Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

More editors needed at Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565

I honestly don't know how else to put this, outside of that some more input would be welcome, both in fixing up the prose as well as helping to settle the debate at Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Too much attention to fringe theories.. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the whole outrage over Pluto. All of the disagreement coming from the uninformed for mainly sentimental reasons.DavidRF (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to answer Melodia's request with a considered comment, but I found the ping pong table environment somewhat hostile. I feel I'm not really cut out for these disputes. MistyMorn (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a particularly contentious dispute. Its basically one new editor against the pre-existing consensus. There was an edit war where the new editor used a sockpuppet (he now knows not to do that), then the page got locked by admins for three days. Now its five screen-lengths (eight "sections") of the editor making the same proposal over and over and getting shot down. I think everyone has been trying to remain reasonable and considerate but its been trying on everyone's patience. Sorry if you got caught in the middle. Melodia's initial request was to make sure that this discussion was on everyone's radar (sometimes these things happen when no one is watching). I think there's enough people watching now.DavidRF (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. I'd hoped my protest might help restore some sense of perspective. But it turns out that I'd made a gross misreading of Melodia's lede, making the second half of my suggestion both pointless and misleading. I apologise for that and I'm sorry to have hauled you over the coals, as it were, for no reason at all.

I agree with you that the question of the work's popular reception deserves discussion elsewhere, in a different climate. My own 2 cents would be that lists such as the one we've got can trivialise serious content. As with, say, Auld Lang Syne, the D minor 'meme' has been remarkably successful. Irrespective of who originally wrote the work... Happy New Year! MistyMorn (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Performer discographies

Is it a good idea, or not, to include discographies for well-known performers? I ask because I was looking at Isaac Stern (whose article strikes me as being a little sparse in any case), and find that there used to be a discography section - not the best organized, I grant - that was deleted 07:28, 22 July 2007 by User:Emerson7 (without noting the deletion in the edit summary).

This came up because I was actually looking for Alexander Zakin, Stern's long-time accompanist, who not only had no article but also not a single mention in Wikipedia. User:Dr. Blofeld has now rectified this omission with a lovely article - more thorough and detailed, in fact, than Stern's.

I suppose I could eventually get around to constructing a Stern discography, but I have zero sources for anything else. And I sure don't want to fool around going to the bother of making a discography if someone is just going to turn around and delete it again. Any thoughts or suggestions? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Performer bios are weak, compared to say composers or compositions, which you can check via the project cat page. (Take Category:German classical pianists for example.) Perhaps it might be better (in general) to leave the discographies until later. --Kleinzach 00:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't ready to do it any time soon, anyway. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I note with some amusement that Ofra Harnoy's page includes a "Partial discography" with only slightly fewer than a gazillion entries. More power to her. Wikipedia as fanzine. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If an editor or editors are enthusiastic about a particular performer or composition, then there's room for discography pages. See Category:Classical_music_discographies. We just don't that as a general "to-do" item which needs to be done across the board.DavidRF (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what I had assumed. What I found startling was that Stern did have a discography, which got deleted with no explanation or notice back in 2007, and with no subsequent comment. It wasn't the best-organized discography I've ever seen, but it was more useful than not. (See 07:28, 22 July 2007 User:Emerson7 in Isaac Stern History.) As I said, I could do one myself if I ever get enough spare time - but if I ever do, I sure won't want to see it deleted again. Then on the other hand, maybe I ought to look at that old one again, and if it seems worthwhile, just resurrect it as is and see what happens. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Any time you see a viable section of an article deleted with no reason given — possibly because of an accidental edit — you can restore it. (Of course it would help if you referenced it.) --Kleinzach 04:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. I just restored it exactly as is, no changes or corrections - or refs. The whole thing really needs to be completely redone, but I think it's better than nothing. And it's pretty obvious the 2007 deletion was not accidental. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Sylvia (ballet)

I have nominated Sylvia (ballet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Longest orchestral introduction to a concerto

Yesterday I heard Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 1 for the umpteenth time, but it struck me for the first time just how long the soloist has to wait until the orchestral introduction is finished. I wasn't timing it, but it felt like 3-4 minutes before the pianist gets to play a single note.

Is this some sort of record, and if not, which concerto has the longest soloist-free introduction? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean #1? In my Philips recording of the two with Arrau as the soloist, the soloist enters at 4:10 for #1 and 2:49 for #2. Several concertos in my collection can beat 2:49 (including something as early as Mozart-25). Three and a half minutes was fairly standard through the early 1800s I have a recording of the Busoni (Hamelin) that goes to 4:02. Brahms-1 with Gilels is 4:14 but with Fleisher is only 3:19 so it may be hard to answer this one scientifically. Fun question, though.DavidRF (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, yes I meant No. 1. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Busoni piano concerto introduction is longer - easily four minutes. But that's not in the standard repertoire.THD3 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Chopin wanted to march the audience to their seats in time for the start?--MistyMorn (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was in response to critics who said he didn't know how to orchestrate. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that he only included the orchestra because he felt obliged to. MistyMorn (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the contenders seem to be Chopin 1, Brahms 1 and Busoni. All piano concertos. I'm rather surprised at 4:14 and 3:19 for the Brahms: all performances take a slightly different time, naturally, but the Gilels takes 28% longer than the Fleisher, a huge variance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 16:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

For a non PC example, there's Violin Concerto No. 1 (Paganini) which is a good three and a half minutes. But honestly I kinda wonder why this discussion was brought up here. I'm hardly a huge stickler for keeping things 100% focused on WP, but is there's something I'm missing here that will help build the encyclopedia? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I think this is just for fun. As entertaining as this discussion is, I agree that this is not the best place for this. Not sure where to forward the discussion, though.DavidRF (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I too was enjoying it. I realise that the signal:noise ratio was close to zero, but sometimes it's nice just to have a bit of fun (especially on a bad numbers day). Personally, I'd defend the banter on utilitarian grounds as providing an opportunity for editors to socialise and bond. But I know that's not part of WP policy for talk pages. Just my 2' march MistyMorn (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To me it's more than just "fun" and socializing, it's educational. We aren't taking up anyone's time other than our own, and it's not as though we're eating into a limited space on Wikipedia - especially when you consider all the utter horseshit posted around here. I quote from an old post at Talk:Isaac Stern#We prefer fantasy over real accomplishment: How sad Isaac Stern gets a few short paragraphs and Luke Skywalker gets pages and pages and pages and pages. Anyway, this will disappear into the archives soon enough, and be forgotten.
My naive and uninformed understanding of Chopin is that he had been criticized for not knowing how to orchestrate with any skill; that his two concertos were his calling-card to the musical world of Paris; that Parisians at that time expected a big showy introduction with the full orchestra; and that he busted his butt trying to make a splash there. Does this generally comport with others' understanding? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that Chopin wrote to the tastes of Warsaw, but I wouldn't be surprised if he already had Paris audiences in his sights too, as you say. I believe he liked to take both the solo and the orchestral parts himself on the piano. I live in hope that a phenomenon like Marc-André Hamelin might regale us with a similar rendition, however speculative. Cheers. MistyMorn (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And a bit more about policy: if Jack had not posted his off-the-wall query about ex aequo, now archived, we would probably never have been treated to Ravpapa's wonderful reply, which I have appropriated and posted on my own userpage. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for you about that. But what was "off-the-wall" about my ex aequo query? I'm a world-famous (or should be) advocate of Plain English, and I can't really see any value in using an obscure Latin term when perfectly good English ones are available. The short shrift I got on that thread was very surprising, I must say. I thought we were working together to make this an ever more user-friendly encyclopedia. Sometimes I wonder about that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I read that exchange in a more innocent key: just tongue in cheek. Buone Feste! MistyMorn (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and most definitely me too. I happily withdraw my "off-the-wall" if it's interpreted as being pejorative. In fact I thought it was a fascinating question you raised. With thoroughly tongue-in-cheek responses, by all three of us:

--If it's the term actually used by the jurors, then WP should follow that (with an explanation.) But if not, certainly the term shouldn't be here. As to why the jurors might give their results in Latin, this is classical music, after all, not football. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

--And, I might add, you are displaying a profound misconception when you refer to our readers as "beloved". Remember, the reader is the enemy. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

--Just forget I said anything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It had never occurred to me that your final response was said sulkily. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There you go then. It had never occurred to me there was irony in Ravpapa's comment, either. I won't say what I did perceive in it; suffice to say it caused me to end the conversation in a way that is far from normal for me. Humour, irony, sarcasm and other forms of wit sometimes fail utterly in these written forums where we cannot avail ourselves of the usual non-verbal cues we take for granted elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You're right, of course, about the lack of cues. (But then you yourself can set the tone with something like "I'm a world-famous (or should be) advocate ...")

So I guess the take-away lesson is for people posting silly banter to think about its possible misinterpretation before hitting Save page. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, verily, brother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am glad peace has been restored. And as an offering to peace, I give you this: Harold in Italy, 3:45. In the YouTube performance, Gergiev has to nudge Yuri Bashmet to wake him up in time for the viola entrance. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Harold is well-received, thank you. Pax vobiscum and vox populi to all. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: "Remember, the reader is the enemy." Actually, I seem to have heard that one somewhere before. Something about proactive defence against reviewers' potential objections. Though I hasten to say I'm no advocate of defensive writing (or suchlike). Whereas I am a big fan of Harold, including the opening — however beastly Berlioz may sometimes have been in his writings. MistyMorn (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Access to New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians?

Hi. I've put a request at WP:REX for somebody to compare an entry in this work to an article that has been flagged as a copyright violation. If you have access to it, can you please help out at the listing there? It could help pull an article out of limbo! :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not Fanning's article from the current New Grove. I'm comparing them right now and see no correlation. To my eye it's someone's paper on musical expressionism, perhaps an advanced undergraduate or masters-level student. Note all the grammatical errors, "it's", and other infelicities. Using Google all I find are Wikipedia knockoffs, but it's been online for a long time. It is possible that the posting anon wrote it for Wikipedia, although it is rare to see a slab of new text that size. Antandrus (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've cleared it from the copyright problems list. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

When is a premiere not a premiere?

I’ve often wondered about this. There are many cases where a work is performed, and usually published in that form, and then, typically some years later, the composer has a re-think and makes some revisions, and releases the new version. Works such as Stravinsky's Petrushka fall into this category. We have the original 1911 version, and we also have the revised 1947 version. Many other examples like this.

But then we have cases where a work is publicly performed for the first time, immediately after which the composer makes some (typically minor) changes, in light of hearing how it actually sounded before a full auditorium, and only then publishes the work for the first time. The original version as played at the premiere is usually consigned to some dusty archive and becomes unknown to the general population. Or destroyed. The slightly revised version is the version we play and record. Works such as Tchaikovsky’s Pathetique Symphony, Dvořák’s New World Symphony and Shostakovich’s 2nd Symphony fall into this category.

The thing with these latter cases is that the date of the premiere of the original version (the version we don't know) is almost always shown in reference works as the premiere. The date of the premiere of the revised version (the version we do know) is usually a footnote at best. For example, Shostakovich's 2nd Symphony was first played in Leningrad on 5 November 1927 under Nikolai Malko. That date and those details appear in all decent reference works. But what was played there that day is not what we play now. What we play now is the version that includes the revisions that Shostakovich made after the official premiere. The date of the first performance of the revised version is not even recorded, as far as I know, apart from some time later in 1927. It was played in a different place (Moscow) and under a different conductor (Konstantin Saradzhev).

Another case in point is the famous premiere of Turandot, where Toscanini laid down his baton at the point where Puccini stopped writing. Many operaphiles could rattle off the date 25 April 1926 without having to check. But ask them when the opera as completed by Alfano, i.e. the version we always see and hear now, was first performed, and most could not tell you (it was actually the following night, 26 April). This was the world premiere of the complete version of the opera, yet again, it typically gets very much lower billing compared with its "official" premiere, which was not even the whole opera. (It's currently mentioned in the lede of our article, but most reference books don't mention it at all.)

So, what is it with these "official" dates of premieres-that-are-not-actually-premieres? And why are the dates of the "real" premieres given such scant regard by musical historians? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now you're getting into semiotics and semantics. No "word" has an intrinsic "meaning" except as it has an agreed upon and culturally accepted definition. Or multiple definitions, which may or may not overlap, and can cause a great deal of confusion, such as when a word such as "theory" has colloquial meanings that are quite different from its use as a term of art. "Premiere" appears to refer to a performance's first more or less complete introduction to the public, at least in the sense of its being a general concept. We know that some composers - e.g. Alan Hovhaness - can't seem to keep their thoughts and hands off their compositions, and keep revising and rewriting. In the case of premiere, one can either accept the generally understood meaning of the word, or deconstruct it linguistically, for instance to its presumed literal meaning - in which case you're probably swimming against the tide. Does that help? In a sense, we are each of us Humpty Dumpty. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in not perpetuating misinformation. Look at it this way. I'm sure there were many performances and broadcasts world-wide of the Pathétique Symphony on 28 October 1993, the exact centenary of its premiere performance on 28 October 1893, which was nine days before the composer's death. Yet I'll bet $$$ that the work that was so widely performed was the version as amended by Tchaikovsky after the first performance and not given a public airing till 18 November, twelve days after his death. If they wanted to properly celebrate the centenary of the work as we know it, they should have had it on 18 November 1993, not 28 October. See what I mean? I'm not saying that 28 October 1893 is not an important date in the story of this symphony; I'm saying that 18 November 1893 merits just as much attention, since it is the "date of birth", if you like, of the work as we know it today, whereas 28 October cannot claim that honour. To put all the focus on the earlier date, as references strongly tend to do, is effectively to dismiss as trivial or irrelevant the changes the composer chose to make after that date. He didn't think they were too trivial to make, otherwise he wouldn't have made them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I did understand your point. And the basic issue you raise is not a trivial one. Perhaps setting aside the unique circumstance of Turandot, it seems to come down to whether as we know it today trumps first...introduction to the public...[as a musical] concept. Personally I'm entirely agnostic on this question. (And obviously my "definition" quickly falls apart as soon as you consider Busoni or Grützmacher, etc. Yours, on the other hand, might fall apart on the question of cadenzas.)

My point is that, to borrow a recent phrase of yours, we can either accept or repudiate the vox populi as to what the word "premiere" is taken to signify. In other words, this is really just a definitional question. Maybe this will work as an analogy: Yesterday was Christmas, literally a mass [ultimately from the feminine past participle of mittere, to send away, dismiss] celebrating the birth of Christ. Now, many people assume that Jesus was probably born on some day other than December 25, and probably in some year prior to the nonexistent Year Zero, but instead that December 25 represents the winter solstice (off by a few days), heralding rebirth (which of course is also the basis of New Year's Day). But still, Christians agree to celebrate Christ's Mass on this date. And we nearly all agree to celebrate the "new year" about 10 days late. Again, purely definitional. I could insist that the New Year actually fell on this past December 22, and I would have a valid point - but I'm not going to change when people break out the champagne. I guess the answer to your original question is that a premiere is not a premiere when it is not a premiere. New Year's Day is not New Year's Day when it is not New Year's Day. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, to really answer your question, let's put it this way:

Should premiere denote --

1. something resembling as we know it today; or
2. something resembling first...introduction to the public...[as a musical] concept.

• I have no opinion - I can see the virtues of either.
• You choose #1.
• Vox populi appears to choose #2.

Now it's possible to argue that #2 does not in fact represent "the people" at all, but rather quote "Senatus" unquote, in the form of writers, tastemakers, musicians, impresarios, compilers of reference books, etc - but this still comes out to being the same thing.

Milkunderwood (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to applaud the coda to the Turandot lede, and concur with Jack that dates of first performances after revisions are of interest. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for indulging me, and I trust it's been thought-provoking, at least. I guess our role here on Wikipedia is to tell the full story of a work's genesis and not to ambiguously and simplistically suggest (as many reference books do) that it had one and only one appearance that can reasonably be called a "premiere", if there were in fact more than one such occasion. As with so many things, it's not that black-and-white.

Happy New Year to all lovers of decent music. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject PipeOrgan

An attempt is made to "revive" Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan. I'd like to invite everyone here with an interest in pipe organs, organ music, and related topics to visit and join if you're not already a member of the project. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata

There is a move discussion ongoing at Moonlight Sonata debating whether or not it should be moved toPiano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). Please take a look. Thank you, Double sharp(talk) 07:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Important theoretical discussion in progress

At Talk:Moonlight Sonata - this discussion has implications for the naming of articles on classical compositions in general, and input from more users will be helpful. Milkunderwood(talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for the alert; I think that's a dangerous precedent. Antandrus (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting example you gave - at first I thought you had misspelled it. :-)Milkunderwood (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes -- I don't know why he named it in Italian -- trivia question -- anyone? Antandrus (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question. That has long puzzled me, especially as his other named symphonies have such resolutely English titles. --Deskford (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This has now spread. There is a proposal at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven) to move four more Beethoven piano sonatas to their nicknames. --Deskford (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've suggested the whole issue shouid be considered at Talk:Beethoven's piano sonatas rather than piecemeal. Or even here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music) since it affects many articles by many composers, not just Beethoven piano sonatas. --Deskford(talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

...but certainly it should be discussed in just one place — I suppose it doesn't matter too much where that is as long as everyone knows about it. --Deskford (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This has now been open for over two weeks. I wonder if someone can close it? --Kleinzach 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As most of us will know the RM was closed by Eusebeus. Unfortunately his closure was reverted by NuclearWarfare with specific reference to WP:COMMONNAME. I've made a strong objection to this, see here.--Kleinzach 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It went to ANI. SeeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RM_closed_by_involved_party. Eusebeus was deemed to be "involved" so the closure was reverted and the page is now protected from non-admin moves. A couple of admins there said they would have closed it the same way based on the discussion, but I don't know when that is set to happen. Maybe the revert bought more time?DavidRF (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's now been closed again in favour of the requested move. OT but I'm surprised that a user is allowed to call himself NuclearWarfare. --Kleinzach 08:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Beethoven Sonatas: Wack-a-mole with page-move proposals

Before the page-move discussion at Talk:Moonlight Sonata is even resolved, one of the editors opposing the move has proposed four counter-moves of nicknamed sonatas here: Talk:Piano_Sonata_No._8_(Beethoven)#Requested_move. No matter which side of the debate one is on, the independent proposal of counter-moves doesn't seem right. This is all part of the same discussion, no?DavidRF (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we should have the discussion in one place — see comments in strand above. --Deskford (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this on an appropriate page. I only wonder now whether we can simply reference our comments from Talk:Moonlight Sonata#Requested move and the two preceding sections on exactly the same topic, or need to copy or restate them here? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Copied from that referenced discussion:

• There appears to be a very small group - 3 or perhaps 4 individuals - who are determined to rename all of the Beethoven piano sonatas. They've been shot down twice now, but somehow in an illegally peremptory decision made without allowing for comment, they did succeed in screwing up Piano Sonata No. 14. Links are provided above in this discussion to their failures. I had not been aware of the new ones you've just now pointed to. There's got to be a way to put a stop to this nonsense - in my opinion it's starting to border on vandalism. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Milkunderwood (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If these move proposals succeed, they might set a precedent to move works with nicknames that are not even commonly known. How about "Cuckoo Sonata"? (This nickname is mentioned at IMSLP: link.) Double sharp (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the decision is to leave it at Talk:Moonlight Sonata#Requested move. Please come and voice your opinions. Note that the two preceding sections on that same page are also relevant.Milkunderwood (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Entangled cimbaloms

Can any experts on the naming of instruments help sort this one out: cymbalum is a redirect to cimbalom, yet the lead of the article says A "cymbalum" is not the same instrument as a cimbalom. A "cymbalum" is a part of a medieval instrument, one of a set of 4-8 small bells.... Is this a case of a word that can by applied to multiple unrelated instruments? --Deskford (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

May I add a similar question: if I read just Dulcimer, what is probably meant, Appalachian dulcimer, a fretted, plucked musical instrument which is also referred to as a "mountain dulcimer", "lap dulcimer", "hog fiddle", "fretted dulcimer" or simply "dulcimer", or Hammered dulcimer, a hammer-struck, trapezoid-shaped musical instrument (admitting that I don't understand "fretted"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think in English "dulcimer" is normally understood as a generic term for any kind of wooden-box-with-strings-struck-by-hammers instrument. Names such as "cimbalom", "santur", "yangqin" refer to more specific local varieties. But then things were complicated in the 19th century when the name "Appalachian dulcimer" was applied to a plucked instrument, technically not a dulcimer at all and more a zither. Since then, folk musicians (and Wikipedians, apparently) have started to use the term "hammered dulcimer", although this is strictly tautological. (I am writing this from a British English perspective; I'm not sure if it's the same in American English.) --Deskford(talk) 20:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So for a "normal" dulcimer I would use a pipe link to hammered dulcimer? Would you perhaps include the info above to the dab page and put the hammered one on top as the "normal" one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I probably would, but it would be interesting to hear the views of some of our American editors to see whether my interpretation holds for them too. --Deskford (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Classical Connect?

Advice please: someone has added a link to a performance on Classical Connect of a Beethoven sonata whose page I have watchlisted. From the first few bars, it seems the performance may be very good, but I've read that some of those on Classical Connect may be copyright violations. How can I check in any particular case -- or should I just remove the link anyway? (The article already has a link to another performance.) Thanks for any advice. --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Which article is this? --Kleinzach 02:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is Piano Sonata No. 30 (Beethoven), though I'm hoping for advice that would apply whenever I encounter links to Classical Connect. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but where have you read that recordings on Classical Connect may be copyright violations? I should say I wasn't aware of this website. Perhaps somebody else has some background information? --Kleinzach 10:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

From what the front page of the site says, the performances are recorded and uploaded by the musicians themselves:

"Where do we get our music? Our site allows independent musicians to upload their own recordings, or we may do it on their behalf. Musicians value the special opportunity Classical Connect offers because it allows for their music to be heard around the world. [...] We also have arrangements with several labels, festivals, programs and orchestras, allowing us to use some of their material."

I would say it's fine to link to it, unless something specific has been written about their material violating copyright. In any case, it may apply only to recordings of works which are themselves still in copyright. But that wouldn't be the case with composers who have been dead for 70+ years, or whose work was published before 1923.Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I read it in this talk page posting. As I understand it, the poster is concerned about the potential for copyvio, rather than alleging its actual occurrence. @Voceditenore: there's copyright on performances. separate from that on works, isn't there? --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes there is a copyright on the performance separate from the work. However, in the case of a single pianist playing the Moonlight Sonata, for example, there is no copyright on the work and the pianist would own the rights to their own performance. If they have chosen to upload it (as seems to be the case with this site), I see no problem in linking to it. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If they have chosen to upload it... Well, I have no reason to suspect otherwise. I'll leave the link in, as it appears to be a good performance, worth knowing about. Thanks for all the advice given. --Stfg (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What are your project stats?

I know the Classical music project does not assess for importance articles assigned to it. I'm asking about class quality ratings. Where is the project's stats table? Do you want me to place a link (on your main project) page to it? Alternately, I could place it directly on your main page much like theWikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Personally, I'm not a big fan of projects where you have to dig around for it. Argolin (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As a consequence of not having any classification in {{WikiProject Classical music}}, I don't think there are any easily available statistics; see Category:Classical music articles by quality. --Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This project does not do assessments, seehere. There are no stats except the total number of bannered articles. --Kleinzach 09:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to obtain various category intersections from CatScan. Here's a query that will list all featured articles (Category:Wikipedia featured articles) which are covered by this project (Category:WikiProject Classical music articles):

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Wikipedia+featured+articles%0D%0AWikiProject+Classical+music+articles&ns%5B1%5D=1&doit=1

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thank-you everyone. It's all a little clearer now. It wouldn't make any difference if I ran an upodate at toolserver.org. The project banner doesn't have the class parameter. The total number is a total of all items including articles. Can I ask why? It seems odd to me that the project doesn't care at all about the class quality of it's items. Argolin (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We all care passionately about the quality of our articles. We just don't care about their class quality. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Argolin, I don't understand your comment about the toolserver; those category intersects have nothing to do with the absence of a |class= parameter in the project template.

Your conclusion about the project's disregard for the quality of its articles is, eh, hasty. … What Ravpapa said … -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I care deeply about quality, and ... what Ravpapa said. If you are interested in a little history, this section from 2009 may be enlightening. (Michael, you were there, you may remember.) Our experience with drive-by "start"- and "stub"-stampers was even worse. Three articles per minute, by people who were completely ignorant of the topic matter. Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's also more discussion here,here, and probably several other places in the archives. The CM area has had its share of featured articles but but by its nature it also has an enormous amount of stub-to-near-stub composition articles. There's just not enough editorial resources here to deal with the constant rating and re-rating of all of those pages.DavidRF (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to step on any toes or be insulting. I must appologise. Yes, my earlier comment was rather hasty and off-the-cuff. I'll read the suggested links provided. Thanks for the quick response. Argolin (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this project is a catchment "for all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects". At the moment we have 15,574 articles.--Kleinzach 07:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessment drives - and assessments generally - have put me off contributing content, so I'm glad this project has no truck with them. If you know how to improve an article, just do it. Per Antandrus, I'm also at a loss to understand how adding your name to a project membership page automatically qualifies you to be an expert assessor in a subject. --Folantin (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Free pre-1923 music journals on jstor.org

Jstor.org is now making their pre-1923 journal content available without subscription. There's more about it here. They're rolling out the free content gradually. For now the following are available in areas of interest to this project:

• The Musical Quarterly 1915-1922
• The Musical Times 1844-1869
• Music Educators Journal 1914-1922

The list of all journals currently available ishere. –Voceditenore (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)

I've made a proposal about articles in series— such as the Beethoven piano sonatas — for the WP guidelineWikipedia:Naming conventions (music). I would be grateful other people could have a look at this, to see if the wording can be improved to remove any possible loopholes etc! Thanks. --Kleinzach 12:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The revised proposal is approved now and there is a new shortcut: Wikipedia:MUSICSERIES. --Kleinzach 02:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Compositions task force query

When I'm patrolling User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult, I often find articles that aren't appropriate for WikiProject Opera, but are appropriate for this one. In the case of compositions, I see that this project's Compositions task force has been marked as inactive and its talk page archived. Should I just leave thecomposition=yes parameter off in future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As no-one else has responded, I'd say yes. --Kleinzach05:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The lesson of the Moonlight

I think there's one very valuable lesson to be taken away from this entire "Moonlight" affray as first seen at:

Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)/Archive 1#Requested move: Moonlight Sonata

(which itself is worth reviewing for its paucity of comment prior to premature closure):

• whenever anyone might see something afoot that could be questionable, post a response, but
  • also bring it to the attention of this project talk page immediately.

Milkunderwood (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, next time I will. I recommend you all watch the pages you love and don't wait for others to point out things. Paucity of comment was not only thing to notice in the above September discussion. Next is Template on the sonata's talk (heading inserted by me). I answered that it's just fine as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Whenever an issue surfaces notify the project. Kleinzach 13:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Schleifer

Regarding this article Schleifer see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schleifer. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

'Moonlight Sonata' (Naming conventions (music)) issue raised again at WP:AT and WP:MOS

Unfortunately, the Naming conventions (music) issue is now beingshopped around at Article titles and (identical posting) atManual of Style. (There may be other postings elsewhere by this user (MistyMorn), who believes that music editors show systematic bias, see the discussion 'Self-selection bias' at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music).) --Kleinzach 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Kleinzach! I had no idea what "forum shopping" was, and I'm now trying to rectify the issue. MistyMorn (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Classical music will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in classical music; as performers, producers, conductors, etc. I also pinged the folks at WP:Music, too! We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Clavier-Übung III at AN/I

Greetings -- there is a discussion of the article Clavier-Übung III on the administrators' incident noticeboardhere. It probably could use some eyes -- in fact the discussion may be better handled here, since it appears to be a content issue, with a large, elaborate, (and to my eye excellent) article which is quite long. Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Antandrus. I intend to sit back and let the discussndion take its course, but can I just clarify that it is not a content issue in terms of the quality of the content (which I agree is excellent), but a content issue in terms of where to best place content. I am certainly not suggesting that any content be removed from Wikipedia, as the research and sourcing is exemplary. I don't want anyone thinking that I am suggesting it should be lost. Orfeocookie (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• First off, bravo to Mathsci for his work producing an outstanding article and thanks to Ant. for bringing this to our attention. Yes, yes we don't own articles per WP:OWN and all that, but when one editor single-handedly puts that kind of effort into an article, then others certainly shouldn't go about making broad changes (like splitting it up) without first discussing it carefully with the main editor. Anyone who is interested in reading a serious article on the Übung III should well appreciate the level of detail, strong sourcing and voluminous illustration of this article and will not be deterred by its length. I can't imagine what Orfeocookie was thinking: that those interested in Bach's corpus for the organ would come across this and stop reading because it contains a too-detailed exposition of the subject? We're not writing liner notes here! This article should not be split; it should be taken to WP:FAC where I, for one, would support its promotion enthusiastically.Eusebeus (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to discuss it was precisely what I did. I have not edited a single word of the article's text. I have no interest in pursuing the topic further if the consensus is that the answer is 'No'. But it's taken all of this to even GET to the discussion. Orfeocookie (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the future, you or User:Mathsci could have just come here. On a relatively new article like Clavier-Übung IIIits very possible that not many other editors are watching the page. So, rather than have two or three editors go back and forth for a few screens, a quick ping here should bring in several other opinions and a better chance of reaching consensus.DavidRF (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent advice, I wish I'd had the benefit of it sooner. Orfeocookie (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article is about a multi-faceted monumental work which Bach wrote as a single treatise, published within his lifetime. Personally, apart perhaps from the content on "Bach reception", I can see no editorial reason to split it up. By design Bach wrote a large work and, considering the huge amount of scholarly literature written on the subject, it is not surprising that the article should also be long. The reasoning put forward for splitting was purely due to length; but it is easily navigable through the contents listing. I'm not sure the content could be summed up briefly in shorter articles without considerable loss and needless duplication. Comparing it with articles on other sacred or devotional works, the Christmas Oratorio is a collection of 6 cantatas: it is not broken up into six parts. It also contains very little musical analysis. Similarly the St Matthew Passion is in two parts, but again is not broken up into two articles. It again has very little musical analysis. The way individual editors write articles varies and there is no uniformity, but why should there be? In the cantatas, I have followed astandard format, but there are lots of sources there, including a new volume in French by the musicologist Gilles Cantagrel.[1] (It will complement rather than supersede Alfred Durr's German classic.) Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks to me like everyone was acting in good faith here. We have an excellent article thanks largely to the work of one editor. Another editor thought it was perhaps too long and might benefit from being split into smaller articles, so proposed this for discussion. Those "proposed split" banners are purely a suggestion that a split should be discussed — maybe they are a bit big and in-your-face but that's the tool that WP gives us. Let's not get over-excited about this! If anyone wants my opinion, I think it's probably better left as one long article, but it's always good to discuss these things. --Deskford(talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• It appears the general consensus is that the same structure should be used for discussion of musical works, regardless of whether that structure is filled with 2 pages of content, 20 pages or 2,000. I don't agree obviously, but if that's the view of classical music editors then so be it. I think it's worth specifically replying, though, to Eusebeus' rhetorical question and following comment. Yes, that is precisely what I thought. And no, you are not writing liner notes, but there are a range of levels of interest in a topic and there are actually a few intermediate steps in between liner notes and major treatise. This is a general encyclopaedia. It is not a music encyclopaedia, a Bach website, an organ works website or any other kind of place where you can expect that everyone in your audience is looking for a 'serious article' and will 'appreciate the level of detail'. You are not actually writing purely for the other deep classical music enthusiasts. And I am a classical music enthusiast. I have a fair level of knowledge about Bach, having played a considerable number of his piano pieces (yes yes I know, not really piano) and owning about 25 CDs worth of recordings. But I know relatively little about the organ works, and naively thought that a general encyclopaedia might be the appropriate place to start finding out a bit more about them. But this article presented me with such an overwhelming amount of information that I couldn't get into it. And if that is what happens to someone who has been playing and listening to classical music for 30 years and naturally enjoys finding out about the context of the music, then you might want to think who your audience for this material actually IS, and why it's on a general encylclopaedia. Orfeocookie(talk) 02:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• On one hand, I think we all have better things to do than quarrel too much about whether a perfectly good article should be split into pieces. I mean, there is an enormous number of stub articles in WP:CM for which we could be adding new content instead of worrying about nicknames and formatting and such. On the other hand, one of those stubs is my favorite Bach organ piece: Prelude and Fugue in E flat major, BWV 552 and I'm amazed that all of this amazing new content has been added for this work but none of it made it into its own article! I would never think to look for it in Clavier-Übung III. If that article doesn't get split, you could please just redirect Prelude and Fugue in E flat major, BWV 552 toClavier-Übung_III#Prelude_and_fugue_BWV_552 so that the world can find this content? Thanks.DavidRF(talk) 03:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. What also amazes me is that Clavier-Übung I is just a list with no content. These are amongst Bach's finest keyboard compositions, yet there are no sources and the content there is dubious hearsay ("German suites"). I will change the stubs to redirects for the time being. The idea of an article on Bach reception is still in my mind. I wish Orfeocookie would stop using this page as a WP:SOAPBOX, repeating how overwhelming he find he content (is he using an iphone and has he found the list of contents?). His statements are wholly negative and have nothing to do with the quality or integrity of the article.Mathsci (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have praised the quality of your research and sourcing multiple times, but you appear to have not noticed.Orfeocookie (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I come to this discussion late, because I avoided the subjected, thinking that Moonlight sonata was just enough. There is the example of Messiah where we have Messiah Part I, II and III. I have the feeling though that the Bach case is not quite as easy because it's not a sequence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, its a little easier to split an article that's not a sequence. People would expect Messiah to be all in one place. But if a collection of pieces like Clavier-Übung III has three distinct groups (St. Anne, Choral Preludes 669-689, Duets 802-805), then its almost begging to be split. The background and history could stay in the parent article but all the musical analysis would be fine in child articles. Personally, I would split it. I just don't think its worth making a big fuss about it, since the content is so excellent. I've had trivial quibbles with this author before. He doesn't like to put a space between the "Op." and the number. I mentioned it to him and he didn't want to change it, but in the end I just dropped it because the content was so excellent and I didn't want to scare him off over trivial edit wars regarding minutiae.DavidRF (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The St Matthew Passion is in two parts but one single article. Messiah is not comparable to Clavier-Übung III; perhapsHandel concerti grossi Op.6 is more comparable as it is sometimes considered as some form of testament. I have now started expanding Orgelbüchlein. That editing has been on hold since June 2010, before I started Clavier-Übung III. There are 46 pieces there, a whole book by Stinson, large sections in both editions of Williams and extensive commentary in copious academic sources. Some people might have heard O Mensch bewein dein Sünde gross BWV 622 at funerals. but I doubt there will be a separate article. I am currently starting to create the first batch of 46 midi files. Here's the first: Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland BWV 599. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why Messiah isn't comparable? As far as I can see it is a single work (and regularly performed as such) that has been broken up into a main article and several sub-articles including the ones for the 3 parts as well as one calledMessiah structure. I genuinely don't understand why that single work is not comparable to another single work if the argument is that it has to be a single article because it is a single work. Orfeocookie (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to have Messiah structure, but it's a redirect after someone moved it. There is The Creation structurealso, two related articles referring to each other, one in prose, one a table. I plan to expand St Matthew Passion, looking at the detailed table in German, but that probably also as a separate article, - here have been complaints that the sheer mentioning of the movements was blowing up the article too much. I suggest to have a good lead, covering what the average user will want to know, and then specify the interesting details in the established precision, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orfeocookie is evidently not particularly interested in scholarship. Handel was primarily a composer of Opera. His greatest works in that genre are Giulio Cesare, Rodelinda and Tamerlano composed in the 1720s (followed by his second set of Ariosto settings in the 1730s—Orlando, Ariodante and Alcina). When Italian opera fell into decline in England, Handel pioneered the Engish Oratorio. Messiah is probably not the finest example in that genre: the work gained popularity for reasons outside its musical merits, although it is a fine work. (Winton Dean has written the definitive work on the English oratorios.) Probably Jephtha and Theodora are finer, more transcendental works than Messiah. But Clavier-Übung III is poles apart: a scholarly/religious/devotional treatise centring on all aspects of counterpoint, ancient and modern. Please try to be a teensy-weensy bit more serious, Orfeocookie. This is not Justin Bieber. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So this appears to boil down to "I want people to be impressed by this Grand Piece of Music by giving it a Grand Article." Which I suppose is fine as a piece of operating logic. And the importance of a piece of music is relevant to how much content it gets (although for me personally it just doesn't logically follow that means in a single article). Meanwhile, can you please keep the personal belittling out of it once in a while, iPhone and Justin Bieber references notwithstanding. It is possible to recognise that someone has a different point of view without constantly hinting that they are juvenile (I am middle-aged) or dumb (I have an IQ in the top 1%, so despite the fact that you are highly intelligent (and I have no doubt of that) treating me like an idiot is not appropriate).Orfeocookie (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, no point in trying to beat up on Orfeocookie (WP:CIVIL); I think this business will go away if you're just patient. Re. the more general point, I'm totally in favor of long, serious articles that rely a lot on scholarly reference sources, such as Clavier-Übung III. A serious WP reader should be able to access all of the results of modern scholarship, which means that editors should aim high (as Mathsci has). Opus33 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. I hope Orgelbüchlein will be a similar article after it is improved to something beyond a list. I am thinking of stained glass windows instead of woodcuts. Mathsci (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we're changing the subject here. I hope no one is proposing a change to one bit of the excellent content. There would be nothing wrong with moving the P&F details to its own article page (Prelude and Fugue in E flat major, BWV 552)-- especially because that piece is usually performed independently. Its easy to beat up on Orfeocookie's uncivil arguments, because he makes it so easy, but the point of splitting long articles into pieces is not to dumb them down, its actually the opposite, its to allow it to grow even larger. We can let this issue drop, because its not worth arguing about it but this "if you don't like the way I've formatted my scholarly content, then you don't like scholarly content" attitude is a logical fallacy.DavidRF (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite as straightforward or desirable as you imagine. The prelude and fugue, like the rest of CU III, are expectional because of their length and three part structure. The standard format for this kind of work is history and origins, analysis, reception and influence, transcriptions and discography. In this case numerology must be added because of the underlying structure from the Trinity. Amongst Bach's works for organ these works, with the similar but smaller work Canonic Variations, have a unique place. See for example List of compositions by J.S. Bach printed during his lifetime. The analysis is a small part of the article. If anything warrants removal and extensive expansion—and this was my feeling when I wrote it—it is the part on reception and influence, which, in a suitably written article on all of Bach's compositions for organ, could indeed be a standalone separate article, parts of which could be summarised in the articles dedicated to specific works or collections (cf Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes). Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point. What David basically means is that there's no reason the article can't be split -- it's done ALL THE TIME if an article starts getting too long (see WP:SUMMARY). In classical music, for instance, composers regularly have separate list of compositions pages. Some works have separate discography pages. A single article on the work as a whole, and then smaller articles on each part -- especially in this case given that they have independent BWV numbers and are often preformed separately. No info has to be lost, just organized differently. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫(talk) 17:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The original complaint was that the article was too long. I have suggested a way by which to shorten it significantly while maintaining its integrity and structure. I have no idea why users commenting here have no wish to engage in a discussion aboutBach reception which occupies almost half the article. I wrote the material and am aware of what can be removed easily and what cannot. Orgelbüchlein is likely to be a longer article (prior to the section on reception and influence). The pruning of juicy titbits is an arbitrary way of shortening: removing key elements that some wikipedians might be more familiar with (the pieces at the beginning and the end). It is possible to imagine that happening in articles on other organ collections. Undoubtedly Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ BWV 639 might be among the favourite pieces of some wikipedians, but that does not necessitate a separate article. The same applies to Nun komm der Heiden Heiland BWV 659 from the Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes or the best known of the Schubler Chorale Preludes Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme BWV 645. Is this not the "Moonlight Sonata effect" all over again? In writing music articles, the only way is to follow Bach scholarship, not early nineteenth century taste that became set in stone in mid-nineteenth century Bach editions. In the most recent edition of the organ works, an Urtext edition from Breitkopf and Härtel, CU III appears in its natural order with a lengthy scholarly commentary (almost all in German). Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

BWV 552 is not a juicy titbit. That's a false analogy. Its pretty easy to see that its different from the rest of the work independent of how popular it is. Its analogous to an "overture" for the work (although of course its not technically that). Most recordings group it with other organ P&F's and T&F's and almost all the transcriptions listed in the article are for the P&F. You have seven screen-lengths on its analysis for it on Clavier-Übung III. It just seemed like the lowest hanging fruit. That's the only reason why I suggested it. If you'd like to fork off the reception into a separate article, no one would object to that. Any split done would not have to involve losing one bit of content. Normally, splitting encourages expansion, but you don't appear to be slowed down when adding content to long pages, so maybe that's not the issue here.  :-) Currently, the article is the 87th largest on wikipedia (Special:LongPages) and probably in the top 15-20 if you leave out the lists and sports-logs.DavidRF (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested a natural way of shortening the article without removing the framing elements that Bach intentionally included himself. Consensus at the moment seems to be that the article is fine. But if a shorter article were required, my suggestion would involve separating off the part on the reception and influence of Bach organ music, which is a major part of the article, and one which took a lot of effort to write. So it would be helpful if you could discuss the part on Bach reception. Writing such an article is not something that would happen overnight, but over a more prolonged period, possibly of six to nine months. I could certainly create such an article, but not under undue pressure. Rather than thinking of fruit in an orchard, it might be more helpful to think of BWV 552/i and BWV 552/ii as the giant bookends which hold this collection together.Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Low-hanging fruit" doesn't have anything to do with the music. Its a euphemism for "easiest tasks"[2]. From what you've said, splitting off the reception section would be your "low hanging fruit". Apologies for using an expression that you're not familiar with. I think you're overestimating the efforts of these types of splits. Its mostly a giant copy/paste from the parent to the child and replacing text in the parent with a link to the child and perhaps a few sentences of summary. You wouldn't have to rewrite anything, just add the segue text near the links in the parent. See an article like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart where almost every section links to a long child article. The consensus is that the content is top-notch and we're all willing to look the other way on the article length because of it, but this is one of the very longest prose articles in all of wikipedia. Anyhow, sorry for dragging this discussion on, but each reply of yours tends to misinterpret my point which begs me to clarify. There's no urgency here.DavidRF (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to discuss Bach reception. That involves almost half of the article in terms of words, perhaps more. Please could you address that point as requested. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did. If you want to split off the reception part of the article, feel free. You would just create an article called Reception and influence of the Clavier-Übung III and copy all the text verbatim from the current section into there. Add a brief header section which points back into Clavier-Übung III, add a reflist and you're practically done. Replace the section in Clavier-Übung III with a See: Reception and influence of the Clavier-Übung III tag. Now, you don't *have* to do that, maybe it would disrupt the article flow or whatever, but its low-effort. Nobody wants content deleted and rewritten from scratch.DavidRF (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that it would be sensible to have an article on the reception and influence of all Bach's organ music; and I said that it would probably take a considerable time to write. It would be pointless to separate off the present content onreception and influence in the article. If a general article on reception of Bach's organ music were written, expanding partially the content currently in the article, then the parts relevant to CB III could be summarised more briefly in the article, with a link to the main article. That would take a long period and would require access to a lot more sources.Mathsci (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this perhaps a good example of what Melodia and others have been suggesting? I do realize though that writing good précis sections is a considerable job in itself... My 2c, MistyMorn (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the size of the different parts of the article: people may well get different results based on their printer. But my home printer says on a Print Preview that the musical analysis of the pieces represents about half the article, and the Bach reception about a quarter. This doesn't alter the fact that Mathsci feels the Bach reception section is the part that would be readily split. Orfeocookie (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PS I would guess that when Mathsci says the Bach reception is large and the analysis is small, he is probably looking at the size of the text, whereas I am looking at the result on screen. The analysis is made much larger on the screen through all the musical examples (and some bulleted lists and hymn texts), whereas the reception section is essentially just text.Orfeocookie (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)