorus' and 'chamber orchestral work' - but then these are forces not genres.) --Kleinzach 10:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

By "secular choir" I am meaning "secular choir works" by antagonism to "religious choir works" as the Masses, the psalms, etc.. By "small orchestral work" I am meaning "small works for full orchestra" (see Four Orchestral Pieces (Bruckner)). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

'Small works for full orchestra' would be unambiguous — I take your point — but we can't consider it as a genre. "Secular choir works" and "religious choir works" are incorrect English in my view. --Kleinzach 11:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I updated User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner (had to resolve a minor Edit Conflict, good to see you still work on this!):

• Redistributed data over columns following discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Improving "List of compositions" articles
• Some updates to Genre column
• Corrected errors and improved formatting, incl Italics.
• Removed months and days from composition years.
• Enriched with some data from IMSLP (mosly instrumentation). Added links to IMSLP as well.
• Added top rows for songs from cycles like Brahms
• About the versions, I created an example for WAB 61. Another one can be seen at WAB 94. This one follows a bit the pattern in place by the User:LazyStarryNights/Lists of compositions by Johannes Brahms prototype as well (which followed the IMSLP Brahms example).
• For the Symphony versions (The Bruckner Problem) I'm not so sure whether it would add value to split over rows here. Maybe could be done later, but then first learn a bit more by completing Brahms.

From a contents point of view, maybe Meneerke could help with his Bruckner sources to solve some inconsistensies between WP and IMSLP which I could not resolve:

• WAB 4, 10, 29, 32, 43, 62, 63, 126 years differ
• WAB18, very different titles
• Various revisions inconsequent, sometimes IMSLP lists more, sometimes WP
• Names are sometimes longer at one side than the other

Could you comment on the table and the approach below?

If we are confortable enough with it I'd like to propose:

• Merge of Werkverzeichnis_Anton_Bruckner into List of compositions by Anton Bruckner
• Which would mainly contain this table and texts pertaining to the list, not explanations about his works in general.
• Merge of rest of the texts labled "TODO" into Anton Bruckner.
• Not sure what to do with The Bruckner Gesamtausgabe text. LazyStarryNights (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This is already a good improvement.

I have no recording of the works of Kitzler's study-book (WAB deest, which are in a private archive and are not issued) and of about 20 vocal works, for which I however have documentation. I have recordings—of which some non-commercial recordings via John F Berky and Hans Roelofs—of the other works of the composer, including all critical versions and almost all other versions and editions of the symphonies.

I do not know whether the proposed "Lied" matches the concept "Weltliche Chorwerke" (Secular choral works). E.g., Vor Arneth's Grab and Am Grabe are both a "Grabgesang" (choral work for a burial), Trauungschor and Zur Vermählungsfeier are both a choral work to celebrate a wedding.

I will complete the missing key for most of the works and I will review the year of composition. (Some dates reported by Grasberger were obviously wrong.) I will do it during the next coming days. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrections and additions

I have already made some corrections and additions till WAB 54. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks good! Some comments so far:

• WAB 12: you added Choral. Is it because that it is a Chorale? If so I'd expect it should not be in the Title column but in the Genre column.
• Similar question applies to your additions Festive Song, Festive Cantata, Passion Chorale further down the list.
• WAB 17, 18 and 41: these may be good candidates for spreading over a separate row per version. Shall I give it a try?
• WAB 43: you removed the IMSLP link. Could you explain what was your reason?

In the meanwhile I hope to further improve the Brahms list and look forward to your further progress on Bruckner. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

My Replies:

• "Choral" is the German word for "Chorale". It is so named by van Zwol in his detailed description of Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition. I will replace "Motet" by "Chorale".
• I will adapt it accordingly
• I agree. Four the Four Tantum ergo, as mentioned by Hans Roelofs [1], Grasberger put the four works according to the first edition (1888)—in which they were put so (as in the IMSLP!)—, but not according to the original manuscript. Grasberger's No. 1 was the third in the original manuscript, her No. 2 was the fourth, her No. 3 was the first and her No. 4 was the second. This is one of several errors of the WAB classification, because Grasberger made her classification without looking at the original manuscript. In Thomas Kerbl's CD Anton Bruckner - Chöre | Klaviermusik, LIVA 034, 2009, the 4 Tantum ergo are put correctly, i.e., accordingly both to Bruckner's original manuscript and the Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition.
• This IMSLP link was not adequately put. It concerns WAB 42, by which I have transferred it.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Added some proposals for WAB 17, 18 and 41. I also left the originals in so you can compare. Especially the second option for WAB 41 is interesting to look at. The intended format allows for different versions and both the incorrect WAB numbering and the correct numbering. If you like the format you could maybe add a note and/or footnote explaining this issue.
• The WAB 42, 43 IMSLP confusion probably needs fixing on the ISMLP side too right? Otherwise someone in the future may "correct" it back again in the list. Have you experience how to do that? LazyStarryNights (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK for your proposals for WAB 17 and 18. For WAB 41 if you put your proposal No. 2 you should than, e.g., refer to Roelofs page [2], where the dissension between the WAB classification and the Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition is detailed.
• A split of WAB 3 could also be done.
• I wil fix it. In the past I have already fixed an error on the ISMLP site. The Ave Maria II was put as WAB 5, instead of WAB 6.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the error in the IMSLP site. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have finalised the WAB 17, 18, 41 proposals, by deleting the originals which I left in earlier and adding the reference.

I have split WAB 3 as you suggested, but not sure it is correct, could you verify? I split them over date and key, but it is still called TWO Asperges me. Should it be more like WAB 41 with TWO Asperges me entry and 2 extra entries TWO asperges me No. 1 and one for No. 2?

I have added a ♫ to the IMSLP links following example List of Bach cantatas.

In the mean while I am thinking about the format for Instrumentation in general, based on this article and the Brahms article. See User:LazyStarryNights/Scoring. LazyStarryNights (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• WAB 3: They are 2 different Asperges me (i.e., not two versions of the same [I have recordigns of both].). I have corrected the table accordingly.

I will review the table further tomorrorow.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed till WAB 98. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed some typos. I wonder:

• Jodlerstimmen: is there an english version?
• Shall we remove the rather obsolete a capella indications? LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the remaining of the table. I have removed the last two lines, as well as the comment on the Symphonisches Präludium., which I have inserted in the "TODO General comments per type". I have also removed a part of the content of "TODO General comments per type", which I find superfluous.

• I agree to remove the superfluous "a cappella" indications.
• Jodlerstimmen. In this song 3 soprano soloists are imitating the Jodlers of the Austrian Alps (see Yodeling. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the table:

• Besides some minor other updates, I mainly formatted the Instrumentation column following my understanding of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Musical forces: specifying those used in a work
• I could further improve this by wikifying it, see for comparison my latest efforts at User:LazyStarryNights/Lists of compositions by Johannes Brahms.
• Along the way I found some potential irregularities:
  • WAB 60: Male choir and Choir is correct?
  • WAB 16: Bariton, Male choir, Orchestra with Timpani: why is timpani so special here?
    • By comparison, I can understand WAB 71: Male choir and Orchestra with Cymbals, because Cymbals are more rare to use in an orchestra.
  • WAB 57: Yodling soprano soloists. I changed this to 3 Yodelers. Alternatively, if they are 3 Yodeling sopranos than I wonder whether it should be mentioned here. For example you wouldn't normally list the special effects on an instrument either would you?
  • Brass ensemble <> Brass band. Isn't this the same?~
  • WAB 118:Title Fantasie, Genre Fantasy... In the meanwhile I discovered the main WP article is Fantasia. With that in mind I'd propose Fantasia as genre and also as title (not Fantasie not Fantasia), similar as Symphony, using the English name without italic, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines
• I had similar thoughts about 119 and 124
• 137: What do you think: Lied or Duet? Current info is inconsistent.
• Symphonisches Präludium (Symphonic Prelude): should this not be WAB deest instead of WAB deest because it is only 1 work? LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My replies:

• WAB 60: Male choir and Choir. Reply: correct (there are two separate choirs: a male choir and another, mixed choir).
• WAB 16: Bariton, Male choir, Orchestra with Timpani. Reply: "Timpani" may be removed.
• WAB 57: Yodling soprano soloists. I changed this to 3 Yodelers. Reply: OK.
• Brass ensemble <> Brass band. Isn't this the same? Reply: Yes.
• WAB 118: Fantasie is the name given by the Gesamtausgabe.
• WAB 119 & 124: The names given by the Gesamtausgabe are Klavierstück Es-Dur and Drei kleine Stücke, respectively.
• WAB 137: Lied or Duet? Reply: Lied is OK.
• Symphonisches Präludium (Symphonic Prelude): should this not be WAB deest? Reply: OK.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have ordered the WAB deest Lieder by page(s) in the Kitzler-Studienbuch.

I have also added the missing genres, according to Wiki definitions. For the current genre "Lied?", the single example in ISMLP (Um Mitternacht No.2) is classified there as "Secular chorus(ses)", i.e., very similar to my former suggestion ("Secular choral work(s)").

Do you think that it is interesting to add the 16 piano works from the Kitzler-Studienbuch? The list can be found on p. 678 of van Zwol's book:

• 2 waltzes (E-flat major, C major)
• 1 polka (C major)
• 1 mazurka A minor)
• 2 minuets (C major, G major)
• 1 march (D minor)
• 2 Andante (E-flat major, D minor)
• 1 étude (G major)
• 1 chromatic etude (F major)
• 1 theme and variations (G major)
• 4 fantasias (D minor, D minor, C minor, C minor).

van Zwol does only mention them. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have classified WAB 49 and 54 as Wedding music. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the title of WAB 118 Fantasie, my understanding of the guideline is that "Generic" titles are always translated to english regardless of the original language title. Thus just like the german "Sinfonie" is avoided, "Fantasie" would be avoided.

I did some minor fixes and added sort key to deest entries to ensure your sorting works

Also renamed Intrumentation to "Scored for" as suggested by Kleinzach on User talk:LazyStarryNights/Lists of compositions by Johannes Brahms

Do you have some reply on my Liedertafel suggestion in one of the other discussions? Otherwise let's stick with something generic and I'm sure later on we or others come up with something.

Yes I do think the ideal for these composition list in my opinion s to have a complete list of works hence to add the 16 piano works as well. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For WAB 118 I would retain the name Fantasie, because it is the title of the piece (see the English website of the Gesamtausgabe[3]).

I am agreeing for the Genre "Choral composition" for the Liedertafel compositions (provisional Genre "Lied?").

I will add tomorrow the 16 piano works from the Kitzler-Studienbuch (It's now over midnight).

I will also try to shorten the Introduction on the WAB classification. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In the past we have translated the names of genres into English when an exact equivalent is available, for example Sinfonie/symphony — the English of course is preferred. When there isn't an exact equivalent available we've used the original language name. In the case of Lied, I don't think there is an equivalent and I do think we should use Lied as the genre. Strictly speaking 'choral composition' is a description not a genre, just as 'symphonic music' is not a genre (but symphony is). Of course if we know more precisely about the Liedertafel compositions we may be able to identify a more precise genre description. Presumably they are all some kind of part song? Hope this helps. Kleinzach 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have added the 16 piano works from the Kitzler-Studienbuch.
• I have also shortened the introduction, filled some empty boxes and corrected some minor errors
• The ball is your court for finding a name for the "Secular choruses". Suggestion: The genre Glee could perhaps match. The Liedertafel was similar to a Glee club. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Glee is more (Anglo) culturally (and period) specific than Part song so I don't think it's at all suitable. What did Bruckner call these pieces? Lieder? Unfortunately the Part song article doesn't link to one in German. --Kleinzach 09:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The word used in the German Anton Bruckner for this type of Bruckner's is compositions is "Weltliche Chorwerke" ("Secular choral works"). You can read further (translated): "[Bruckner’s] secular music works provides us with a good look on the type of choir groups of this period of time."

In Liedertafel you find (translated): "Liedertafel: A group of friends of different professions and status with as common ideal, their love to sing."

Bruckner was member and later conductor of the Liederafel "Frohsinn" (= to feel gleeful), which started in 1845 as a Man choir. See Linzer Singakademie.

The description given in Glee club and Glee (music) matches quite well with the 19th century "Liedertafel" and the type music they were singing.

What do you think? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made some fine-tuning of the comments.

Is the long list of in-text refs necessary? I would only retain current in-text refs Nos. 2 (Tantum ergo), 26 (Apollo March) & 27 (Symphonic prelude). All the others are comming from sources Nos. 1, 2 and 4. What do you think? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the (I found) superfluous in-text references, so that only the three above mentioned references (Tantum ergo, Apollo March & Symphonic prelude) are remaining. The page looks now less "overloaded". All the other relevant info can be found in sources Nos. 1, 2 and 4. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Time to move this from user page to the article?

I am wondering if it's time to move this to the article? What do you both think? --Kleinzach 23:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is too early for the following reasons.

• I should first have reviewed the second part of the table (from WAB 54 on).
• Column Genre: We should also decide whether Lied is a suitable term for Bruckner's secular choral works and find a suitable Genre for the empty boxes.
• We should also decide what we will do about the section "TODO General comments per type".

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is too early.

Note that I already made a proposal for the next steps after we clear the points raised by Reginald, which I look forward for comments from you:

I quote myself:

If we are confortable enough with it I'd like to propose:

• Merge of Werkverzeichnis_Anton_Bruckner into List of compositions by Anton Bruckner
• Which would mainly contain this table and texts pertaining to the list, not explanations about his works in general.
• Merge of rest of the texts labled "TODO" into Anton Bruckner.
• Not sure what to do with The Bruckner Gesamtausgabe text.

As for the genres, the two examples (WAB 2 and 32) Reginald gave earlier maybe could be categorised as Funeral music? I did this for the Brahm's list as well for similar work. For those compositions with Lied in the title we could more safely classify them as Lied and also for the ones that are based on a typically Romantic poem. As for the others I don't have enough information to judge. Do your sources provide more clarity Reginald? I guess genre will always stay a bit ambiguous to some extend. Interesting to discover that religious works are easier to classify than the secular works, I guess because of the standard texts. LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• The content of the table "TODO" and the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe text could for sure be inserted in Anton Bruckner.
• There are in fact 4 examples of "Funeral music": WAB 2 and 53, and WAB 47 and 48.
• Bruckner's "Secular choral works" were mainly compositions for a "Liedertafel", i.e., a man choir. "Liedertafel" were very popular in South-Germany and Austria in the 19th century. Bruckner-self was first member and later condutor of the Liedertafel "Frohsinn". There is currently some revival of such "Liedertafel".

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a tentative merge with Werkverzeichnis_Anton_Bruckner, by inserting the content of it, which I consider relevant. Please have look on it. We should, after inserting the relevant content of the table "TODO" (and the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe text?) in Anton Bruckner and a last review of the table, replace the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed the 4 works discussed to Genre Funeral music. It is probably better than Lied and could further be improved later if people have better ideas.

The way you discuss "Liedertafel" almost makes me wonder whether this is not a genre in itself? If so then we could simply put in that as genre? Currently Liedertafel points to a disambiguation page about Liedertafel choirs, probably working hard on the revival you were talking about.

I do not think that we per se need to have all the Genre blanks filled to be able to go live. We could for example just put in Choral composition for the ones still to be further classified or really leave empty.

About the tentative merge:

• I think the Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckners has a too prominent position in the article with too much detail. Maybe you could draw some inspiration from Bach, Schubert, Mozart. Now I think of it maybe the WAB article should stay, but not with the work lists. Something similar is in place for e.g. Bach (although I think the BWV article has some information overload problems.
• After your reworking of the TODO General comments per type section, the remaining contents are all related to specific works in the detailed work list and not per se to Bruckner or his work/style in general, so the remaining stuff may need to be merged back into the table (or footnotes) rather than into the Bruckner article? Unless you intend to make articles for these works of course.

• The The Bruckner Gesamtausgabe text is very long if you ask me. I'm not sure whether it should be in the Bruckner text, deserve its own article or deserves so much detail on WP in the first place... LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the last point. If it's difficult to integrate then a separate article would be a good idea. I think some other composers have separate lists like this. It's not always possible to integrate everything. Kleinzach 04:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted the Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckners into Anton Bruckner. If you think that this section is too long, we can retain the beginning of the section, remove the list and refer to the site of the Gesamtausgabe, were all the info is available.

For the remaining it think the page is now nearly ready to replace both the current List of compositions by Anton Bruckner and Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. I think the main article Anton Bruckner is too long and needs splitting, but that's not our problem here. We can look at that later. When LazyStarryNights decides to move the list, I assume Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner will become a redirect. Kleinzach 14:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. As for the table we can further refine it a bit (see come of the open comments and I still like to spend some energy on wikifying the instrumentation).

As for the rest of the article:

• I see a double link in See also and External links. Is that on purpose?
• I still think there is too much WAB stuff at the top. Why don't we make that very short (no longer than what is now in the currently live article, and link to the WAB page. Then the WAB page needs only minor adjustments, mainly the deletion of the list in there. Also no merge would be required. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the page needs a general lead coming before the WAB stuff which should be a section under it's own heading. This would enable us to put a (see main article) link to the WAB page if we are going to retain that per your suggestion. i think that would work OK and reduce the technical stuff at the top of the article. Kleinzach 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WAB deest order

What is the 'WAB deest' order? Is it alphabetical by title? --Kleinzach 05:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not yet defined. I propose to order it as the WAB classification, i.e., using the same sub-ranges. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean by genre and then alphabetical order by title? A bit complicated? --Kleinzach 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WAB deest

• I have added the Alternative Rondo for the String Quartet (WAB deest), of which [4] on IMSLP is the score.
• What about the works in the Kitzlerbuch? Should they all been reported? Except a sketch of a song, the songs are already put in the table. Should I also add the remainder, i.e., another movement for string quartet and a few works for piano (mazurka, walz, etc.)? Let me know.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 06:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do think the ideal for these composition list in my opinion s to have a complete list of works hence to add these as well. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert of text into Anton Bruckner

I have already inserted The Bruckner Gesamtausgabe into Anton Bruckner. I am now looking for inserting the TODO General comments per type. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The "TODO General comments per type" is now also integrated into Anton Bruckner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Funeral music

Looking at the red linked Funeral music, I am wondering if this should be Elegy (Elegie in German)? --Kleinzach 09:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK so! I have replaced it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Piece

Piece, actually Piece (music), is a redirect to Musical composition. We could delink, but is there a better word/words? What is the German term used? --Kleinzach 10:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Musical composition is equivalent in German to Komposition (Musik).

The German word for "(music) piece" is "(Musik)stück", which redirects to Musikalisches Werk, which has no English equivalent.

Two of Bruckner's piano compositions are called Stück Es Dur and Drei kleine Stücke; the reason why I choosed "(music) piece". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

'Piece' is not a technical term, so there is no entry for it in Oxford. Any musical work can be a "piece of music" whether it is big or small. 'Stück' does appear in Oxford, but I wonder if it is any more specific than the English word. Do we know anything about these works? Kleinzach 14:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Genre "Lied?"

Because it was "overflowed" between other topics I have copy below the fragments of our discussion on this "genre":

For the current genre "Lied?", the single example in ISMLP (Um Mitternacht No.2) is classified there as "Secular chorus(ses)", i.e., very similar to my former suggestion ("Secular choral work(s)"). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some reply on my Liedertafel suggestion in one of the other discussions? Otherwise let's stick with something generic and I'm sure later on we or others come up with something. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am agreeing for the Genre "Choral composition" for the Liedertafel compositions (provisional Genre "Lied?").--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In the past we have translated the names of genres into English when an exact equivalent is available, for example Sinfonie/symphony — the English of course is preferred. When there isn't an exact equivalent available we've used the original language name. In the case of Lied, I don't think there is an equivalent and I do think we should use Lied as the genre. Strictly speaking 'choral composition' is a description not a genre, just as 'symphonic music' is not a genre (but symphony is). Of course if we know more precisely about the Liedertafel compositions we may be able to identify a more precise genre description. Presumably they are all some kind of part song? Hope this helps. Kleinzach 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The ball is your court for finding a name for the "Secular choruses". Suggestion: The genre Glee could perhaps match. The Liedertafel was similar to a Glee club. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Glee is more (Anglo) culturally (and period) specific than Part song so I don't think it's at all suitable. What did Bruckner call these pieces? Lieder? Unfortunately the Part song article doesn't link to one in German. --Kleinzach 09:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The word used in the German Anton Bruckner for this type of Bruckner's is compositions is "Weltliche Chorwerke" ("Secular choral works"). You can read further (translated): "[Bruckner’s] secular music works provides us with a good look on the type of choir groups of this period of time."

In Liedertafel you find (translated): "Liedertafel: A group of friends of different professions and status with as common ideal, their love to sing."

Bruckner was member and later conductor of the Liederafel "Frohsinn" (= to feel gleeful), which started in 1845 as a Man choir. See Linzer Singakademie.

The description given in Glee club and Glee (music) matches quite well with the 19th century "Liedertafel" and the type music they were singing.

What do you think? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd use "Weltliche Chorwerke". That's our usual solution to this kind of problem. I'd prefer that to "Secular choral works", although I think the English translation would also be OK. I'm against using 'glee' which has connotations of kitsch (uncool?) amateurishness, and also technically is wrong period. (Oxford says 1750-1830.) (If it's relevant I also think a Liedertafel is a Liedertafel.) Kleinzach 00:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both your proposals ("Weltliche Chorwerke" and "Secular choral works"). These are the terms used by the MWV on its German and English sites. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have recordings (with text) of 24 of the 36 "Weltliche Chorwerke". There are, so far Hans Roelofs and I know, no available recording yet of the 12 remaining works.

Four of them are already classified more precisely as "Elegy" and two as "Wedding music". Perhaps some others could be also more precisely classified than "Weltliche Chorwerke". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, 'Elegy' is indeed a genre but 'wedding music' is vague. It could mean anything from organ music in church to someone strumming a guitar in a garden. "Weltliche Chorwerke" is clearer IMO.

I have restored it to Lied? and put in comment "For wedding celebration". We cannot use Bridal Chorus because this link refers to Wagner's Lohengrin...

Is it then OK for replacing "Lied?" by "Weltliches Chorwerk" (singular of "Weltliche Chorwerke")? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed — Weltliches Chorwerk. Kleinzach 13:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Time to move this from user page to the article? - Vote 2

I wikified "Key" and "Scored" for columns and optimised the column widths. The only discussion I see open now is the Lied? discussion. I am not sure what I can add to that as I don't know enough about this topic. I think we are ready for moving the article (incl. its Talk page) and merging the WAB article as well. The Lied discussion and maybe even other refinements can then continue on the actual article if needed. Do you agree that I can go ahead? LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but please see my (apologetic!) note here. --Kleinzach 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See my comment there. Please let us know whether we need to further discuss this or that we can continue the move. (And curious to your vote too, Reginald) LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss the linking issue later. BTW, it's an old problem and not one I feel too strongly about. --Kleinzach 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added the merger proposal on the articles in line with Wikipedia:Merging. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that I have now reviewed and adapted everything, which I was able to do. Consequently, I also agree for the merge. Thanks to you both for the nice collaboration. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the collaboration. I think these big tables are better as joint efforts than solo ones. Six pairs of eyes are better than two when it comes to avoiding mistakes. BTW I'm not sure I understand why this is a merger rather than a straight move over to List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, what are your thoughts on this? Kleinzach 22:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that this page is intended to replace both Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner and List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, as an understanding of the WAB list in which current, critical info and links about Bruckner's works are inserted. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 04:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Was great to achieve this together! It was much more efforts than I expected, but the results are worth while. I'll continue with Brahms in the same format.

As for the merge: My understanding is the same as yours: replace the contents of the original page with this new page and make a redirect page of the WAB page. Being new to WP I understood this should follow the Wikipedia:Merging process. But if this is not the right process, could one of you please advice or take over? LazyStarryNights (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never done it. Kleinzach, have an experience of it? I understand it as a two-step process:

1. Merge the current Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner and List of compositions by Anton Bruckner,
2. Replace this merge by our User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 05:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I can do this. The reason I was confused was because I thought you both wanted to keep the Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner going, with a summary on the other page. No? --Kleinzach 05:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done LSN, can you delete your user page version? Should we move our notes over to the article talk page? I think that would be a good idea. It could be done as an archive. --Kleinzach 06:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bruckner's early Masses

I have a problem with the names given to the Bruckner's early Masses:

• WAB 9: On the wiki page I have created on these early Masses I have chosen the name Messe für den Gründonnerstag, the name given by the MWV. This Landmesse was originally called Christus factus est (No. 1) by Grasberger and it is also still called so by IMSLP—which is not correct, because the motet Christus factus est is only a part (Graduale) of the Mass. It has also be called Choralmesse—which is general term for this type of Masses. I have proposed to change the IMSLP name.
• WAB 25; The MWV calls it Messe C-Dur (Windhaager Messe). I have chosen the name Windhaager Messe and put Messe C-Dur with (English translation) in comment.
• WAB 146: The MWV calls it Messe ohne Gloria und Credo. I have chosen the name Kronstorfer Messe—a name also often given to this unfinished Mass, which van Zwol uses as synonym— and put ''Messe ohne Gloria und Credo (with English translation) in comment.

OK so? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not able to verify the contents, but changes look good to me. LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have in the meantime corrected the name of WAB at the IMSLP site as: Messe für den Gründonnerstag (Christus factus est). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bruckner's religious works

I have refined the Genre of most of the religious works, according to their title (when a specific wiki page exists), and otherwise by type (Graduale, Offertorium, etc.). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner be merged into List of compositions by Anton Bruckner.

Réginald alias Meneerke bloem, Klein, and myself created a new version:User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner to replace the current 2 articles, following this general initiative: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical_music#Improving "List of compositions" articles. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now implemented this. --Kleinzach 06:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Psalm

Psalm 112, Psalm 114, Psalm 146, Psalm 150, Psalm 22 as separate Genre's? Are they not all genre Psalm? LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

They are indeed all "psalms". Bruckner used the Catholic official liturgical texts (Greek numbering). On each page I have inserted the German text used by Bruckner.

I agree to restore the "genre" Psalm. I will put the link to each specific wiki page (modern translations, Hebrew numbering), i.e., Psalm 113, Psalm 116, Psalm 147, Psalm 150, Psalm 23 in the column "comment". With these links one can get more info on the concerned psalms, see the other composers who have put them on music, and sometimes even their corresponding English text.

NB: The same applies for most of the motets, which I have linked to an extant page, e.g., Tantum ergo, Ave Maria, etc. Should I also put them again as genre Motet with the more specific link in comment? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: Some examples: Ave Maria and Ave Regina caelorum are Marian hymns. Tota pulchra es is an Antiphon, but also a Marian hymn. Difficult choices... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Psalm solution looks good. As for the NB and PS items the story is less straight forward and I don't have an off the shelve answer, some observations:

• Genres could be seen as hierarchies: eg rough examples could be Vocal composition > Choral composition > Sacred choral composition > Catholic choral composition > Marian hymn > Ave Maria.
• Are all Ave Marias Motets? If yes then it can be either Ave Maria or Motet, depending on how deep in the genre hierarchy would be optimal level to categorise. Higher and lower both have pros and cons.
• Are all Ave Marias Marian hymns? If yes same applies.
• Are all Ave Marias both Motets and Marian hymns? Story is even more complex.
• I saw this complexity coming when I introduced genre column, but had some kind of idea to pick the most common categorisation for the piece. Not sure then where to put less common ones.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Genres just started. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The 3 Ave Maria are all "Marian hymns". In addition, Ave Maria Nos. 1 & 2 are "Motets" (choral compositions), but No. 3 stricto sensu not, because song by a soloist.

I will try to put again higher genres provided they apply to all the instances, e.g. "Marian hymns" for the 3 Ave Maria, and put when convenient the lower genres in the "comment" column—as I did for the 5 "Psalms". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That is an elegant solution. Nice. LazyStarryNights (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Harmonisation of IMSLP with the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner

Since the column IMSLP refers to the scores available on IMSLP, I have reviewed the content of IMSLP, so that the names, dates, etc. be in harmonisation with that in the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Link for Weltliches Chorwerk?

Most of the compositions from WAB 55 to 95 (WAB genre "Secular choral music") and a few others are currently place in genre Weltliches Chorwerk. It has been discussed earlier whether there is an acceptable English term for this genre. The English site of MWV uses the term "Secular choral work". Hans Roelofs (see: discography of Bruckner's non-orchestral works) confirms that it is the term used in the English version of the Gesamtausgabe. There is, however, currently no wikipage which matches accurately with "Secular choral work". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I have checked whether everything is complete and accurate. I have rewritten it in a somewhat different way, i.e. , separating the completed works and the sketches. In addition, there was a pitfall: 2 of the cantatas are religious and 10 are secular, and also 2 of the elegies are religious and 2 are secular. See Discography of the vocal music. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a fan of the new paragraph. If one would make an Excel pivot table for genre on the main table then you end up with similar information as in the introduction paragraph, only more structured. If such data adds value for readers I'd prefer such pivot table format.

Ideally such would be even autogenerated, see for example something similar at IMSLP: [5].

However, I am also in doubt whether it adds value on this page at all, especially in its current form. It has quite some overlap with Anton Bruckner#Compositions. Would it be an idea to see if the information can be merged into there? LazyStarryNights (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of this introductory paragraph, which was initiated by Kleinzach, is to give a quick look on the exact numbers of works, grouped in 4 global categories:

• symphonic works (symphonies, smaller orchestral works)
• vocal works, with 2 subcategories:
  • religious works (larger, smaller)
  • secular works (cantatas, Weltliche Chorwerke, Lieder)
• chamber music (string quartet and quintet, piano, duo)
• other works (organ, concert band)

Thereafter the reader can go further in detail by using the tabulated list of compositions. If you think that an introductory Excel pivot table would provide the readers with a better information than the current introductory text, please go on.

There is indeed a partial overlap with Anton Bruckner#Compositions, but the focus is different, e.g., historical context and evolution of the style within a genre over the years. The main focus is on the symphonies, with less information about the other compositions.

However, as Kleinzach wrote previously (and I agree with him), the current page Anton Bruckner is too long and could perhaps be split in a few shorter pages. But this is another issue... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the introduction — which Réginald has much improved – is to summarise the list and make it a bit more accessible. A lot of the religious genres will be unfamiliar (Pange Lingua etc.), so it helps to group them. Anton Bruckner#Compositions is an important part of the main article, it's about compositions not lists. If the main article was split in the future, I'd probably recommend separating 'The Bruckner Problem' but that needs to be considered carefully. The Wagner cluster of articles may be a good model for the organization of future Bruckner pages. Kleinzach 04:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• About Bruckner's religious works: I have recordings of all of them except Asperges me (WAB 4) and Entsagen (WAB 14), so that I could group them in a (perhaps) more logical order. I do not think that an introductory Excel pivot table would provide the readers with a better information than the current introductory text.
• About Pange lingua and Tantum ergo: The motet Tantum ergo is based on the two last strophes of the Pange lingua— the reason why I have put an "and" between them. The Tantum ergo is much more used in the religious practice than the (full) Pange lingua.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree an Excel pivot table is not needed. I'm glad you know about the religious works. The various linked articles are helpful, but this is all new to me! --Kleinzach 07:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no recording of Asperges me (WAB 4) and Entsagen (WAB 14), because there are no recordings available yet.

I have the available recordings of "secular vocal works". The discography of these works is much less favourable: the Cantatas of WAB 61 and WAB 93, and 13 "Weltliche Chorwerke" have not yet been recorded. The Lieder of the Kitzler-Studienbuch—as the 16 piano works of the Kitzler-Studienbuch—have even not yet been issued. As someone has written in Anton Bruckner: "This music is rarely performed. Biographer Derek Watson characterizes the pieces for men's choir as being 'of little concern to the non-German listener'". Regrettable! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm not yet 100% convinced myself about the pivot idea either, although I am still jealous about the IMSLP category browser.

But I still feel the paragraph is somewhat too much detail at the top of the article and could have more stucture (maybe with bullets)?

My understanding of the reasoning for the paragraph so far:

• Give a quick look on exact number of works, grouped in categories.
  • The number is not quickly found in the current format, because if for example I'd like to see the number of chorales, I'd have to search for the occurrence of the word chorale in the text, while in the table this is found easier by sorting (I admit one would have to count manually, but maybe that is not a problem in 90% of the cases).
  • The categories stated may confuse readers as it deviates from the categories by Grasberger, presented in the next section.
  • Just another consideration which may have other disadvantages: The categories could also be added to the main table as a column?
• Group unfamiliar genres:
  • This relates a bit to the discussion about hierarchies under #Psalm. If things like Pange Lingua and Tantum Ergo are too unfamiliar, they may need to be categorised under a "higher" genre in the hierarchy. In this example it could be Hymn, which is anyways already in the list.

I also wonder, would more similar articles need such paragraphs? By comparison I added some other examples categorised by the kind of information at top of the article:

• Article with a VERY short overview of what genres are in the list:
  • List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• Articles with brief explanation about how the list is composed:
  • List of compositions by Claude Debussy by Lesure numbers
  • List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven
  • List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number
  • List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach
  • List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák
• Articles that only state that this is a list of compositions by composer X:
  • List of compositions by Henry Purcell
  • List of compositions by Francis Poulenc
  • List of compositions by Richard Wagner LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss forevermore on the level of the genres we have to use, i.e., do we put all different kinds of "hymns" in a single category "Hymn", or do we diffentiate them as "Marian hymns", "Tantum ergo", "Pange lingua" and other hymns, do we put "Tantum ergo" as a part of "Pange lingua", or do we put all smaller religious works simply as "Motet"?

We cannot use Grasberger's classification as such, because it has a lot of shortcomings. Grasberger put Bruckner's compositions in arbitrary categories, which are not always matching with those used by the Critical Ausgabe, e.g., compositions currently considered "secular choral works", but she put as "sacred choral music". The Critical Ausgabe, which classifies the works in chronological order, does not use the WAB classification anymore or puts only the WAB number between brackets after the name of the work. The name given by Grasberger are sometimes obsolete, e.g., Christus factus est (No. 1) for the Messe für den Gründonnestag (WAB 9), because she only knew the Graduale (Christus factus est) of the Mass, and Pange lingua instead of Tantum ergo (WAB 32), based on the first edition by Joseph Venantius Wöß, not on the original manuscript. Grasberger made also other errors, e.g., authorship errors as WAB 115 and WAB 136 which are definitely not by Bruckner, WAB 20 is not a separate work but a part of WAB 30. Last but not least, there are a lot of works which she did not know and are not WAB classified ("WAB deest"). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As compromise, I have grouped the 25 "Hymns" and put their subrange in the comment zone. I have simplified somewhat the introductory paragraph. I have also put an additional "warning" by the WAB classification for a few differences in the current classification. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Signing off

I've now finished my work here. Thank you for your cooperation. Good luck to Réginald on his future work on Bruckner! --Kleinzach 23:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Some updates

In the meantime I have corrected some dates and updated some items in the column "Notes". For this purpose van Zwol's Anton Bruckner 1824-1896 - Leven en werken is a major reference, which every Bruckner-fan should acquire (only in Dutch available).
As I previously wrote, except the 3 earlier cantatas WAB 14, 61 and 93, and 12 Weltliche Chorwerke for which no recording is available yet, I have one or several recordings of all Bruckner's issued works, including the several versions of the symphonies.
Some rare, out-of-print or non-commercial recordings were achieved via the connection I have with John F Berky (orchestral works) and Hans Roelofs (other instrumental and vocal works). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckners

Please can someone add the date when the WAB was compiled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Pigsonthewing, the WAB classification was published in 1977. See Renate Grasberger, Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Update of the list according to Bruckner Online

In its ÖAW-Forschungsprojekt Digitales Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner (2017-2019), Bruckner Online has in the meantime classified the "WAB deest" works, as well as put together some different versions of a same work, which were classified separately by Grasberger, e.g., An dem Feste, Festlied & Tafellied, and Nachruf & Trösterin Musik. I will adapt the list accordingly. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have put together the different versions of a same work. I will later rename the "WAB deest" works. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have renamed the WAB deest works, which were already listed. It should be further completed with the other works listed in Bruckner Online.

NB: I have not retrieved the Adagio für Orgel (Sketch for the Adagio of Symphony No. 9), which I have left as "WAB deest". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In a next step I will add the other pieces which are listed on Bruckner Online. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

List updated. I have not included WAB 246-259 (Documents from the Sechter & Kitzler Study books). I have included only a part of WAB 260-294 (Adaptations & Transcriptions). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)