Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Unexplained deletions from Electroacoustic music

A few IP editors (all apparently registered to ISPs in France) have recently been removing names from the list of composers in the article Electroacoustic music without giving any explanatory edit summary. Whilst I think the list is indeed far too long, this is not the way to go about pruning it. Any extra pairs of eyes on this article would be useful. --Deskford (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You will have noticed that I have reverted many of these edits myself. It did strike me that all the additions (many of them redlinks) were French or French-Canadian composers, and most or all of the deleted names were Germans, English, or Americans. No doubt news of their fame has yet to reach the Gallic regions while, similarly, some local heroes of France and Canada are not as well-known outside of their respective countries as some of their boosters would like.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Underpopulated categories

I found the following categories in Category:Underpopulated categories, and members of this WikiProject might be able to populate them.

• Category:1930s singers
• Category:Australian multi-instrumentalists
• Category:Australian music critics
• Category:Australian musical instrument makers
• Category:Child classical musicians
• Category:Child musicians
• Category:Classical music critics
• Category:Classical music in Germany
• Category:Classical music in Italy
• Category:Classical music soundtracks
• Category:Free music
• Category:Hungarian fiddlers
• Category:Hungarian flautists
• Category:Irish musical instrument makers
• Category:Music publishing companies of the United States
• Category:Music awards by year
• Category:Music media
• Category:Russian male singers
• Category:Singers by time period
• Category:Songs about cities
• Category:Songs about countries
• Category:Soviet classical musicians
• Category:Ukrainian folk musicians
• Category:Ukrainian folk singers

(I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what is the "Classical music soundtracks" category supposed to contain? I've just checked it, and the (very meagre) list contains not one single example of soundtracks including "classical" music. I expected to see, for example, Barry Lyndon or 2001: A Space Odyssey there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it was made by someone who equates "acoustic orchestral music" with classical music. Now the discussion of weather some film music could be considered classical or not is a worthwhile discussion (somewhere else), but this category doesn't belong as it. Either it SHOULD be changed to include soundtracks with mostly Western classical music, or deleted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that it might have been intended to contain classical musical compositions which have been adapted as soundtracks in movies and television programs. I can think of the William Tell overture used in "The Lone Ranger".

—Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That was precisely my assumption, but none of the films currently listed under this category qualify, so far as I am aware.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kookyunii started the category on 11 December 2010, and User:Kookyunii and User:Refreshersss used it to categorize all the subcategories and articles on that date, with the possible exception of Pan's Labyrinth (soundtrack), which is redirected. You might wish to discuss with them the meaning of "Classical music soundtracks".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik

Please have a look at the discussion of Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik, it's the first deletion discussion for me (not my article). The very general question: is performance of music significant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Piano_Sonata_No._8_(Mozart)

Over the holidays, an anonymous editor added a screenful of typo-laden stuff to the article on K310 (link above). Is any of this salvageable? Removing the whole edit is probably the sensible thing to do, but thought I'd post it hear in case it inspires anyone who is a fan of the work to replace it with their own edit. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think reverting and copying to the talk page is the best method. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Done.DavidRF (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Names of Bach's minor Passions

When St John Passion and St Matthew Passion were installed without "(Bach)", we left St Mark Passion (Bach) and St Luke Passion (Bach) as less important. The German WP noticed that inconsistency in naming. Therefore I suggest to name the Bach works St Mark Passion and St Luke Passion (without a dot), and leave disambiguation to St. Mark Passion and St. Luke Passion. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, though to be honest I think it is outrageous that Schütz does not take priority over that upstart, Bach. Seriously, though, I think you are correct, and consistency should prevail, but is it right to automatically assume that the alleged Bach Mark and Luke Passions are the main focus for these titles, when there are well-known settings by other composers without the stigma of being either spurious or reconstructed by possibly over-enthusiastic musicologists? It seems to me that rigorous logic would rename "St John Passion" and"St Matthew Passion" to "St John Passion (Bach)" and "St Matthew Passion (Bach)", with the unembellished titles used as disambiguation pages, as St. Luke Passion now is, for example.

A further thought: In English, there is no meaningful difference between "St. Luke" (with a dot) and "St Luke" (without a dot), and many search engines (Google, for example) ignore the distinction, which makes such a refinement in Wikipedia titles dubious, at best. Technically, the former usage is called an "abbreviation" and the latter a "contraction". In British usage, particularly, the former is incorrect in this case, because the last letter of the shortened form is the last letter of the full-length word ("Saint"), and is therefore a contraction. "St." is appropriate only for words like "String", where the word is interrupted before the final letter. See Abbreviation#Periods (full stops) and spaces. American usage does not favour this distinction, though the USPS prefers the form without a dot for addresses, even in cases that are technically not suspensions (e.g., "Pl" instead of "Pl." for "Place").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think we should give up the ease of writing the major Passions without a qualifier, and consistency is perhaps not of prime importance. Certainly Bach's St Mark is not The St Mark, and St Luke isn't even of Bach. The dot or not was widely discussed, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the current naming arrangement is just fine. The names for John and Matthew were determined in a discussion last March, and Luke and Mark, as lesser works, are appropriately using a disambiguator. Consistency as a mere formalism is overrated; at least, all four use the same convention for contractions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Convinced, thank you, I'll point the Germans here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the colleagues at the German Wikipedia eschew the principle of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC wherever possible; they just love to add disambiguators to as many articles as possible, often blatantly disregarding our principle that disambiguators should not serve as descriptors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bach cantata "titles" italic?

A recent discussion took me to the following questions: Should the cantata first lines, which serve as the article name, be presented as titles, that is, italic, and should the following attempt of a translation be italic as if a title? Example, the one discussed:

O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit (O lovely day, o hoped-for time), BWV 210

My suggestion:

O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit (O lovely day, o hoped-for time), BWV 210

to indicate that neither the German line of text nor the (one of many possible) translation is a true title.

As for translation (also addressed in the discussion), it's a personal matter: I look first at Emmanuel Music where I find a decent line most of the time, but if I don't like it check bach-cantatas which I almost never like, then end up with one of the universities. After so many authorities thought about translating those lines, I typically don't do it myself nor ask a translation program. Thoughts welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS prescribes italics for cantata titles. If, as you say, the first line is not the true title, what is? The BWV number? My impression is that the well-known cantatas are certainly called by their first line (apart from the really well known ones, like the Coffee Cantata and the Peasant Cantata) but I only know a handful of them. The current styling convention doesn't seem to violate any Wikipedia guidelines – even if they are not titles, they are still in a foreign language and should be italicised for that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If WP:ITALICS calls for cantata titles to be in italics, then that should be sufficient reason. Foreign words, however, should only be italicized where they need to be set off from an English context, and where they are not sufficiently familiar in a particular context. Italian words such as concerto or ritardando may need to be italicized in an article on economics, for example, but probably not in an article on music. The opening line of a song used as a title, for example, is enclosed in quotation marks, and should not be italicized as well, simply because it is in a language other than English (thus, "Marmor, Stein und Eisen bricht", not "Marmor, Stein und Eisen bricht", "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman", not "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman"). This is the convention that must have led to the question about Bach cantatas in the first place.

I have not been following the relevant discussion, but I gather that the Wikipedia MoS now dictates that all article titles that are themselves the titles of works of literature, art, or music should be displayed in italics, if they would be italicized in running text. I have not yet seen any discussion of how this might be methodically addressed in the area of "classical" music, however, and particularly how the "italic title" tag can be applied to musical works with mixed-format titles—that is, where a genre title is combined with a true title, as for example Tartini's Devil's Trill Sonata, Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite, or Arnold's Tam O'Shanter Overture.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let the German cantata title be italic then (different from de-WP), but how about the translation, which is one of many possible ones and not a title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The translation given (if any) should not be treated as part of the title, and therefore is not italicized—as well as for the reason you mention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and what's being said at WP:ITALICTITLE: there have been acres of discussion about it, and the current wording doesn't quite reflect the way I remember the distinct lack of a consensus there. Anyway, some projects have (so far) held out against this usage, which was a bit easier for those projects which are opposed to infoboxes, as that is the quickest way to implement italic titles. It is also a bit prone to unintended consequences and incomplete solutions. The magic word itself can handle any variation of italics and straight type. I'm sitting on the fence regarding the use of italics in titles; I don't think having them or not makes one iota of difference to the quality of Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably I wasn't clear enough, I don't mean the very title, but the bolded mentioning of it in the article. If I get the comments right, I would now go for

O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit (O lovely day, o hoped-for time), BWV 210. Or should BWV 210 be bold as well, being a redirect? But then I would not know how to establish the link to BWV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what you list above is fine. Isn't that the format mostly used now in Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach?

(Aside: linking to a term which is part of a bolded string is the same as any other linking:
'''''O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit''''' (O lovely day, o hoped-for time), '''[[Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis|BWV]] 210''', is a secular cantata…
results in
O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit (O lovely day, o hoped-for time), BWV 210, is a secular cantata…
but looks odd to me; I wouldn't recommend it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, it looks odd to me as well because it gives extra unwanted attention to "BWV". The category lists the names of the articles as they appear in the template. But the question (which started this consideration) was about the translation of the German, only then did I notice that it is not any kind of a title itself (but was rendered as one so far), I bet most performances of Bach cantatas are in German. I think to try at least to translate the first line is fair enough in the en WP. There are still older articles of cantatas which through the complete German text at the reader without a translation. I go over the cantatas slowly, in about Bach's speed through the liturgical year. but prefer to add a new one rather than improve an old one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Brahms clarinet sonatas

I'm interested in splitting the composition page that currently lists both Brahms clarinet sonatas on one article to two more complete, separate articles. I'm new to Wikipedia and am not exactly sure how to go about formatting this...Thanks Lrkleine (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this article presently consists of nothing more than a listing of the movements of each sonata, don't you think it would be better first to expand the material to something substantial enough to warrant splitting in two?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work on the conjoined article and we'll see how far it gets.Lrkleine (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Idea for gathering free music

Hello all. I have an idea, originally for WikiProject Free Music, but posted here since the project seems quite inactive.

I was thinking that an admirable (but extremely challenging) goal for WikiProject Classical Music would be to work with the Free Music project to attain basically the same goal Musopen is shooting for - free recordings of all public domain music. However, to achieve this goal, it would be helpful to have a listing of current progress toward this goal, perhaps with tables for each composer, a listing of all their compositions, and the status on recorded versions of those compositions. This would allow the teams to see what exactly has been recorded by every composer and how much they need to get that composer's complete works available. The list here seems useful for cataloging a bunch of songs, but not as a tool to tell what music is available and what isn't by each composer.

So I made a small mockup of this idea in my sandbox here. The meat of the idea is in the Layout section. Would it be a worthwhile endeavor to set up a page with this idea in place, but with a range of composers and all their compositions? I ask because doing so would be a fair amount of work that could be wasted if people don't find the idea useful.

Note that I also brought this up on another user's page and will bring it up on WikiProject Opera's talk page, but outside discussion will likely only come up on the Opera page.

Thanks in advance, atallcostsky talk 04:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Great idea but where is your sandbox? no link given. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies on that - I got in a bit of a rush and forgot to add in the links heh. Updated to include them now. atallcostsky talk 17:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I really like this idea and I'd be happy to help in any way I can. One question – if there was one page to list all of the music, wouldn't that get too long? Perhaps every composer should have a subpage linked from the main list, and the individual pieces could be listed there. Otherwise it might take too long to load on slow connections. Also, there should be some way to tell which of the sounds are featured (stars by the piece name, perhaps). Focus (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thing – should it be restricted only to classical and opera music? While most pop music is too recent to be under an acceptable license, there might be some non-classical music – musicals, maybe, or early jazz – that could be included. Also, what about collaborations between composers, or librettists? Focus (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea on keeping separate pages for each composer's work - perhaps something like this would work well? With the tables going onto sub-pages for the individual composers. Also, each composer's overall progress could still be included in the main list, so people have an idea which composers need work without navigating through a bunch of sub-pages. I have no preference on adding early jazz/musicals/etc personally - as long as the music is out of copyright I would think it would be worthy of inclusion. And hmm, not sure about collaborations. We could just have say, for X composer and Y composer who create Work Z, Work Z included in both of these individuals' sub-pages. Or maybe a section dedicated to collaborations, with specific sub-pages for groups of people who have worked together. Maybe a combination of these two, with a section only for collaborators with a substantial body of work together, and just use the first method for those who collaborate say, once or twice with a given person. atallcostsky talk 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boulder Chamber Orchestra

Please note that Boulder Chamber Orchestra is being discussed for deletion; the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boulder Chamber Orchestra for anyone who may wish to comment.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Sargasso Records

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargasso Records

Small independent label that has produced a series of recordings of the music of Jonathan Harvey. --Deskford (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Ro Hancock-Child

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ro Hancock-Child for members who may wish to pariticpate in the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Psalm 100

Handel composed Psalm 100 in Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate, I would like to know which English Bible version, it's not King James. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Found: Book of Common Prayer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Monteverdi Masses

Claudio Monteverdi composed Masses, one or the other pops up in articles, but not in his nor in Mass (music). Is there a reason? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a few, now in his article. Next question: the capitalisation of Mass. Or not. Within Mass I find it both ways, and if I follow the link to missa brevis I get to Missa Brevis, whereas I think it should be Missa brevis.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote the paraphrase mass, parody mass, and cyclic mass articles I followed the convention in the New Grove which seems to be not to capitalise when it's used as a general term ("he composed masses and motets"); capitalise when it's used as the name of the rite ("within the Latin Mass, you find..."); capitalise when it's title ("the Mass in Time of War"). I notice that the Harvard Dictionary of Music capitalises all the time, which looks weird to my eye, but that might just be because I've been writing using the other convention for so many years. We could make them all consistent one way or the other, but it's a lot of changes. I notice that now some of the links are broken, so we will need some new redirects (e.g. Paraphrase Mass has become a redlink). Antandrus (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would understand to capitalize Mass when a musical piece is meant, - as opposed to mass. In the same direction, I would understand - as a term - Parody mass, because parody also has different meaning. I saw the link broken and fixed it by a redirect, but that is only a temporary answer to the question. (I didn't see that the others were the same.) - More specific question: if I write about M's Missa in F (publisher's name) from Selva morale e spirituale, there called Messa a 4 da cappella (and at least one more of M was published under such a name in 1650/1651), in de-WP Messa à 4 da capella, what could the name of such an article be? Btw Selva is much better in German than English and explains that the publication came in parts, continuo 1640, other parts 1641. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First step: improving Selva, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Selva morale e spirituale

The composer is kept, Selva morale e spirituale is improving. New questions: should the long original title be translated? (If yes please help, I can't). Which psalm numbers should be assigned to the five psalms commonly appearing in Vespers such as the Vesperae de Dominica (Mozart)??? It doesn't help that there are two systems around, Greek and Hebrew, which differ by one for these psalms. Psalm 100 seems to be "Dixit" (without saying so until well down in the article), this would lead to the sequence 110 111 112 113 117, but Psalm 111 is Beatus instead of Confitebor, Psalm 112 is Laudate Pueri instead of Beatus, Psalm 113 doesn't provide any words, Psalm 117 finally matches the first. The Vespers article also doesn't help me, sigh, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Same in Vespro della Beata Vergine 1610: Dixit 110, Laudate pueri 112. If Dixit is 110 Laudate should be 113, if Laudate is 112 Dixit should be 109. German is right here. Please compare de:Vesperae solennes de Confessore, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alan Wilson

Monteverdi is dead, but I found this living composer up for deletion: Alan Wilson (composer). I added musical banners, please discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kept, but see the next one below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Bruffy

Charles Bruffy was proposed for deletion, I think he should just be improved, I started, help welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dating a piece? Composition or premiere?

Pardon a cloth-eared and ignorant newbie. If a piece, such as David Bruce's Steampunk [1], is written as a commission in 2010, but premiered in 2011, do we describe it as a 2010 piece or 2011? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of composition. There are some pieces that don't get premiered for years or decades after they were written, sometimes not till after the composer's death, so it would make no sense to attribute their creation to the year they were first performed. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's always better to be specific. In the case of staged works (opera etc.) the performance date is usually regarded as key. --Kleinzach 00:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it could be both. In the case of religious music (i.e., Bach's Sacred Vocal works, etc.), works could be first performed within a matter of weeks after the completion of composition. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach's and Johann Pachelbel's Works

If permissable, I shall work out a complete catalogue of the works of both these composers (and more) both in catalogue and chronological order. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No need for you to start from scratch, since there are already List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach and List of compositions by Johann Pachelbel.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

However, both lists are incomplete and also contain inaccuracies and do not reflect the most current state of research. Besides, the Pachelbel one is not at all in Catalogue order. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My only point was that you need not (and should not) start from scratch, making hundreds or even thousands of entries that are already there. The usual way of proceeding in cases of incompleteness is to add the missing items; in cases of inaccuracy, to correct the mistakes. If you wish to organize the Pachelbel list differently, the approved method is to post a notice on that list's Talk page, to see whether those editors who have previously spent a lot of time bringing it to its present state agree that your proposed changes would be an improvement. This is called "seeking consensus". BTW, in case you have not seen it, you might want to take a look at the List of compositions by Béla Bartók for an approach to ordering such lists that may satisfy a number of differing tastes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that (for the most part) the majority of the entries are not there (i.e., the Cantatas [which are on a separate lists, and there only linked to the pages of the individual cantatas], etc.). Also, your example hurts your point, especially since Bach's works often (especially in the Bach-Compendium) overlaps many Catalogue numbers. Furthermore, one should keep in mind that Baroque composers held different ideas about the concept of "completed works" that we do. In the Baroque, each work (what we would consider "Versions") were complete, individual works of their own. Just because he may use materials for a work from a different "version" of a work does not mean that a work is not its own separate entity (separate from each different incarnation prior to it). I think we need to keep this in mind when discussing or listing works by these composers. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All of this is perfectly valid, but really needs to be taken up on the talk pages of the appropriate lists, rather than here. The fact that you posted this here in the first place led me to suppose you did not know that these lists exist already. Creating new, parallel and competing lists are bound to result in a nomination for deletion or for merger. Keep in mind that other editors have their own opinions, and civility dictates that their views be consulted. Those editors are less likely to be watching here than on the lists they have created or otherwise worked extensively on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dgljr5121973: I'd generally endorse what Jerome Kohl says. I wonder what sources you are intending to use? Best. --Kleinzach 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Bach's works, the source material would be the following: * 1.) Bach-Jahrbuch, * 2.) Scholars (such as Christoph Wolff, Alfred Duerr, etc.), * 3.) Bach-Archiv Leipzig, * 4.) BWV Catalogue, * 5.) Bach-Compendium, * 6.) Bachdiskographie site (Jochen Grob)--Jochen himself has stated to me that all his info on the site is based on the exact same sources, etc. In the case of Pachelbel's works, the primary info would be Johann Pachelbel: a comprehensive list of his works, compiled by Klas Grönqvist and published 5 February 2010 (amongst others). Dgljr5121973 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Bach contributor, but that sounds excellent. Many of our lists of compositions (compared to, say, Category:Lists of operas by composer) lack detail. If you can provide that it will be great! --Kleinzach 09:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Classical music

I've reverted these two edits by two different IPs [2], [3] but someone might wish to check if any of the changes were in fact valid ones. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rebecca Oswald

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Oswald

Does anyone know anything about this composer? The article has been created by a single-purpose account, which makes me suspicious, and the references are weak, but she could be borderline notable. --Deskford (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Raskatov

The article on Alexander Raskatov said he was influenced by Stravinsky and Webern. An editor has changed this to Mussorgsky and Webern, without any explanatory edit summary. The article is unreferenced, so I can't tell which is correct — maybe both are. Any Raskatov experts out there? --Deskford (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Classical Music in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Music for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your responses below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day! -Mabeenot (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This weekend is the final chance to participate in the interview. We have two respondents already, but more are still welcome. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)