Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 61

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Francis Schonken in topic Ravel's Shéhérazade
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

John Ireland disambiguator

Latest comment: 9 years ago56 comments13 people in discussion

I've only latterly become aware of a private discussion @ User talk:Narky Blert#John Ireland, where he and another editor agreed between themselves to change the disambiguation tag on all his works from (Ireland) to (John Ireland).

This required a wider consensus and a more open forum than just 2 editors chatting privately. I've now added my thoughts about this, including my disagreement that this change was necessary.

I guess the debate should continue there for now, since that's where it started. But we can move it here if appropriate-- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This forum seems the best place for this discussion. It's gone midnight here - I'll post my reasoned arguments here later today.
For now - I'll just say, "all his works" means about six of them. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Since I was the one who started this whole thing, I had better contribute. Yes, I suggested that (John Ireland) was a better disambiguator than (Ireland). If you hear one of his pieces on the radio, the announcer will generally say something like "That was the piano concerto by John Ireland," rather than "That was the piano concerto by Ireland", whereas they won't hesitate to say "That was the piano concerto by Beethoven". I think the reasons for this are obvious - the name "Ireland" is ambiguous in the context of music, whereas the name "Beethoven" is unambiguous in the same context. We didn't agree "between ourselves" to change the disambiguation tag. I suggested it might be a better disambiguator and was unaware of how many articles already existed. However, I think that, if the question had been considered before the first such article was created, this might have been recognised.
Looking through Category:Compositions by composer, I see several other composers who might have benefited from a similar level of consideration prior to a disambiguator being added. Peter Maxwell Davies, for example, could easily be confused with Walford Davies; fortunately, no articles have as yet been created for compositions by the latter. Hubert Parry and Joseph Parry are even more likely to be confused. However, we're only dealing with one ambiguous disambiguator at the moment, and the suggestion that "German" is somehow less likely to confuse a general reader than "Ireland" is not, in my opinion, an argument that holds water.Deb (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Narky Blert, it's the principle, not the quantum. It doesn't matter whether 6 or 6 million articles are affected. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's highly relevant. You've implied above that some kind of cabal met to agree - wow! - that all articles with this disambiguator should be moved. And because only two people discussed it, that somehow makes it an inappropriate move. What happened was that we discussed whether the disambiguator was suitable when Narky Blert was just setting out on a project to create new articles for many of John Ireland's compositions. There is no rule that says all moves have to be discussed by more than two contributors, or even more than one, so it's not clear what principle you believe you are upholding. Deb (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I implied no such thing, Deb. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion has now been forked and different parts of it are happening on both pages. Please could we have it in one place, preferably here? Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this is just getting silly. Ballad (John Ireland) has just been created by Narky Blert, presumably to make a WP:POINT. When I can bother, I will get round to AfDing it, as the piece is not in anyway WP:NOTABLE. As regards the general argument for expanding the qualifier, it is in no way convincing or even relevant. "If you hear one of his pieces on the radio, the announcer will generally say something like "That was the piano concerto by John Ireland," rather than "That was the piano concerto by Ireland"" is a prime example of WP:OR, but irrelevant in any case to disambiguation in an encyclopaedia. (And alas we don't get enough of Ireland on the radio in any case). Can I remind Syek88, Deb, Narky Blert, and indeed Jack of Oz, that April Fool's Day was more than a month ago. Any piece by Ireland should it need a disambiguation should simply need the qualifier '(Ireland)' and that's it. In the mean time the action unilaterally taken to give any articles a 'John Ireland' disambiguator should be reverted until there has been a proper discussion.--Smerus (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Er... what happened to "Assume good faith"? Nor has there been any "unilateral" action. There was a sensible, if slightly heated, discussion going on prior to your arrival. Deb (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't written any article with any Ireland-type disambiguator since I became aware that Sonatina (Jon Ireland) had been renamed to Sonatina (Ireland), so WP:POINT is not an issue:
Ballad (John Ireland) - created 18:27 2 May
Sonatina (Ireland) - renamed 12:57 3 May
I only became aware that the Sonatina article had been renamed because it was still on my watchlist. If I'd taken it off, I might never have noticed.
Here are two possible articles on John Ireland which I submit need more than a one-word disambiguator: "Full Fathom Five" (because of the Shakespeare forger William Henry Ireland) and "Legend" (because of the island's mythology).
I also submit that consistency is desirable: the same disambiguator should be used (where necessary) in all instances. Narky Blert (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. It occurs to me that the first sentence in my preceding post may be incorrect - I haven't checked my editing history. However, I haven't done that since User:JackofOz first posted on my talk page and I said I would not. Narky Blert (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Narky Blert, It seems to me that you and Deb are contradicting each other. She is saying that the extended disambiguator (John Ireland) was not intended to apply to all the articles we have on Ireland's works, but you're now saying that consistency requires exactly that. As I said on your talk page, I might be persuaded that (John Ireland) is required in a particular case, but that doesn't suddenly mean it's required in all cases. (Ireland) will do in the general case. Consider Magnificat (Bach) and Magnificat (C. P. E. Bach). In the first case, the surname alone is enough, because unqualified "Bach" is always assumed to be Johann Sebastian. The reason for the CPE in the second case is obvious. So, when we're talking about a Sonatina or a Piano Concerto or any other of Ireland's works where the word "Ireland" could not reasonably be read as a reference to the Emerald Isle, (Ireland) is plenty. In some other cases it may not be as clear cut and hence (John Ireland) is called for, and you've pointed out a couple that I would not object to. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your conclusion. I have not said anything of the sort. I completely agree with Narky Blert on this, including the need for consistency. Deb (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Deb:: I was interpreting your sentence "You've implied above that some kind of cabal met to agree - wow! - that all articles with this disambiguator should be moved" as you saying that (John Ireland) should NOT necessarily apply to all articles, but that (Ireland) should suffice for some of them. That's how I read the italicised all. If I misinterpreted this, I withdraw. But what, then, was the point of italicising all in your refutation? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The point was - and maybe I misunderstood you - that you seemed to be suggesting that a lot of articles had been moved without consultation, and that this was the reason for your opposition. But as Narky pointed out, there was a total of only six. Hence my comment. So let's call it a day on that one. Deb (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) @JackofOz: In all frankness, I could not care less if Deb and I disagree. We're not a team. From what I've seen, though, we both have the same goal: WP:CONSENSUS, reached by discussion, and acceding to the will of the majority.
(2) J. S. vs C. P. E. - strawman argument. Many people have set the Magnificat. "Bach" is an adequate disambiguator for J. S. in English, and IMMHO in German also. "Bach" is both a surname and a noun, but I cannot imagine a case where that disambiguator might cause confusion in either language.
I'll add another example: Hugo Wolf, the best-known but not the only composer with that surname. (Wolf) is a perfectly good disambiguator for him where needed. I cannot imagine any possible confusion with Canis lupus.
(3) The contributors to this discussion are people who create and edit Wiki articles. We are unimportant. The people who matter are those who read Wiki articles. That's why I at least am here: to help people who might sometime want to learn something, but don't know where to start. It is their possible confusion or lack of searching skills we need to address.
@Smerus: You mentioned Ballad (John Ireland) as a candidate for AfD. OhKay ... now, put yourself in the shoes of someone who's only just come across that lovely piece, knows little or nothing about classical music, but wants to find out more about it. Umm sorry! do your own homework! it isn't on Wiki! even though AllMusic (whose limitations we all know), the John Ireland Trust, and IMSLP have the info you need, and someone who knew where to look found it, easily. But, the article has been deleted... Narky Blert (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:Compositions by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach holds three articles with disambiguators, which illustrate the desirability of consistency:
La Caroline (Bach)
Magnificat (C. P. E. Bach)
Passions (C.P.E. Bach)
Narky Blert (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
All three at "... (C. P. E. Bach)" now. This is already covered by WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title, just needs to be applied properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I just boldly moved Mother and Child (John Ireland) to Mother and Child (song cycle) with this edit summary: WP:NCM#Articles not belonging to a series: common name and disambiguation, compare Wiener Blut (waltz) example. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Sound idea, I've updated Mother and Child to reflect the move.
I note that "Mother and Child (Ireland)" would have been confusing. The Mother and Child Scheme (or, Service) was a healthcare programme in Ireland. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that

which are all generic names for generic composition types, should all get a "composer name" disambiguator by the same WP:NCM#Articles not belonging to a series: common name and disambiguation and/or WP:NCM#Articles in series. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The time has now come for us to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves - where this discussion should have been in the first place. It's not a music-specific topic, it's to do with article naming. Deb (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dunno... I tried to find third-party discussion of the songs listed above, but there seems to be pretty little apart from material provided by publishers, the dedicated composer website, recording artists, and the like, and even then mostly limited to listings. It is all very well to start a host of stubs on such compositions, but maybe these don't need separate articles, and can safely be grouped in a (summary style) article similar to Schubert's song cycles. WP:RM is not about notability of such separate articles, and before taking them to AfD or starting unilateral action further discussion here might be beneficial. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: An article called something like "Songs by John Ireland" could work; but it would have several hundred references, and that worries me. I agree: it's something to think about, and perhaps discuss on this board. (Oh for composers who publish works in sets rather than one or two at a time, and award opus numbers.) Schubert is the elephant in the room: how to make his Lieder, other than the obvious ones, findable on Wiki? I have no good answer. List articles with redirects in and lots of references, ready for editors to split out articles, could be one solution; but I'm unsure.
Category:Musical settings of poems by author needs populating. (There's a seriously major omission in that category under Goethe, which I'm currently working on: Wolf's Goethe-Lieder Even Heidenröslein was missing until a minute or two ago.)
Anyone own one or more of the biographies of John Ireland? I don't. They could be additional sources.
I had a swift look at Schubert's song cycles. It's underreferenced – and (aside from the facts that it neither distinguishes between genuine cycles and groups of related Lieder published or sung together, nor mentions Graham Johnson's proposal Auf dem wilden Wegen (which works for me)), there's a very obvious, and important, omission under Schwanengesang. Narky Blert (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Re. "several hundred references": Ireland's List of works is eight pages on the dedicated website, IMSLP lists less than 50 songs by Ireland (and {{IMSLP2}} allows to group several direct links in a single unit) – Applying some diligence reusing and grouping refs I don't think number of references would be a problem.
Re. Schubert Lieder ("Schubert is the elephant in the room: how to make his Lieder, other than the obvious ones, findable on Wiki? ... List articles with redirects in and lots of references, ready for editors to split out articles, could be one solution ..."), and Re. populating Category:Musical settings of poems by author: ongoing process, at List of compositions by Franz Schubert all covered & sorted up to D 208 thus far.
Re. biographies of John Ireland: at Boosey & Hawkes - at Bach-cantatas - at dedicated website (surprisingly the website doesn't seem to mention any printed biography of the composer) - Bibliography by Stewart R Craggs (afaics limited to articles in periodicals and a few thesises) – a collection of essays published by the John Ireland Trust - ... all in all not convinced whether this warrants a separate Wikipedia article for every print of songs by the composer.
Re. "Schubert's song cycles ... underreferenced" – well, err, no, the current content is completely covered by the current references afaik. This wasn't my doing. If you see unreferenced content, please add {{cn}} where needed.
Re. Auf dem wilden Wegen → Auf den wilden Wegen
Re. "omission under Schwanengesang" – song No. 14 added to Schubert's song cycles#Schwanengesang (with ref update). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Having slept on it, I think you're right: the way to deal with things like Ireland's less well-known and -documented piano pieces is to reference them up in a list-type article. Good enough for searchers, and a starting-point for any editor motivated to create a new article. I'm minded to extract the info from some of my tiny articles into a list article, blank them, then post them as AfDs.
Any problems in relating songs in list articles to Category:Musical settings of poems by author can be left to another day.
dem/den - I blame Fat Finger Syndrome
(For the avoidance of doubt, and off-topic from the foregoing part of this post: I still say that the disambiguator, where needed, for Ireland's works should be "John Ireland". Notably, in Sonatina (John Ireland) and Piano Concerto (John Ireland). And in Legend (John Ireland), as yet unwritten. The issues of correct disambiguator and of the need for articles are distinct. On the first, I stand firm. On the second, I've been persuaded.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting that Three Songs, 1918-19 (etc) is the format used at the List of works at the J. Ireland Trust website I'd propose these renamings (for the time being, pending whether some might be regrouped or not - note that no AfDs are necessary when this happens, convert to redirect, and ask for a page history merge if desirable):

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

Just to make sure you are all aware, the discussion is open at Talk:Sonatina (Ireland) and Talk:Piano Concerto (Ireland).Deb (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ‎

Seems to risk having local consensus at each individual article talk page. Why not have a single generic RfC here for all John Ireland works first, Deb, and then implement the result across all affected articles? --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to do that, till I realised there were only two articles affected. Deb (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Uh, what? What about the ballad? And how many more waiting to be written? There are already 22 articles listed just in Category:Solo piano pieces by John Ireland. The three two-piano-pieces have no composer disambiguators but should have. And several use (John Ireland): you're assuming that these have gone the right way, but that pre-empts consensus. Please, withdraw these and let's get this right, for all Ireland's works. No de facto, please. --Stfg (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No. The original discussion arose because two of us thought it would be useful for the Ireland articles to have a better disambiguator. Another person felt this was precipitate, but most were already at the preferred disambiguator and it turned into an argument about consistency. I have no reason to request for the others to be moved; the only thing lacking in the original discussion was a recognition that the moves we made then were potentially controversial and might need a requested move. I can't anticipate what articles might be written and what moves might be required in the future, so it would be dumb of me to try to request them in advance.Deb (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The original discussion, which may not be over, also contains opposition to the change, so that controversy is actual, not merely potential. What you call the preferred solution is merely your preferred solution. Many of the articles are at that solution because of those premature moves on May 1st. Of course you're not going to RM those, since they are where you personally prefer them. There's no need to anticipate what articles might be written in the future, since what is needed isn't RMs for non-existent articles, obviously, but a consensus for a consistent approach to articles about Ireland's works. Forget article-by-article RMs: we need a general consensus about these article titles.
I'm not willing to pursue this alone. Anyone else have a view please? --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's my preferred solution - and the article creator's. I said that potential controversy was not foreseen, and that was what I meant. If controversy, either potential or actual, had been foreseen, we would have gone straight to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(←) I understand that the controversy was not foreseen, and the initial six moves were simply WP:BOLD. That's no problem, but now that we know that it's controversial, imho it is wrong to plough on with RMs to the controversial solution without addressing the concerns of those who prefer the other solution.

Look, the obvious solution to all this is to forget who did what and why, and to raise an RfC on the issue itself. The question would be what disambiguator to use if and when an article title needs to be disambiguated by the name of this composer. The two viewpoints expressed in the discussion above are (a) John Ireland always, or (b) Ireland where there's no ambiguity, but John Ireland where the surname alone. This approach would allow both sides' positions to be considered equally, and would render moot both the current RMs and the request to revert the first six moves. We'd end up with a consistent consensus applicable to all these articles and any future ones. I'm willing to raise such an RfC, but not unilaterally. Any takers? Any objections? --Stfg (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Stfg's suggestion is helpful and constructive. The comment at 'Naming conventions (music)' (see below) simply states that the discussion is being held at three different places and invites comments at those places, which is a complication that makes the issues rather difficult to follow and collate.--Smerus (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed there is a WP:FORUMSHOP dimension regarding taking some of the examples to WP:RM before the discussion here is concluded (or archived, whatever comes first). Also the RMs would better have been grouped using the "multiple" option of the {{Requested move}} template as to avoid duplicating virtually identical RM discussions on two separate article talk pages. As could have been expected when handling this in such poor fashion all three fragmented discussions seem to have halted by now... So inviting to resume the discussion on the *content* of the disambiguation options here in order to see whether it is possible to draw nearer to a broad consensus (as opposed to a bunch of local consensuses that might go in unrelated directions).
My view on the topic:
  • In a first step I'd avoid using any parenthical disambiguator containing "Ireland" as much as possible (see above Mother and Child, and grouping proposals)
  • I have little preference for the one or the other (English is not my native language so some sensibilities might elude me), but would like to draw attention to the somewhat similar The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel), twice confirmed by WP:RM, notwithstanding recommendation in the relevant guidance of "last name" only before "novel" in the parenthical disambiguator. So I suppose this would go the same way, adding the first name, in the end.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. Seeing no objections, I've created the RFC below. I've notified WT:WikiProject Composers and placed notices under the two RMs (which Francis temporarily hatted today -- thank you, Francis). I've also notified WT:WikiProject Ireland in case anyone there has an opinion on this. --Stfg (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCM

Topic launched --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that a somewhat similar (and as yet undecided) discussion has been taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#Disambiguating books by just surnames --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not that similar, composers are often mononyms, apart from Dickens and Tolstoy authors rarely are - particularly the vampire and pop culture authors that clog most of WP book article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Composer name disambiguator for articles on works by John Ireland

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to use John Ireland as opposed to just Ireland. AlbinoFerret 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When article titles about works by the composer John Ireland are disambiguated using the composer's name, should that name take the form John Ireland in all cases, or should it normally take the form Ireland and only use the form John Ireland when Ireland alone would be ambiguous or misleading?

Notes:

  1. This RFC is not asking whether the composer's name should be used as disambiguator, but only what form it should take when the name is chosen as a disambiguator.
  2. The question applies whether the name is the sole disambiguator in a given title or whether other information (e.g. a date) in used as well.

--Stfg (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

    1. I submit that where related articles require a disambiguator: it should be the same in every instance, for consistency and clarity. The present discussion relates to one example, but I suspect that the question may have wider implications in Wikipedia. In this specific case, I vote for John Ireland.
    2. I accept Stfg's points (1) and (2); I do not think they are or should be issues. Nor should the principle that disambiguators be as concise as possible. Narky Blert (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support John Ireland in all cases. "Ireland" on its own is always potentially confusing. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • At WP:NCM replace
E.g. (Ireland) as a disambiguator may refer to Ireland or John Ireland, ...
by
E.g. (Ireland) as a disambiguator may refer to Ireland or John Ireland, so the precision criterion for article titling would usually call for (John Ireland) when the composer name is used as a parenthical disambiguator.
E.g. (Ireland) as a disambiguator would rather refer to Ireland than to John Ireland, so the precision criterion for article titling calls for (John Ireland) when the name of the composer is used as a parenthical disambiguator.
...and have this done with. (note: when this disambiguator should be used and when it should be avoided already explained in that guideline, no need to repeat it specifically for Ireland) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
rephrased. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support John Ireland in all cases. Article titles should aim to tell readers who may have limited knowledge of these matters what they can expect to read about. This is far more important than rigorous non-redundancy. An editor has pointed out on the sonatina page that laypeople may not know what a sonatina is and may imagine that Sonatina (Ireland) could refer to a place name on that island. Admittedly Piano Concerto in E♭ major isn't a very likely placename  , but if we go for consistent use of the given name we don't need to worry about where the borderline is. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, as there's more than one "Irish" Piano Concerto (by John Field, by Hamilton Harty,...) I submit there's more than "consistency" favouring Piano Concerto (Ireland) → Piano Concerto (John Ireland). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree :) --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Prefer John Ireland in all cases, per Scolaire. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support John Ireland in all cases. There are articles that need to be "X (John Ireland)", like the Ballad and the Sonatina. And there are those that don't require it. However, having rules that stipulate when something should be "X (Ireland)" or "X (John Ireland)" would be an unnecessary complication of the issue. As Stfg says, "if we go for consistent use of the given name we don't need to worry about where the borderline is". Syek88 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support use of John Ireland. I'll post verbatim what I wrote in the 2 RM's Ireland usually refers to either the island or the sovereign state. Zarcadia (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support John Ireland in all cases. "Ireland" is so much more frequent than "John Ireland" (he's not that famous a composer, right?) that we would be helping readers by spelling it out. Opus33 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Four part harmony

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have marked this article as needing immediate attention. Examples of (very) dubious material is on the talk page, and some of the stuff on it I think is wrong, but it is impossible to tell due to the complete lack of sources. Wondered if any experts over here might be able to help. Thanks, JZCL 20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong or completely off-topic. Suppose chorale, more specifically Bach chorales, might be mentioned as prototypical examples of four-part harmony (instead of just being listed under "see also"). Maybe close harmony could be linked (and explained a bit better). Maybe expand a bit that four-part harmony is the basis for much more than currently mentioned: e.g. "melody line + (for example) figured bass" or "singer + guitar chords" in your average pop song are based on it (even if a guitar chord has more than three notes: it's always bass + notes filling up the chord topped by the melody line with a lot of doubling of notes, some an octave higher, going on). Four-part harmony allows up to seventh chords, only beyond that (extended chords) you're de facto outside four-part harmony. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
One thing which I feel is lacking is saying that for hundreds of years four-part harmony has been the way to teach harmony. I'll see if I can work on it tonight and ask others involved with WikiProject music theory. - kosboot (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven's 1808 Concert in Vienna - Article worthy?

Latest comment: 9 years ago31 comments9 people in discussion

On the 2nd of May 2015, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra held a concert that replicated the full programme of the 1808 concert that introduced Beethoven's 5th & 6th Symphonies amongst other compositions to the world. Limelight Magazine published an article on the 1808 concert in which it was claimed that orchestras around the world have also replicated the programme every time they need to do something special.

I saw that there is no article covering the 1808 concert itself as an event and thought that it might be worth doing, does anyone else: (a) Think this is a good idea? (b) Think that they could assist?

The link below points to the MSO page about their concert.

http://www.mso.com.au/news/2015/05/beethoven-the-1808-vienna-concert/

Graham1973 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It is one of the most well-known concerts in the history of (proper) music - the fame comes from its intolerable length, the number of significant works premiered (Opp 58, 67 and 68) and the fact that it was, by all accounts, a catastrophe. So, yes: I think an article on the concert would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Geoffrey Norris has a good account of the concert in the September 2013 edition of Gramophone. I'm sure there are others. I would be happy to help, perhaps on the weekend. --Syek88 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Definitely article-worthy if there are enough sources. Could give a great insight into concert practices, audience expectations, etc, of the time. --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Great idea. I would be glad to assist if I can.--Smerus (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
This book wd be useful if anyone can access it (and can handle German!) - '1808 — ein Jahr mit Beethoven' ---Smerus (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

One thing we will need to sort out before starting a sandbox, is the title of the article, any ideas? I'm planning to track down a review of the MSO concert that appeared in print on May 8 in the Australian but is currently behind a paywall. Here is a link to the program notes for the MSO concert.

http://melbournesymphonyorchestra-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/File/2137.pdf

Also a review of a 2007 concert in New York using a similar program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/arts/music/06beet.html?_r=0

No luck in finding a thesis, but I did find a newspaper article which mentions a 1993 recreation in Milwaukee, which leads to a question, who/where & when was the first attempt to recreate the 1808 concert carried out?

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19941209&id=9qpRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JBMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4337,2945423&hl=en Graham1973 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

When was the actual date of the 1808 concert? - kosboot (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good topic for an article. There is already a fair amount of sourced material in our articles about the works that were performed; see in particular Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) for a list of the works and Choral Fantasy (Beethoven) for a tale of ensemble-breakdown. The Choral Fantasy article also give the date, 22 December 1808. Opus33 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(Why is no one indenting?) Thanks to HathiTrust, here's a link to the contemporaneous review in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433069052383?urlappend=%3Bseq=156 - kosboot (talk)
Thanks to everyone who continues to find information, regards the title I'd like to suggest "Akademie of 22 December 1808", here is my listing of what I think the article should cover:
  1. . Beethoven's planning of the concert, pre-concert preparations/negotiations.
  2. . The concert itself, contemporary reaction, eyewitness accounts.
  3. . How the concert was viewed after Beethovens death, eg. accounts of it appearing in the mid-late 19th/20th/early 21st C.
  4. . Recreations of the concert program, who organized the first, why did they organize it (if this can be determined.), where was it performed and how successful were they. Plus other recreations since that time.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some rationale as to why this concert is notable/significant (beyond the premieres of several works). Also, I don't think contemporary re-creations are such a significant aspect of the 1808 concert. Anyone can recreate that concert (and I'm sure it's been done previously) - would an encyclopedia article want to list all such re-creations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosboot (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have worked up the beginnings of an article in my sandbox (User:Syek88/sandbox), which I would welcome anyone to edit. I did it in my sandbox because I am unsure what title to use and there is still quite a lot more detail to be added. As for the note above ("I think there needs to be some rationale as to why this concert is notable/significant"), NPR calls it "one of the most famous concerts in music history" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12424757). Barry Cooper in his biography of Beethoven calls it the most remarkable of Beethoven's career. A similar claim is made by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/27/nyregion/new-jersey-guide.html). Syek88 (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the box! Such a concert article shows much about the culture then than single articles on compositions. I confess personal attachment to the Choral Fantasy (Beethoven), as the first choral piece I ever performed, in a school choir age 12, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: I suggest you do one of two things: copy/paste to an article or to User:Syek88/Beethoven concert, to be moved later with the history. You will not want to move the sandbox with all its history. I chose the former road for Ah! perfido, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Imo it's already quite good enough for article space. --Stfg (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What I meant, - or would not have pointed at the option ;) - It comes with the advantage to link to it in article space, collecting more attention and input. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Good start, might have a look at updating the reference format, but I'll hold off on that until later. Graham1973 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Good start. --Stfg (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
A question in my mind is what category should be used for this article that can concatenate other articles about individual concert events? (I'm thinking of a few potential articles on opera galas, the Carnegie Hall "Concert of the Century," and others). - kosboot (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I will be able to move the article directly out of the sandbox as my sandbox does not have any history other than this article. Adapting Graham1973's suggestion above, would "Akademie of 22 December 1808 (Beethoven concert)" work for the title? I think the title needs the word "Beethoven" in it somewhere. Syek88 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Akademie of 22 December 1808 (Beethoven concert)" strikes me as unnecessarily complicated (mixing languages & unnecessary disambiguator). Wouldn't Beethoven concert 1808 be sufficient? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I like that, Michael, but we should have redirects mentioning Akademie and the date, for search functions, - people might look for that--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC). Compare how the event is called in present articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

At Category:Concerts:

⇓

"Akademie" is not a widely recognizable feature of the concert; "Vienna" redundant (where else?); if date: "22 december" is part of it (in order not to give the impression Beethoven music was only played in one concert that year). I suppose I prefer the second while the first is already longer and makes a selection of the program (who is to say which were the most significant items?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would still like Michael's short title better, makes search easier for people who know the year but not the date, - others redirects. For the Shostakovich, Leningrad was important to mention because the premiere had been in Moscow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Created Beethoven concert of 23 December 1806 and Première of Beethoven's Violin Concerto as redirects - might grow into an article too I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I also like Beethoven concert of 22 December 1808. It conveys the two important details: composer and date. We need the day and month because there were other concerts in 1808, including the premiere of the Triple Concerto. Syek88 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I also like Beethoven concert of 22 December 1808. - kosboot (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, clear and accurate. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have now moved the article to that title. Syek88 (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks very good, added a couple of earlier recreations I found on Google News. In case anyone is wondering about the Milwaukee concert, the link below goes to a preview article which has a very interesting quote from Christopher Hogwood who conducted the 1994 recreation. On A Grand Scale: Beethoven Extravaganza recreates historic "Akademie" - The Milwaukee Sentinel, 1 April 1994 (The concert was held on the 16th.) - Graham1973 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't wish to be too cynical about these recreations, but I think they are much less significant than the concert itself. In 25-50 years, will a recreation by the New Jersey or Milwaukee Symphony be notable? I'm sure there have been numerous recreations in the past. In my opinion, If you're going to list any, then restrict it to major orchestras. - kosboot (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The original concert was such a momentous occasion that every recreation will generate considerable discussion and coverage, making them notable. Conversely, each recreation and its coverage makes the original more notable. The current list doesn't seem trivial to me, especially if the conductors' names were to be included (Hugh Wolff, Christopher Hogwood, Alan Gilbert, Günther Herbig, Louis Langrée, Diego Matheuz [es; de; it]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Evangelienmotette?

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In German we have this term (also Evangelienspruch, but it's sung, not spoken) for motets based on gospel text, to be performed in a service as (part of) a gospel reading. Is there a term in English? I didn't find the concept in motet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently "Gospel motet" [1] [2], but I would refer to the original German word on first occurrence like the second of these sources does. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, started, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Please do use the German term first. I suspect the phrase in Francis' refs is a translation of the German term rather than a known term in English. I've never heard the English term before, and although it gets a few Google hits (but still less than a thousand), Grove online appears not to have an article on it. At best, a very unusual term in English.
In the article you've just started, I think the term is unhelpful unless it's a genuine English technical term. You already have Evangelienmotette in the subtitle. Your descriptive phrase "a motet on gospel text" seems to me to be both better and sufficient. --Stfg (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Taken, - those nuances are exactly what I need native speakers of English for. - Could a passage be added to motet, summarizing what the German article has? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Help cleaning up: Bassoon Sonata (Hurlstone)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've picked the above article to clean up, it has a single reference to a paper about another Hurlstone composition and there is a note on the talk page from the original author (Who appears to be no longer active.) stating that the analysis came from a copy of the published score (Copy-paste?).

As far as I can tell, it needs an expanded lead, more references and if it can be found a performance/recording history. Graham1973 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Arkady Ivanov

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Is Arkady Ivanov for real? The whole article strikes me as rather unbelievable. He wrote 3 symphonies and more before he was 18? I can't find any mention of him (there was a Russian revolutionary by that name, ru:Иванов, Аркадий Фёдорович). Either he's utterly non-notable, or someone is having a lend. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks very suspicious: no article on Russian (or any other) Wikipedia, references not specific enough to check, created by a new user who has done nothing else... even the creator's username suggests he/she might be carrying out an experiment in fiction. --Deskford (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed for CSD A7 - the article mentions only two sources, neither of them published (so not establishing notability), nothing can be found about this composer on the internet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) There is no entry for this one at Oxford Music Online (which includes Grove), which you'd certainly expect for a composer of the claimed period with the claimed list of works. Even if not a hoax (which certainly does look very likely), the two sources would obviously be primary. The following sentences in the lede:
Although Ivanov was popular and well known in his village (Ukhora) and surrounding ones) he never achieved recognition and rarely heard his compositions. He made his living by teaching local children (in neighbouring villages) and playing the piano for weddings and other such services.
are rather an assertion of non-notability, aren't they? I agree with Francis's A7. --Stfg (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I also found no trace while you guys were posting -- I have nuked the obvious hoax. Antandrus (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I've removed the links from Arkady and Ivanov (surname). I don't think there are any more in article space. --Deskford (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Wilford

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just finished reading an interesting obituary on talent manager Ronald Wilford. The New York Times described him as "one of the most powerful figures in classical music in the second half of the 20th century." I think he deserves an article if any of you are looking for a topic to write on. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Save Les Paladins (musical company) from speedy deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

This article was recently created, probably by someone with a conflict of interest. However, it is a notable baroque ensemble with a discography. It is worth rescuing from speedy deletion if anyone has time.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO not worth saving. It's obviously a translation, without secondary sources, and nothing more than an advert. If this topic justifies an article, better start over and write a decent one. --Stfg (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Much better after Voceditenore's cleanup. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • ... however, I don't see this passing Wikipedia:Notability (music) yet: there's only one of the listed sources that complies to "non-trivial, ... reliable, not self-published, and ... independent of the ... ensemble", not "mutiple" as requested (the other three are a concert announcement, and two blog pages). Notability is also not addressed in the text of the article itself. Recordings are listed, however only one major indie label recording, and no indication they were notable among a host of other period instrument performers.
I suppose the ensemble is notable, but doubt it would pass an AfD in its current state, failing more independent sources, info on the quality of their recordings etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The two Gramophone reviews and the Guardian review certainly count as non-trivial, reliable and independent, so I think that should be enough. And the article now lists recordings on five significant indie labels, so I'm convinced of notability. Another good rescue! --Deskford (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the Gramophone reviews qualify as a blog (as indicated on that site), and are thus by definition self-published, not contributing to notability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Gramophone is a long established and highly respected magazine – these reviews are republished from the print edition that comes through my letterbox every month and sits in libraries around the world. It's perhaps a little unfortunate that they have chosen to label this section of their website as a blog, but I would say a review in Gramophone is generally a strong indicator of notability. --Deskford (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The references should at least mention in which issue of the Gramophone periodical such reviews were originally published, with the page numbers for the printed edition. Currently the references are only to a blog (that may include as many posts not included in any such publication). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, as mentioned, the text of the Wikipedia article does not indicate what makes them more than a band of musicians doing their job according to expectation, which is, like it or not, not very AfD-resistant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Francis Schonken, the ensemble passes per Criteria 5 of WP:MUSICBIO on its discography alone. So the rest of your misinformed comments are moot. Gramophone reviews do not qualify as "self-published" "blogs". You might want to re-read WP:BLOGS. Richard Wigmore has been reviewing for the hard copy Gramophone for 25 years and his review is not in the blogs section. David Vickers has reviewed for them or over 10 and is a published academic. There are many other reviews of the ensemble's live and recorded performances, but what's the point of overkill for a short stub? Voceditenore (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Re. Criteria 5: No, I see only one recording with "one of the more important indie labels" (at least two such recordings are needed to pass the 5th criterion).
Re. "misinformed", I followed the information provided in the current article, which is, apparently, insufficient. I didn't add "prior knowledge", which I don't claim to have. If you have prior knowledge, like you claim, put it in the article with references that are clear as written, not needing to connect the dots by knowledge not provided in the article. In its current state, if nobody is prepared to smarten it up, as said, it survives speedy, but less likely AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
They have 3 recordings for Pan Classics and 1 for Naive Records all of which have been reviewed in the press. The recordings were all in the article with their labels linked. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. And by "misinformed", I was referring to your lack of understanding of reliable sources guidelines and indeed notability guidelines. I've added yet more reviews of their recordings for the pedantically inclined. If you still wish to argue the point... well that's your choice. I have no intention of responding further. Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Pan Classics is not "one of the more important indie labels"
Re. "lack of understanding of reliable sources guidelines (etc.)" – the quality of your comments plummeted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No article text yet indicating what makes this ensemble more than run-of-the-mill. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are so convinced it isn't notable User:Francis Schonken take it to an AFD. But given the excellent resourcing by voceditenore, who is much more familiar with wikipedia's policies regarding notability than you appear to be, your nomination will be quickly mocked and overturned by the wikipedia community.4meter4 (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is notable (see above), so I don't understand the nature of this comment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Glad you changed your mind, but still not seeing where you said it was notable.4meter4 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't change my mind: "I suppose the ensemble is notable" is in my first comment above, nothing has changed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comparable example

I've moved it into article space at Yu-Chien Tseng. It's not perfect but would clearly pass an AfD. Francis, any autoconfirmed editor can move drafts into article space, including you, if they think they're appropriate. You don't have to be an official reviewer at WikiProject Articles for creation, although the process is slightly more fiddly if you're not used to it. The problem with AfC reviewers is that they are often unfamiliar with the notability criteria in specialist areas, and sometimes perfectly valid articles are either rejected or left to languish. Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Tx! Also for the explanation. Doesn't the draft redirect need to be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect (that's why I thought only admins would do the move to mainspace)? Or is that taken care of by a bot or so? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Redirects from drafts and AfC space are normally kept to prevent breaking links on user talk pages and help desks after the move to article space. The really no-no cross-name space redirects are generally those like me redirecting User:Voceditenore to Enrico Caruso or vice versa. Some drafts go up for review while they're still in an editor's sandbox. In those cases, after the move, we just remove the redirect text from the sandbox so the editor can continue to use it for other work. Voceditenore (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
PS You usually do need an administrator if the proposed article's title already exists as a redirect to another article and you want to move the draft over the redirect. Voceditenore (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Tx. For the articles I initiated via draft namespace the redirects were deleted after the move to mainspace. I thought that was standard practice, but apparently no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Chavez String Quartet

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've PRODded Carlos Chavez String Quartet as apparently non-notable. As noted in the PROD notice, I can't find any significant coverage of it, and the only reference in the entire article is not independent of the ensemble itself. I'm happy to be wrong, though, if anyone can point to any coverage of the ensemble. If you do, please update the article accordingly when dePRODding, to avoid a further AFD. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi TJRC. I suspect there's more out there if you search for Cuarteto Carlos Chávez (the name they usually perform under) instead of the English "translation". However, possible further sources are mostly from Mexican or Spanish-language publications. See [4], [5], etc. It probably should go to AfD instead of PROD but I'm all rescued-out at the moment. Voceditenore (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd searched on that as well (noted in the PROD notice), and all I found was their own web site and run-of-the-mill listings of their recordings and newsy performance reviews. TJRC (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably true, that. I'd say to leave the PROD and see what happens. We might all be spared an AfD. You've notified the main editors there. They can either fix the article or remove the PROD. Even if it gets deleted they can contest the PROD and get the article back. If that happens and no improvements are possible, then it can go to AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ravel's Shéhérazade

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I have moderately expanded the page that at present covers both of Ravel's works that have the title Shéhérazade. Grateful for guidance about whether it would be appropriate to split it into two different articles or leave it as is. (And for any other comment, natch.) Tim riley talk 16:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good work! Personally I would prefer to see two separate articles – the two works have little in common apart from the title. --Deskford (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that this is a very nice, useful expansion and you are to be congratulated on it. I absolutely agree that a split is sensible. Each new article can mention the other but really they are different enough topics that you should able to read about them as two separate entities. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A split seems sensible. Any thoughts on how you would title the articles Tim?4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your kind words. If we do split the present article, I thought perhaps we might have new articles called "Shéhérazade Overture" and "Shéhérazade (song cycle)", and turn "Shéhérazade (Ravel)" into a redirect to the song cycle, which is almost certainly what most readers will be looking for. Suitable hatnotes to each other, and to the good old Rimsky warhorse, perhaps? Tim riley talk 08:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, and imho that may still be the best solution, keep Shéhérazade (Ravel) as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article, splitting the bulk of the Shéhérazade (song cycle) content in a separate article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Shéhérazade: ouverture de féerie could be split off, and keep the song cycle at the current title. However, I don't share the opinion of my colleagues that it would be best to split: the overture is clearly a less prominent work (unpublished during the composer's lifetime), and is best understood when seeing the connection with the Shéhérazade theme and the Russian school links as a whole, which seemed to preoccupy Ravel in his early career. (note: both compositions have "tribute to Rimsky-Korsakov" written all over them: the first a style exercise condemned as a rip-off by his contemporaries and the second a more appropriate show of recognition) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_61&oldid=1137389562"