Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Can you identify these instruments?

Hi, could anyone knowledgeable of Western musical instruments identify these instruments? File:London-Victoria and Albert Museum-Musical instrument-01.jpg and File:London-Victoria and Albert Museum-Musical instrument-02.jpg Thanks.Caspian blue 12:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a lute. It could be a large (bass) mandolin, or something like a bouzouki, but they tend to have narrower necks. Magic♪piano 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a MANDOLINO LOMBARDO, a typical baroque mandolin. Vivaldi wrote his mandolin works for exactly this kind..Lute88 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: the latter instrument appears to be a Mandolino Lombardo (see this page: mandolino lombardo del 1860 originale in tutte le sue componenti). The former is also probably a mandolin, though without seeing the strings and frets (or lack of) it is hard to determine with certainty what it is. We also have no real sense of scale, so the instrument could be any size! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion opened re: red link deletions from classical pianists list

Heads up for those who may be interested: following deletion of many red links from List of classical pianists, a discussion has opened here on the list's talk page about whether to retain such listings and, if so, which. Drhoehl (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This has developed into a general discussion about red-link lists, of which we have many. Perhaps we should continue this here and ask for opinions? --Kleinzach 10:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Music released on Blu-ray

Related to David's point on discographies, an editor has been adding Category:Music released on Blu-ray to zillions of opera articles, and possibly also to classical music concerts that have been filmed. The category is being discussed for deleion here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist discussion

For the past couple of years there has been an understanding that infobox musical artist is for popular musicians. Template:Infobox musical artist explains that it is for non-classical artists, (moreover the fields are obviously designed for these artists).

On 31 August Pigsonthewing (aka Andy Mabbett) removed the words 'non-classical' from Infobox musical artist here. After several reversions, discussion has developed at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/doc, see Classical artists and following sections, notably the last one Classical artists (continued).

Pro-infobox editors have said that "The musical artist infobox belongs to WikiProject Musicians" (A Knight Who Says Ni), which has bannered 54,000 music articles (including all classical music biographies) as part of the Biography Project, but also by strong implication that this project (and Composers and Opera) have been claiming 'ownership' of articles - the old Pigsonthewing/Mabbett charge (for which he was eventually blocked, see here). --Kleinzach 03:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Massive deja vu. My view is that Andy will probably win this time now that he's got the Bio and Musicians WikiProjects involved. Centy – reply• contribs – 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has confirmed that infobox musical artist is for popular musicians. The explanation that it is for non-classical artists remains in place. --Kleinzach 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out the discussion actually confirmed status quo ante bellum since there was no consensus reached. Therefore no changes are to be made. Since previous discussions on this issue are often brought up as evidence that the consensus is infoboxes are for non classical music artists only, I wish to make this point clear. So if this issue arises again in the future, there should no attempts to speedily stop a new discussion it by referring back to this discussion. Kleinzach, I am going to stay out of this issue from here on in since I recall having a ignominious argument with you over this a few months ago but my only advice to you is that you should stop seeing consensus through rose-tinted spectacles. Centy – reply• contribs – 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Centy I don't know what you are trying to say, but please leave the project page alone. It's not for personal notes. --Kleinzach 05:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A new WikiProject/task force proposals

For your information, user Pianoplonkers established new Romantic Music task force. There is also a proposal at WikiProject Council for a new WikiProject Romantic Pianism. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that no discussion ever developed for this taskforce. Is there any other activity? --Kleinzach 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This task force has three members: Egemont, Etincelles, and Pianoplonkers. They appear to be linked as 'partners'. I wonder if they are all operated by the same user? --Kleinzach 10:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pianoplonkers confirms that these are different individuals, however we still need to decide if this task force is viable or not. I've asked Pianoplonkers to comment. --Kleinzach 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to delete them. They are not useful and it was not a good idea to make them in the first place--Pianoplonkers (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Romantic Music task force--Kleinzach 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Now deleted. --Kleinzach 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright stuff

Many of you are also members of WikiProject Opera and may be aware of the copyvio saga we are currently dealing with. Just a heads up to let you know that we now have a Copyright Guidelines page which you might also find useful. Today, I came across some instances of copypaste in two CMP articles, Piano Concerto No. 21 (Mozart) and Scherzo in A-flat major (Borodin). I've suggested to the editors who added it, to take a look at our guidelines, as they may have been unaware of the importance of these issues. This project might want to do something similar. Voceditenore (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by "This project might want to do something similar" I mean develop a similar copyright guidelines page, not warn those particular editors all over again. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to write a succinct copyright guildeline and put it in the Compositions task force article guidelines, that could be start. The main problem is that it's all too easy for anyone to lift the program notes word for word (or even closely paraphrase) into an article without ever being concerned with copyright issues. The only thing I can suggest is that when a classical music article becomes prominently expanded (e.g. potential DYK), someone should at least run a copyvio check before linking it to the front page. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Copyright guidelines is in order here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Following on... I think this whole copyright thing will be an utter pain to enforce. For example: String Quartet No. 1 (Martinů). This may or may not be a translation of sleevenotes to a recording (linked in the external links). I personally have no clue over the copyright status of this. My own view is we should operate a benefit of the doubt policy and not be too overly stringent. If clear copyvios are found, then we should deal with them but I think it may be too much to ask for an out and out search for copyvios. Centy – reply• contribs – 23:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the case of something that isn't on the internet and would be difficult to both obtain and translate, a 'benefit of the doubt' strategy is probably the way to go. But most copyvios come from online sources. Nor should you all start going out and actively looking for them. The main point of having explicit guidelines for members (or linking to some) is more preventative rather than a call to "enforcement". Although, once serial copyvio gets out hand, enforcement becomes necessary. The Opera Project has suffered two major bouts of wide-spread copyvio by single editors – the first one back in 2007 – and they are a massive pain. Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most copyright violations are simple copy and paste efforts from online sources which can be identified by searching for a distinctive phrase on Google. The extensive problems at the Opera Project were caused by a single editor/sockmaster (Nrswanson) who accessed/mined the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. (This can only be accessed via a subscription, hence not via Google.) It's unlikely that we will see more people like Swanson.

For the record, it was known for some time what Swanson was doing. His efforts dated back to May 2007 (see here). Back in March I warned Voceditenore (who was familiar with the history) about the exacerbated problem (see here) and suggested that she alert the Opera Project about what was going on. If there had been some action at that point the problem wouldn't have developed into such a big thing.) --Kleinzach 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, The Opera Project was alerted to this in March, the day after your warning. [1] I also set up a page to start listing the articles that might need checking, and another member provided (via email) copies of some Grove articles so we could start working through the list. A month later, Nrswanson was banned for sockpuppetry and we all breathed a sigh of relief, thinking we only had to go through his past contributions. After the summer break, the checking began in earnest [2]. Unfortunately, by this time he had returned with more sockpuppets (ultimately 7!), and as the copyvio investigations started closing in,[3] they went into overdrive. One of them created 15 copypaste articles from Grove on obscure Czech composers shortly before the new sock farm was found.

This is a very unusual case (I hope!), but in the course of the cleanup we've also found quite a lot of copypaste from other editors as well. It's an ongoing problem thoughout Wikipedia. Also, a heads up – Nrswanson and his 'family' created and edited many articles that are bannered for the Classical Music and Composer projects. Members here might want to check through this list to see if there's anything you want to rescue. After a period of time, the Copyright Cleanup Project may have to resort to indiscriminately deleting all his contributions, although they will try to notify the relevant projects before they do. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla)/Discographies

Please can someone see if Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla) could be a c-class article?--Pianoplonkers (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The surname is Falla not de Falla (per Grove etc.). Re assessments see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Assessment which says: "There is no internal WikiProject rating system for articles at the moment, so articles should only be rated with a class on the assessment scale if they are listed as a stub or have been selected as a good article or a featured article." Also note that other classical music projects are not using 'C' only 'Start' and 'B'. I'd recommend that here for the sake of simplicity. --Kleinzach 00:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I also note that there is a suggestion to merge this into El amor brujo. --Kleinzach 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What does everyone think of discography sections? One vendor lists 105 recordings of the Ritual Fire Dance in print [4] and 37 recordings of the full El amor brujo suite [5]. Several of the ones listed in this article seem completely anonymous (e.g. "40 Popular Classics") and give more information about the record label than the performer or performance. For some compositions where there are few recordings (or few famous recordings), I can be accepting of a discography section but for most pieces in the standard repertoire, I feel a section like this becomes an unnecessary area of contention. What does the group think?DavidRF (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think attempts at complete discographies is a good thing, at least for larger works (so, Ritual Fire Dance seems kinda silly, but one for El Amour Brujo would be fine). I absolutely hate the 'selected records' or even worse 'notable recordings' sections that many people put, but a fair and nuetral section is certainly worth adding. It hasn't been updated in a while, but I like to point to Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) Discography as an example of a way it can be done without playing favorites. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That discography page looks nice, but its extremely rare. There's lots of nice opera discography pages, but for instrumental works, the only compositions that have articles in Category:Classical music discographies are the Goldberg Variations and Sibelius-7 (why only that one?). It seems like a lot of work when the arkivmusic search engine is so easy. I don't want to be too pessimistic or pragmatic, but some of these pieces have hundreds of recordings.DavidRF (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arkiv certainly doesn't have everything. Even with their CDR service, lots of stuff are still OOP, and there's plenty that are duplicated on more than one disc/set (I think the Du Pre/Barberolli Elgar cello concerto hits a good 10 or more). Of course doing it for Beethoven's 5th may be futile, but for most pieces it shouldn't be TOO difficult to make a mostly-comprehensive list (but of course, someone has to want to do the work). Lists are allowed to be incomplete, it's just a matter of unnatural barriers to completion ("that recording sucks" or "noone's heard of it", etc.) that's a problem. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one really loathe the whole idea of discographies in WP, and especially the ones that only include "selected" recordings. I just don't see WP as the place for this. For a work with only a few recordings it's one thing (he said grudgingly), but for The Planets or the seventh Beethoven symphony or anything with boatloads of renditions it's simply not feasible to include a discography that makes much of any sense, for all the reasons noted above. I think of WP as being essentially a general-interest encyclopedia; when it delves into the more arcane regions of early-music scholarship or tries to mention every instance of Sacre being committed to wax or tape or bits, it has abandoned that position. To me, if a discography isn't complete it's automatically POV and if I ran the zoo (said young Gerald McGrew) I would axe them--the good, the bad, and the ugly--without fear or favor. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of removing the word 'Selected' from 'Selected recordings' section titles, when it's likely no selection ever took place. In general discographies can be useful, but should be removed from main pages, so readers only access them if they want to. This is how the opera discographies were done, e.g. the Aida discography was hived off Aida. --Kleinzach 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole page isn't a disography (correct me if I am wrong about this article being said is as disography). I feel that the recordings section is useful because people can use this information to help them choose a recording that they might like to get--Pianoplonkers^(talk) 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. It's not a directory or guide. But a discography IS an important part of a musical work's 'being' in a sense, in today's culture, which is why IMO they are a good thing and appropriate. Again, it's simply a matter of trying to be complete, which isn't always feasible (but I disagree that incomplete means it's POV or non-nuetral, so long as the attempt for completeness is made). It's certainly no more so than attempts at compleness for a single composer's body of works (another place where I hate the whole 'major works' thing). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Discographies good and encyclopedic. "selected" bad and POv/misleading.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't agree with much of this discussion. I very much like the "Selected recordings" sections. When they are on a musicians page they document and give a good idea of that artist's work. If a discography is incomplete, then the word "selected" indicates this succinctly. The items are of course "selected," by the editors of Wikipedia. That is unavoidable, and I don't at all believe it's a "bad" thing. If someone took the trouble to enter the item, then they must feel it is worthwhile. To just leave the heading as "Recordings" may falsely imply that the list is complete. There are dozens and dozens of articles that use this heading. I think we should leave them as they are. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done a search for 'Selected Recordings' sections and I've found that 90% of them are in opera articles. The problem with using 'selected' is that we don't know if and why a selection has taken place, and how that selection has been reconciled to basic WP policies. Also note that no-one is suggesting we remove the actual information. --Kleinzach 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the word "Selected" as implying much more than the list is a subset of all recordings in whatever category is being discussed. The fact that anyone entered it in the list automatically makes it selected, and doesn't say anything about notability or quality other than that editor thought it important enough to add it. And I don't see where we need any other criteria than that for determining what goes on a "selected" list. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

When I see "selected" I read an implication that the recordings are somehow "better" than the ones not listed. Just last week, someone added [this edit] Haydn's Creation and my first reaction was "why are we selecting those?" I can think of several recordings that are more famous. Are we in the business of recommending recordings? Do I remove the list because I don't agree with the choices? Do I change it Karajan and Bernstein? Do I supplement the list with more modern recordings and/or period instrument recordings? Do I expand the list to include every recording I can find? Do we need a discography task force? More to this particular point, I see "selected" as a semantic one. There could a small disclaimer ahead of the list stating its incomplete-ness.DavidRF (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's been a "this list is incomplete" template in used for years. It's certainly worthwhile to add. And I completely agree with DavidRF in my feelings about the 'selected' ones (as I implied above). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, almost all sections of all articles are incomplete, so I doubt whether we need to be emphasizing something that will usually be obvious. --Kleinzach 03:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifying references by topic

Articles on violinists Guila Bustabo and Dylana Jenson use a method of citation I haven't seen in any other articles. Essentially, rather than using footnotes, it concludes with a references section that consists of entries like this:

As to date of birth, Hall, Chronology of Western Classical Music, p. 996 viewed online at http://books.google.com/books?id=c7sE1CRxKvUC&pg=PA996&lpg=PA996&dq=dylana+jenson+%22May+14%22&source=bl&ots=vz27DUjRxs&sig=ME_E6rgORPptr6RheBLezETNR_E&hl=en&ei=2Pq8SrTRKsnOlAeKkNCYBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=dylana%20jenson%20%22May%2014%22&f=false, visited September 25, 2009.

As to place of birth, see Brevard Music Center '82 Festival program "Overture", viewed online September 24, 2009.

As to relationship to Vicki Jenson, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421776/, viewed September 25, 2009.

What's the thinking on this? TJRC (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the usual {{Reflist}}-based system of inline citations, especially for specific references. Maybe the editor just doesn't know about this? --Kleinzach 03:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can recommend Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners? --Kleinzach 03:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Planets 'In popular culture' section

The Planets now has an extended 'in popular culture' section encompassing films, multimedia, television/videos, video games, advertizing, and popular music, amounting to more than a third of the whole article. Does anyone have any suggestions about how this might be edited/reduced/hived off? --Kleinzach 22:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuke it and start over? More seriously, that's been discussed on Talk:The Planets; see the section "Adaptations: needs some weeding?" My own thoughts is that incidental uses (advertisements; brief quotations in popular music and soundtracks, and, oh, yes, use at athletic events) should be deleted. More full treatments of either the entire work, an entire movement or at least a substantial part of a movement, ought to be retained.

I would, for example, retain the Emerson Lake & Powell version of "Mars"; Ayaka Hirahara's version of "Jupiter"; and Tomita's synthesizer adaptation of the entire work. There are others that I'm not personally familiar with, but based on the descriptions, probably are worth keeping: the Rob Astor recording (apparently of the entire work); Laibach's cover of "Mars"; and Wakeman's "Beyond The Planets"; and probably others. But when you start seeing "the intro to the song ____ includes parts of "'Mars'", yeah, those should be excised. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the way to go. Someone just needs to be bold and take the shears to it.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• You might actually have to delete it all. That's what ended up happening with Beethoven's 9th, Pachelbel's Canon, Dvorak's 9th and the 1812 Overture. Used to be there'd be these "In pop culture" child articles, but those get nominated for deletion pretty quickly and then disappear entirely. You could move it to the talk page to allow people to at least see it over there. Note that the "Adaptations" list is also far too long. Mellotron? hand-bell choirs? Have the Swingle Singers done the Planets?
• If you want to whittle it down more gradually, the first things to go should be many of the song references and concert "intro music" and other sampling. Multimedia section should go right away. Video games should go too (I've played Diablo II, I don't remember hearing the Planets). These articles should link here rather than vice-versa. TJRC mentions keeping ELP and Hirahara, but I think everyone has their favorite renditions and the article starts growing back again.
• Alternatively, you could just unwatch the page and forfeit the article to popular culture.  :-) Seriously, though, I wouldn't mind if this catch-all stuff was forked off appropriately into child articles to let pop culture buffs have their fun, but those pop-culture-only articles do indeed get deleted quite quickly. Votes are always near unanimous and mostly non-CM editors voting, too. DavidRF (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CMCTF#Uses in popular culture. This issue has appeared before and been included in our guidelines. Centy – reply• contribs – 14:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that there is pretty broad agreement among members of this project that trivia sections should be deleted, and that this is included in our project style manual. However, the instruction to "politely revert" popular culture sections is in contradiction to the instruction in the WP style guide, which explicitly states that they should not be deleted. See here. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's an MOS guideline. Individual projects are free to introduce variations to the MOS as they see ift, as long s they do not contradict the policy pillars. We have a longstanding tradition of avoiding IPC sections in CM articles; they can always be mentioned in the target article. Eusebeus (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So — we have a consensus for reducing or eliminating this section. Does anyone feel sufficiently familiar with the material to take on a selective cull of the whole section? (I don't!) Alternatively we could move the whole thing to a subpage (for possible eventual deletion). Which would be better? --Kleinzach 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Klein, there once was a The Planets in popular culture but that got deleted along with most other popular culture secitons for classical music since of course it just became unmanageable fancruft. If you are going to fork out these sections, they'll only be deleted later down the line. We should do it now. Centy – reply• contribs – 11:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you know... there it is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Planets_in_popular_culture. The AFD crowd is completely different from the crowd here, too. Funny how this process works. Seems like the consensus here is fork off a child article and the consensus there is to delete child articles. There does seem to be a demand for these catch-all sections as unencyclopedic as they may be. Its almost like the ideal solution would be to great a different "wikipopculture" namespace (like the commons for media files) and let people go nuts there while their impact on the main article is reduced to a single link.DavidRF (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's been a number of proposals over the years for a WikiTrivia or similar, ala WikiBooks, WikiQuotes, etc. Don't think anything ever came out of it, but I've always thought it a good idea, as having a proper place for the info instead of just losing it is always a good thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Should I move the section into a The Planets in popular culture subpage? Is that what we want to do? --Kleinzach 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)