Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Scottish Baroque music

Any experts on Scottish Baroque music out there? The article is little more than a stub, and it seems to me that it confuses Scottish Baroque with composers of Scottish traditional music of the same period. Baroque music of the British Isles doesn't seem to say anything about the Scottish scene. And, by the way, is "Baroque" a proper noun? It seems to be inconsistently capitalised in various WP articles. --Deskford (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page there. I think the original author either didn't realize that Baroque styles from elsewhere in Europe were a small and rather inconsequential graft onto culture in the 17th and 18th centuries in Scotland, or else presumed that music was "Baroque" because of the dates during which it was composed. Antandrus (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Listing of alternate movements/Mozart Symphony 31

Hello. There's a bit of confusion at Symphony No. 31 (Mozart). Mozart wrote two slow movements.

• An original in 6/8 which Deutsch & A.P.Brown calls an "Andantino" and NMA calls an "Andante".
• A replacement "Andante" in 3/4.

Currently, the narrative culled from Deutsch focuses on the replacement being the main version. The replacement is the only one listed in the movement list and the existence of the original requires careful reading of the text. This introduces some confusion. Especially for editors doing quick flyby edits where they change only the time signature. This is perhaps magnified here because I'm not sure everyone agrees with Deutsch about which version is the main version. Many are more familiar with the original. Is there a standard way of noting the existence of alternative movements in the movement list so that the issue is more obvious? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

British classical music timelines

Following discussion in the section above and on talk: Early music of the British Isles and not withstanding my comment about the issue being peculiar to that page, there is a proposal to deleted the timelines, with a view to possibly replacing them with a, clearer and modernised version some time in the future. I have opened up this section for debate over the issue, which would potentially have an impact on 3 articles (Early music of the British Isles, Baroque music of the British Isles (when/if it is created) and Classical music of the United Kingdom. It seems self evident that any timeline should be useful, clear and comprehensible. The following possibilities occur:

• Do not bother to repalce the existing timelines
• Put new timelines on each of the three pages which deal with period of each article, but which are in a much better form
• Have one simple timeline with some key indicators that can appear on all three articles.

Suggestions and comments are very welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For reasons I've given before and can give again, I don't think it's worth replacing the timeline. Better to simply remove it. --Kleinzach 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. The timeline referred to is here. --Kleinzach 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now removed the Baroque section, but I think the whole thing should really go. What do other people think. --Kleinzach 08:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD? Not sure how to generate enough response without a formal process. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mfd/Afd/Tfd are not possible because it's a text section of an article (even if it looks like a graphic). We could turn it into a template and then ask for the template to be deleted, but then we might be certified as lunatics. I suppose an Rfc would be possible but again this would be a bit ridiculous. --Kleinzach 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think we need to go through these processes. I am probably the editor most likely to object to deletion and I am in broad agreement that they can go. I have an idea for something much simpler with just four lines, and hoped to get this ready, but problem with "easy timeline" is that is far from easy - so it may take some time. Lets post again for deletion on all the relevant article talkpages and if there are no objections - go ahead in about five days.--SabreBD (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have posted at Early music of the British Isles. --Kleinzach 23:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK.  Done --Kleinzach 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1812 Overture

1812 Overture is in need of extra references. I have done some work, but I can't find any more sources for me to cite, so can someone help out? Brambleclawx 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Composition grade levels

Do we have an article explaining grade levels for music? Browsing a bit, I didn't find an obvious one ( Grade (music) redirs elsewhere). Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello SoV, could you explain more clearly what you mean? For instance, do you mean, grade levels that estimate how hard a particular work would be for a student to learn? Or what? Opus33 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Grades 1-6. Who determines this? Is it hard-and-fast rules (range, speed, rhythm), or just personal judgement? Etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I try not to edit in areas where I haven't done some reading, but my casual impression is that the top guys (in the English-speaking world) for assigning grades to works of classical music are the people who run the assessment program for Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music in Britain (www.abrsm.org). They are apparently influential enough that their exams are used even outside Britain. Other than that, I've seen less formal grade levels in published series of training material for musicians. My guess would be that the people who produce such grade levels are experienced teachers, so they know from years of observation of their students what sort of difficulties are created by what pieces. Opus33 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To mention family or not to mention family

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elisabeth_von_Magnus and say whether it is relevant that she is Nikolaus Harnoncourt's daughter or whether her wish for this not to be mentioned should be respected.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The German WP article and the English {Elisabeth von Magnus) one both have Personennamendatei (Authority Contriol PND) at the bottom, which verifies that he's her father [1]. See also [2]. This is hardly "private" information. I had a similar problem here. Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of Lorna Luft. When she was just starting out, you'd read articles about her that said she preferred to use her legal name, and be recognised for her merits, rather than appropriate her mother's name and get some extra mileage out of the fact that she was Judy Garland's daughter. Well, duh! She may as well have said "Hey world, it's me, Judy Garland's daughter Lorna Luft, but I'm going to keep the fact that I'm Judy Garland's daughter a secret because I want to be recognised for my talents, not my family connections." -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Bands: Retrospect Ensemble and The King's Consort

Retrospect Ensemble and The King's Consort could use some extra eyes, especially the former. The talk pages are self explanatory, but for background to the brouhaha, see this. A couple of single-purpose accounts + an IP or two, who from their edit history are pretty obviously connected with either The King's Consort or Robert King, keep monkeying around with the Retrospect Ensemble article... er... rather unhelpfully. They're driving me nuts. Voceditenore (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

TO DO List

This WikiProject's todo list was updated by User:SatyrBot, which is apparently now inactive. Something needs to be done. Brambleclawx 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately our other trusted bots, ShepBot and Bot0612, are also inactive. Do you have a special use for the 'To do list'? What do you need to find out? --Kleinzach 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, its just that I use it to find something to do. How else do project members find things to do? Brambleclawx 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Public Domain Archive (Japan)

A considerable number of classic recordings are now available as mp3 files on the Public-domain-archive.com website, see for example Beethoven here. --Kleinzach 04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not PD in the US, however, I would wager. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical guitar repertoire

Classical guitar repertoire appears to be a useless page. I feel that it should be merged into List of composers for the classical guitar and List of compositions for guitar. The page claims to be a history of guitar repertoire, but doesn't have any content about it, as it just lists composers for the guitar, and on a few instances, a few notable compositions.

Therefore, I have placed a merge template on it. Brambleclawx 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but as there are three pages involved, you might consider explaining the moves where discussion is indicated by the merge notices. --Kleinzach 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, what I'm saying is that this page is just a list of composers and a few compositions. What I'd like to do is merge the composer info into the composer page, and the composition info into the composition page. I'm not sure what I would do with the original page after that's done, since it can't redirect to 2 pages at once, and a disambig doesn't seem right.

And no one besides User:Kleinzach has said anything, and its been half a wekk already. Brambleclawx 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your idea, but you also need to explain it here. If there are no objections then go ahead and copy the text to the other pages. The Classical guitar repertoire page can first be made into a redirect (to either article) and then deleted. (This is something to worry about later.) --Kleinzach 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is explained here. Brambleclawx 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. So now you have some comments to take you forward. --Kleinzach 02:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories for 'creative works' - music, visual arts, literature etc.

Please see this discussion at the Arts Project about reorganizing high-level categories for 'art works', including compositions, songs and albums. The intention is to make it easier for projects to look after large sets of articles. Thank you. --Kleinzach 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see specific proposals — and join in the iVote! --Kleinzach 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

I am maintaining User:Peter_cohen/BLP_RFC_stats which records those statements which have received the most supporting and/or opposing comments and indicates trends in the !voting patterns. So it you can't wade through the whole rfc, these and newer comments towards the bottom of the page are probably the places to look.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks peter, I assume you are a member of this group too. Appreciate all your efforts! Ikip 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Organ repertoire

Further to the above concerns about Classical guitar repertoire, the Organ repertoire article is a horrible mess. It has absolutely no sources whatsoever and has a graphic from hell (yes, yet another one). It also contains several peacocks such as "The most famous transcriber for the organ is Edwin Lemare" among other minor issues. Any one willing to take it on? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And for a truly bad article (original research, embedded external blog link, dubious promotional purpose), try Organ quartet. No time to do anything about it now, but I'm not sure what could be done. --Deskford (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied Organ quartet up a little bit and offered it for WP:PROD. --Deskford (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not conviced by the PROD: you actually mention the well-known Reich work and potential Portuguese 4-organ works on the talk page, thus more or less shoting yourself in the foot... Could these clearly notable works not be used to bulk the page up with useful stuff? Or even to replace the blatant self-promo stuff? I take it "Chant d'Oiseaux" are nobodies? However, the article is awful (and far worse before you cleaned it up), I'll not deny that! (Why does the hymn need disambiguating, BTW? Or are you wondering if this work is a setting of the hymn rather than a totally unrelated original work?) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming the hymn Be Thou My Vision is not itself an organ quartet and the work referred to is derived from it in some way, but I found no mention in the article on the hymn.

Although Steve Reich's "Four Organs" and "Phase Patterns" could be described as "organ quartets", I'm not aware that I have ever actually heard that term used to describe them, so if we added Reich to the article it might count as original research. And, try as I might, I can't find any reference that says anything about any music written for Portuguese churches with four organs.

I really didn't think there was any scope for making the article viable, but I would be happy to see someone prove me wrong! There might be more potential for an article called something like Music for multiple organs, without explicitly using the word "quartet", but then that wouldn't cover music for multiple players at one organ. Some organ works by György Ligeti, Luciano Berio and Pelle Gudmundsen-Holmgreen call for multiple assistants to operate the stops or retune the pipes, but to include these would be stretching a point! --Deskford (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata article names (again)

Dealing with the Koopman recordings of the complete Bach cantatas (that the composer himself typically did not name that way or any other) and observing ambigation problems I was pointed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_26#Bach_cantatas_-_article_names. Heaving read most of it I still don't see how the conflict could be solved: cantata and hymn same title, cantata and motet same title ... - Also it's a lot of German. My suggestions: for all the cantatas a redirect "BWV #" (already there for selected cantatas) that could be used in internal links, and/or a redirect combining that unique combination with the words of the title, example BWV 192 Nun danket alle Gott to distinguish from Nun danket alle Gott. The article BWV could explain this. Btw I don't understand why cantata 191 Gloria in excelsis Deo is not yet covered but BWV 191 points to the Gloria in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing debate: categories of music competition prize winners

Members of the project might be interested in participating in this ongoing debate regarding the categories that list winners of music competitions. (I hope no editor will think this is canvassing).--Karljoos (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is certainly not canvassing, but what is the point of taking part in these discussions? I note the Operalia Cfd which deleted the category despite a 3:2 ivote in favour of keeping. We also had the farce of the Wagner Cfd and subsequent deletion review (here and here). Why should we take part in these processes if the opinions of non-bureaucrats are routinely ignored? --Kleinzach 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Oscar van Dillen

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar van Dillen (2nd nomination)

Note that he is an important Wikipedian and the previous AfD was closed with a comment that RSs need to added to the articles. These were not provided and I have completely failed to come up with anything after nearly 3 hours of searching. Kleinzach has added an EL to a Cybele recording of one of his records but the article remains unsourced to date. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rheingau Musik Festival

Hallo, I just joined the project and invite you to the Rheingau Musik Festival. I would like to see a solution to the ambiguities in the Bach cantata names - please look above and think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After archiving: see below (not above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ritual Fire Dance Merge

Can talk:El amor brujo's discussion now be closed on the consesus that the articles will not be merged?--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 12:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus.--Karljoos (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with. The guideline says: "Separate articles can be justified if the music, being performed in a different context from the complete work or in an alternative arrangement, is notable in its own right." Accordingly we can maintain a separate article for Ritual Fire Dance, but only for the non-ballet music. (The ballet should not be split into different articles.)

I'd appreciate it if Pianoplonkers would undertake to separate the piano material from the ballet - I think he's the best person to do this. (I am not so familiar with this work.) Thank you. --Kleinzach 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Romanticism and Revolution at AfD

Please offer opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanticism and Revolution. -- Banjeboi 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A check needed on Trevor Pinnock

Looking at the remaining articles to be done on the GA sweep, I noticed that Trevor Pinnock is there. This article is largely the work of Clavecin (talk · contribs · count) in 2007 (I think the various IP contributors around then are probably the same person). Unfortunately Clavecin has been pretty inactive recently. I'm going to post on his/her talk page to warn him that this is coming up. But a skim of the article reveals a short lede and discussion of events in 2007 as contemporary.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The sweep has reached this article rather quicker than I had hoped and the original author has not edited in the two weeks since I warned them that the article will be coming up. It is now threatened with delisting unless certain changes are made. I'll take another look at the article and at the reviewer's comments later today and decide what I might be able to do.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't bother. GA is a flawed process and currently has no mechanism for overcoming its inherent dilettantism. FA is the real prize. Eusebeus (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done the work in the end and it has been kept as a GA.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A Polish Requiem

In the process of expanding Polish Requiem I couldn't find so far where in the sequence Ciaccona would be performed. Help, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Help is also welcome to get information from new sources - at present unavailable to me - into the article. Needless to say: also on the music, beyond just the facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After much hunting to find where the Ciaconna fits into the sequence, or even if it has ever been performed as part of the Polish Requiem rather than as a standalone orchestral work, I found the following sequence on the Schott website:

• I Introitus, Requiem aeternam
• II Kyrie
• III Dies irae
• IV Tuba mirum
• V Mors stupebit - VI Quid sum miser - VII Rex tremendae
• VIII Recordare
• IX Ingemisco
• X Lacrimosa
• XI Sanctus
• XII Ciaconna
• XIII Agnus Dei - XIV Lux aeterna - XV Libera me - XVI Offertorium
• XVII Finale, Libera animas

The page is here, but you have to click "Content" under "Further information" to reveal the sequence. --Deskford (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that successful hunt! - I kept the line from the original article that the complete Requiem was performed in Kracow but so far found no ref for that statement, not even in the French article that is given as the source (on the discussion of Polish Requiem). I had considered to move the article to "A Polish Requiem" - as 2 of 3 recordings name it - but think that is closer to Brahms than to Polskie Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again - because next to "Content" I also found "Performances" (too many to list) including the one in Kraków. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha — well spotted! I think you are right about the title. As far as I remember there are no definite or indefinite articles in Polish, so Brahms must have been subconsciously influencing whoever translated it as "A Polish Requiem". --Deskford (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A belated invitation

An RfC is taking place over at Composers on the issue of Infoboxes: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#A_new_perspective. Your input would be most most welcome. (Sorry I let it so late to inform you all.) Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)