Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Études (Chopin) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music)

Hello, there's been a request to drop the "(Chopin)" from many of the Chopin articles because technically the names are not ambiguous... nobody else has written a "Étude Op. 25, No. 11". I think that still results in confusion because many other composers have written Étude's and it forces the reader to have some knowledge in knowing that op. 10 and 25 are Chopin, 8 is Scriabin, 33 and 39 are Rachmaninoff, etc. The confusion is in the guidelines specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music). Basically, one could cite the unique name clause (Enigma Variations, Trout Quintet) to drop the composer name and one could cite the Opus number clause (String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn) to keep the composer name. Could we amend the rules so that Opus and other catalogue numbers do not count for the "unique name" case? I'm posting here because I don't think I have authority to change the rules without checking for consensus first. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's me again, doing crazy stuff. Sorry for the trouble. I interpreted the guideline as David said, after Fram (talk · contribs) changed Nocturnes Op. 48 (Chopin) to Nocturnes Op. 48 after I sent to DYK. I would like to know what the consensus is as well. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My own feeling is that mere nonambiguity is not the same thing as clarity. The "(Chopin)" ought to stay in, and the rules ought to be changed as DavidRF suggests. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the very fact they are generic titles means they should never be used with the "Op" as a disambiuation tool. Really, for the most part noone is going to write "Nocturnes, Op. 48" without mentioning they are by Chopin in the first place. As for "nobody else has written a "Étude Op. 25, No. 11"...I would doubt that's the case. Noone else notable for WP, possibly, but even that I'd wager is not necessarily true. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, should the Étude Op. 25, No. 11 be a redirect pointing to the Chopin etude then? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We're going off on a bit of a pedantic tangent here these last two posts. Redirects easily turn into disambig pages when necessary. I mean Symphony No. 40 and Symphony No. 41 are redirected because these are much more famous than the others, but the article titles itself retains the "(Mozart)". Here we're probably too lazy to add disambig pages for all symphonies between 12 and 41 (at least I am). See the Template:Symphonies_by_number_and_name which basically just gives up after 11 and gives you a list of composers to check after that. Also its much easier to do a redirect than a full delete once a page already exists. Now, I see I myself have gone off on a tangent. :-) DavidRF (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A redirect is all fine, though in this case I'd say that since we DO, after all, have at least one other Symphony No. 40 article, that maybe it SHOULD be a disambig. It certainly wouldn't be right for Mozart to not be disambiguated here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we should add disambig pages for all those as three composers have articles for all numbers from from 12 to 41, and information on the Hovhaness or Brian work (which likely don't have articles) could be added as well, but I'm lazy.  :-) DavidRF (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm reasonably sure we have a consensus here. I added the following statement to the section on unique names: Note that what we mean by a unique name here is a unique descriptive name, and not names that are unique only because of opus number, catalogue number or key. For those cases, see below. Please feel free to reword that if the phrasing is still confusing. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I'll move the Nocturnes. Sorry for all of the trouble. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries! DavidRF (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the one that moved the Chopin Nocturne op. 48. Any reason why classical music does not follow the common guideline for nearly all other articles? Why disambiguate things that don't need disambiguation? I agree that "Symphony #41" is not a clear name for an article, even though most people will associate it with Mozart, because there are other notable composers of a Symphony #41. On the other hand, Cavalleria rusticana is not disambiguated. Where do you draw the line? And why? If the only notable Nocturne Op. 48 is by Chopin, then why the need to add (Chopin) at the end? Where would this be an improvement? Is e.g. Sinfonia Concertante for Violin, Viola and Orchestra generic or not? Symphonie Espagnole? Kammerkonzert? Trio for Violin, Horn and Piano? Große Fuge?

Let's look at this specific article: the only place where the "generic" title can cause confusion is perhaps in categories: the article is in Category:Nocturnes by Frédéric Chopin (no need to add (Chopin) there, is pretty obvious), in Category:Solo piano pieces (where it shouldn't be, since the previous category is a subcat of this one), and Category:1841 works, which is in my opinion the only place on Wikipedia where the added (Chopin) has some use. But I don't feel that this is sufficient to have separate rules for classical music going against the general naming conventions. I'll not move any more classical music piece pages, but the rule in this specific naming convention seems pretty useless to me (in a case like this). Fram (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The reader must come first. It's important not to follow simplistic rules - especially if they make articles more difficult to find. Recently we've had a number of music article disambiguation issues. Individual projects such as Music, CM and Opera (which has well-developed guidelines) have come up with their own solutions to specific problems. The logic behind these arrangements should be respected, not bulldozed out of the way. In that context, DavidRF's addendum to the section on unique names (above) is sensible and helpful. --Kleinzach 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reader must come first. How does the addition of (Chopin) help the reader? I would like somle actual examples of situations where the article without the (Chopin) would be worse for the reader. What I see now is that in the search box, when you type "Nocturnes Op.", you get every nocturne twice, once with (Chopin) and once without. Benefit for the reader? A longer search list... All the pages that list to this article already are about Chopin (most or perhaps all only link it through the template, which sensibly lists it as Nocturnes Op. 48, but pipelinks it with the (Chopin) added anyway...). So we have one, barely used[1] category where the addition of (Chopin) may be useful for the reader, and that's it. Apart from that, "Nocturnes Op. 48" is as easy or easier to find than "Nocturnes Op. 48 (Chopin)"(why not "Nocturnes Op. 48 by Chopin", seems more logical to type?), and redirects can work in any direction anyway. The general rule is that we only disambiguate when needed: I don't see why the actual need to disambiguate in some cases must lead to a more complicated rule for all pages, even where it is unnecessary. Fram (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fram: "How does the addition of (Chopin) help the reader?" By telling the reader in the clearest possible way that the work is by Chopin. --Kleinzach 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what the article is for. We don't list the author of a book after its title either. Song titles don't have the author added either. "Nocturnes Op. 48" may be by any composer, but so is the Symphonie Espagnole or Blood on the Tracks, if you are not previously aware of the work. And if you have no idea what a nocturne is orwho Chopin is, it still is no help (Classical music composition from 1841 by French Polish composer Chopin, that would be a useful disambiguation for the reader, butthen again, that's not what we use) All the info is in the article, as is usual in all non-classical music articles as well. Furthermore, every page that links to this article already makes it painfully obvious that the work is by Chopin, making e.g. Category:Nocturnes by Frédéric Chopin look rather ridiculous. Fram (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking, 'Nocturne' isn't really a title, it's a form. The fact that it's generic is the issue -- imagine if books were commonly published with the title "Historical Romance, Work No. 30" and similar. Under normal circumstances I would agree with you (and have moved some pages disambiguated with (opera) or the composer name or whatever to the non-disambig form), but here...well it just seems very WRONG to me to consider Nocturnes, Op. 48 to not use composer, where something like Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) does. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, imagine Hamlet not using (Shakespeare), while Richard III (play), um, doesn't either. But e.g. Puck (Shakespeare) does. Having a disambiguation in some (or even a lot) of articles related to a topic, is not a reason to include it in all articles about the same kind of topic. As for Nocturnes; if "Nocturnes Op. 48" is not the actual title, but "Nocturnes" is, then the article should be at Nocturnes (Op. 48 by Chopin) or something similar, not at the current title. It would still have all the info in it, and it would follow our general disambiguation rules (actual name outside brackets, everything needed to disambiguate inside them). Fram (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'll confess to a bit of WP:TLDR, but the fact is that this is the Classical Music Project, so let's stick to what we do here. As for the point immediately above, that's kind of the ... how you say ... whole point to the opus number - it's the titular publication number! Bottom line: our naming convention is fine and the composer should always appear parenthetically after the title in the case of works that fall under this species of titular generica. Distinct titles like, say, in C or the Hiller Variations, do not need the parenthetical composer convention, although now that I think about it, the opus number should probably appear in the article title there too, right? Eusebeus (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Or think of it THIS way -- the Op. 48 part it ITSELF a disambiguartion. If Chopin had only written one set of "two nocturnes", then it would safely be at Two Nocturnes (Chopin) without any issue; as you can see, this isn't the case. But for instance, we have his set of preludes at Preludes_(Chopin) rather than Preludes Op. 28. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the best disambiguation for classical music is something you can decide better, but when to disambiguate should not be project dependent. And as I stated in my last post; ifthe Op. 48 is part of the name, then no disambiguation is needed: if the Op. 48 part is not in the actual name, then it should be in the disambiguation (since Nocturnes (Chopin) obviously isn't sufficient), use Nocturnes (Chopin Op. 48) or something similar. It is equally understandable and equally easy to use for all pieces that need disambiguation. Fram (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Opus numbers and keys are grey areas here. They aren't part of the name, but are usually included when a work is mentioned. I think that's why they get a special section of the guidelines above. I mean, we could make it Symphony (Beethoven No. 5), but leaving the number out of the parenthesis seems reasonable as well. But I think we've come full circle here. Would it be OK to have two articles Nocturnes, Op. 48 and Nocturnes, Op. 33 where one is works by Chopin and one is works by Faure? Its the same issue with the Etudes way up at the very beginning of this discussion. DavidRF (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see the problem with similar sounding articles which are actually by different artists, just like we have tons of "Live at the X" albums by different bands and musicians, without any complaints. But I understand that the people actually contributing to the classical music articles prefer this system (which, don't get me wrong, is not dreadful or anything, just not what most other projects use), so I suggest that we finish the discussion here. It's sometimes good to discuss things with an outsider, even if as in this case his insights were not really convincing :-) As I stated above, I'll obviously not move any more articles from your naming convention to my preference. Thanks for your patience, many projects would act much more annoyed when their territory is invaded! Fram (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the general naming rules of Wikipedia (WP:TITLE) should be applied. A term in parentheses should only be added if it is necessary for disambiguation (WP:NCDAB). It has to be noted that this principle is embedded in the Wikipedia software via the so-called Pipe trick which will transform (not just display as) an editor's text from [[Étude Op. 25, No. 11 (Chopin)|]] to [[Étude Op. 25, No. 11 (Chopin)|Étude Op. 25, No. 11]]. This syntactic significance of bracketed terms clearly emphasizes their role in disambiguation, and they should be limited to that role.

Recent examples in WP:CM which use unwarranted bracketed terms include Difficile lectu (Mozart) (which should be named "Difficile lectu mihi mars") and O du eselhafter Peierl (Mozart).

My position aligns in principle with what Fram said. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) But again, the porblem is that the Op. isn't really part of the name. We have a title like Piano Sonata (Liszt) because he only wrote one, and not Piano Sonata, S.178. Or to use an Op. example, Swan Lake is Op. 20, but I don't think a single person would say it should be at Swan Lake, Op. 20. So the Op. is a further disambiguation, rather then the (Chopin) being the extra. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for opus number in the title of the Hiller Variations article or In C. And we could certainly go out and clean up several unambiguous ones like the Mozart canons that were mentioned above which have proper descriptive titles. These don't fall under the Generic Form, Number (Composer) examples we've been discussing.DavidRF (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Upon reflection, I'll emend my remark above; we suffer some inconsistency on this issue. For example, with the Quartets Opus 33, the opus number is part of the title insofar as that is simply how they are known. To title the article String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn) seems to me quite reasonable. Such taxa work well with Chopin, where the opus number is familiarly part of the title, by general convention. OTOH, when I wrote the articles on the English Suites and Partitas, they were redirected to a title that included the Verzeichnis number, even though everyone just calls them the English Suites, etc.... So shouldn't we have them under the title English Suites (Bach) instead of English Suites, BWV 806-811? Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a compelling reason to include "(Haydn)" in any of the article names String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn), String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn); similarly, the article English Suites, BWV 806-811 would be much better named English Suites (which would also avoid the problem of having to use n-dashes in titles). Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What if some readers think English Suites is about furniture? --Kleinzach 03:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What if some readers have the wrong idea about article names like The Bell Tower, Cups and Saucers, or The Zoo? I suspect that reading the lead of these articles will clarify the subject matter. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But then they will have gone to the wrong article! Titles with definite articles aren't a problem. (Readers should know that The Bell Tower isn't about bell towers in general.) This issue is related to the idea of the 'primary topic' much debated on WP. In the case of English Suites, I don't think the Bach can be regarded as the primary topic. --Kleinzach 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

… but it is, isn't it? When I click on English Suites I find myself reading an article about JSB's BWV 806–811. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, de facto. --Kleinzach 06:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Commas

At the risk of sidetracking into minutiae, I have a problem with commas, as in String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn). (IMO they're redundant. It should be String Quartets Op. 33 (Haydn).) --Kleinzach 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the comma is mandatory. This relates very closely to matters of minutiae I raise below @ "Style issues". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation depends on context. One style may be appropriate for titles and headings, and another for sentences. That's pretty much universally accepted. --Kleinzach 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that general observation. However, the "Op. 33" needs to be separated from the "String Quartets" in some way (and more than by just a space). Putting it in parentheses might work; a comma would do just as well. But having no separation at all is analagous to a run-on sentence ("He is my father I am his son"). Having this comma-free style in headings is just inviting editors to dispense with the comma in general text, and that would far too high a price to pay for a subtlety that would escape most editors and would be objected to by most of the rest (such as me). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts) Double parentheses would be ugly, e.g. String Quartets (Op. 33) (Haydn). The comma is essentially for pausing for breath - the WP article explains its function in poetry. It's usually redundant in an article title. (I don't think you'll find many examples of commas in WP article titles, though I'd be interested to see examples.) Apologies for this diversion - I'll make a subheading. --Kleinzach 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole class of article names where disambiguation is achieved by using a comma before the disambiguation term: WP:PLACE, e.g. London, California. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good example. The comma makes perfect sense there. It indicates a (voiced) pause, and shows that London, California is not a two word placename like Milton Keynes. --Kleinzach 05:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, I don't understand what the principle behind your proposal is. You've said twice that the comma is "redundant" in an article title, but haven't explained the redundancy. If it's appropriate (and necessary) to include a comma in a general text reference to "Haydn's String Quartets, Op. 33" - and it is, on both counts - then why is it suddenly not required just because those words have become a heading? The breath pause is a bit of a furphy in either case, imo. The reason we have a comma is that an opus number is not part of the essential name of a piece; the name is "String Quartet No. 7 in G major", or whatever; and it is perfectly valid to refer to a piece simply as "String Quartet No. 7 in G major" without any mention of an opus number. That is as full a title (proper) as you're ever going to get. The "Op. 33" is a way of identifying the piece for the purposes of cataloguing etc. We associate the opus number with the name, and the convention is to separate them with a comma. The convention might just as well have been to put the opus number in parentheses, or following a dash, but the comma won the day a long time ago. That convention applies wherever the work is referred to. We don't make exceptions. Those are my thoughts, but I'm always open to alternative points of view. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz: "The reason we have a comma is that an opus number is not part of the essential name of a piece." That may or may not be true — let's not go there! — but in this case we're talking about the name of the article, not the music. Does 'String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn)' convey more meaning than 'String Quartets Op. 33 (Haydn)'? Or is the comma just a pedantic convention?

Maybe this is the wrong place for this discussion? It's a fairly minor point. If there is an agreed project guideline that 'Op.' must always and invariably be preceded by a comma wherever it appears, that's fine by me. No sleep lost. Best.--Kleinzach 10:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep on saying it's different in an article title, but not why you think it's different. If it's a (pedantic) convention in a title, then it would be just as much a (pedantic) convention anywhere else. To answer your question with a question: Does "Haydn's String Quartets, Op. 33, are my favourite chamber music" convey any more information than "Haydn's String Quartets Op. 33 are my favourite chamber music"? No, but that's not the point. It is a convention, but it's not pedantic. There are many examples where it would be possible to dispense with punctuation without any damage to the meaning conveyed; but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to do so. Example: I could have just written "but that doesnt mean its appropriate to do so". Nobody would have misunderstood me. But is that a good argument for doing away with the apostrophes? Certainly not. I don't consider it the slightest bit pedantic to adhere to a certain standard of punctuation (and spelling, grammar etc), and that's the essential thing with the comma we're discussing - it's a standard that our readers (at least our educated readers) would expect us to use, and may in many cases be troubled by not finding it where they expected. We should not be in the business of causing distress to our readers, but we should be aiming to be as transparent as possible. Commas matter, and for more reasons than those listed in grammar books. So, I don't agree it's a minor point, but maybe we can continue this over at my sub/user page where we're discussing a range of style issues. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• The comma separation in providing the opus number in the titular form is a discographical standard in English. (In German, by contrast, the comma is unconventional.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Instrumentation sections

The problem of how to format Instrumentation sections was discussed in 2007, see Archive 3. These sections can now be quite 'space extensive', as for example Mahler's 8th.

In 2007, some people were interested in having a (never implemented) table. I've now attempted one. It occupies about one-third of the space used by equivalent vertically arranged lists. This is for Mahler's 8th:

Section	Instruments
Woodwind	2 piccolos (several to a part), 4 flutes, 4 oboes, English horn, clarinet in E-flat, doubled throughout, 3 clarinets in B-flat and A, bass clarinet in B-flat and A, 4 bassoons, contrabassoon
Brass	8 horns in F, 4 trumpets in F and B-flat, 4 trombones, tuba
Percussion	timpani, bass drum, 3 pairs of cymbals, triangle, tam-tam, deep bells in A and A-flat, glockenspiel
Keyboards	celesta, piano, harmonium, organ
Offstage instruments	4 trumpets in F (several to a part), 3 trombones
Vocal parts	First soprano (Magna Peccatrix), second soprano (Una poenitentium), third soprano (Mater gloriosa), first alto (Mulier Samaritana), second alto (Maria Aegyptiaca), tenor (Doctor Marianus), baritone (Pater ecstaticus), bass (Pater profundus), Boys' Choir, Mixed Choirs I, II
Strings	2 harps (several to a part), mandolin (several to the part), violins I, II, violas, violoncellos, double basses

Please note I've kept to the same order as that in the article, but corrected the capitalization. I'd appreciate comments. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you trying to start a new standard? IMO the tabes look bad on the page and are especially unclear when dealing with multiple doublings. You shouldm't have to search through a quasi-paragraph set of table contents to find out if the English Horn also doubles on Oboe 4. No one liked the table and that's why it wasn't adopted. This isn't about saving space, it's about clarity. And clarity is paramount over white space. One recent concession in the List format has been the inclusion of columns to reduce the space needed for the instrumentation sections. I think this is enough. BTW, what's with "correct capitalization"? They are proper nouns in the context of an Orchestra. Why change that? Justin Tokke (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Classical Music Project guideline says:

"This simple format is applicable to most works, even most of those calling for larger orchestras, more percussion, and doubling on auxiliary wind instruments. For example:""

The symphony is scored for an orchestra consisting of 2 flutes (2nd doubling piccolo), 2 oboes (2nd doubling cor anglais), 2 clarinets (1st doubling E-flat clarinet), 4 bassoons, 4 french horns, 2 trumpets, 2 cornets, 3 trombones, 2 ophicleides (usually replaced by tubas), 2 pairs of timpani, snare drum, cymbals, bass drum, bells in C and G, 2 harps, and strings."

This isn't always being followed now, so I'm raising the issue again, and I've suggested the table as a possible solution/update. No doubts there are other possible solutions - including reverting to the simple paragraph above. Anyway I'd be interested in some other opinions on this. Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my suggestion of the table above. It's now clear to me that most editors are happy with the existing guideline linked above. --Kleinzach 08:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)