Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 76

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

→

Archive 80

Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions

Recent discussions at the talk pages of the BWV 1 and BWV 53 articles lead me to a few questions:

1. Do we want extended lists of recordings of a composition in an article about a single composition? Is there any rule of thumb about how many recordings can be listed? If a work has only been recorded twice, then I don't think it would be problematic to mention these recordings in an article about that composition. If there are over hunderd recordings, then likely listing all recordings of the work should be split to a separate discography page. Where is limit? Maximum 10, or 25 or 50 or ...? Or are there other factors to consider?
2. What level of detail is desirable when listing recordings in an article about a composition, e.g. do we want to mention the title of a CD (which may contain other works, not relevant for the article on which the listed recording appears); mark recordings following historically informed performance practice as such or not? etc.

I find the current guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Recordings rather unsatisfactory and think it is possibly time to update it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Giving an example of a recordings section which might need work (it is tagged for multiple issues): An Alpine Symphony#Recordings – was thinking about improving that section a few days ago, but lacking a clear view on what might be perceived as an improvement (and what not) I didn't get around to doing anything substantial there yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good questions. As for the marking for historically informed performance (HIP): in some older list articles, there were two lists, one for common instruments, another for period instruments. When both were merged for sortability, the marking was done to indicate the difference that earlier editors found important, example Christmas Oratorio discography. More elegant solutions are welcome, or we can decide we don't need/want it. (What I don't want to do is find references now for something other editors wrote years ago, without citing any reference.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Am surprised that An Alpine Symphony even has that many recordings, thought it was a neglected Strauss tone poem. Some ideas:

1. We've had a long standing practice to provide opera discographies separately (and some major works such as Four Last Songs discography or Mahler Symphony No. 8 discography), and in general I think such a division makes sense as it addresses length complaints. Finding a specific cut off is tricky, 10 seems OK for a composition article. Maybe around 15, should a list be created. Alpine is looking like it should be split imo.
2. HIP recordings is a useful parameter, since that does make an awfully big difference in sound quality; though, it may be most useful when the a discography is close to, or is, evenly split between HIP and non-HIP recordings. I think title of CDs may be a little overkill, and while it could be helpful for identification/verifiability, in general, it may just take up unnecessary space. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
   • Re. "Am surprised that An Alpine Symphony even has that many recordings, thought it was a neglected Strauss tone poem" – excellent argument to keep a more or less comprehensive list of recordings in the Alpine Symphony article. Here's the problem: sometimes there is no direct source saying that a composition, such as An Alpine Symphony is popular (or not), or often performed (or not), or neglected (or not). Yet, without reference to a reliable source, such information can not be conveyed in a Wikipedia article. In such case an overview of the discography (whether or not a more detailed discography exists in a separate article) can do the trick. Makes it clear without much further ado, and without the slightest bit of WP:OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Aza24's proposal of a split at aorund 15 seems reasonable, though anywhere in the region of 10+ could be resonably assumed to be within the discretion of an editor. Longer lists distort article length, and moreover separate articles appropriately enable additional text to create a more thorough context.--Smerus (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• An RfC relevant to this discussion has been opened at Talk:Schlage_doch,_gewünschte_Stunde,_BWV_53#RfC:_Inclusion_criteria_for_recordings_list. Input welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Recordings" vs. "discography"

The last !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography made me think back to one of the underlying questions why I started this talk section: why, in the first place, would we make (extended) discographies about classical compositions? A discography focuses on releases (release dates, commercial identification numbers, release medium, etc.), while a description or listing of recordings rather concentrates on when the work was recorded, and characteristics of the recording. Illustrating:

"Recordings"

Rec.	Singer	Voice type	Instrumental	Conductor	Time
...
1952	Rössel-Majdan	contralto	Vienna State Opera Orchestra	Scherchen	9:35
...

"Discography"

Singer	Instrumental	Conductor	Rel.	Label	Med.	Title	ID
...
Rössel-Majdan	Vienna State Opera Orchestra	Scherchen	1955	Ducretet Thomson	LP	Cantates Nos. 170 – 53 – 54	320 CW 086
				Westminster			WL 5197
			c. 1970			Three cantatas for contralto	W-18392
			1999		CD	Cantatas Vol. 32	W-9629
...

References

The recordings/discography distinction is in part semantic, but I think the question I want to ask is clear: do we want to concentrate on recording data or on release data when writing about or listing recordings or discographies of classical compositions? Concentrating on the first seems imho more relevant. Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue (as a policy requirement, see WP:NOTSALES), so taking focus away from record labels and commercial identification numbers seems pretty much OK to me. And the distribution medium specifications are losing relevance at the speed of light (except for a collector, but we're no sales catalogue for second-hand record collectors either), as more and more of these recordings become available as digitized sound files at Apple Music, Deezer, and similar streaming services. And for multi-edition multi-medium recording releases titles of the original and subsequent releases are often deceptive, unclear, and almost never quoted correctly in external databases. On the other hand, someone encountering a recording on a streaming service might come to Wikipedia, in the hope of learning more about what they are listening to: the Rössel-Majdan recording of the example above is a relatively slow performance of the work (etc) which may become clear if this and other recordings of the same work are described appropriately in Wikipedia. That would, I suppose, be much more enlightening for a listener of a performance of the work when coming to Wikipedia for more info, than obsolete commercial numbers, defunct record labels and the like.

The guidelines for discographies linked from the {{see also}} boilerplate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Recordings are mostly focussed on release titles, release dates, and the like, which, I suppose, may work fairly well in pop music (etc), but seems imho to work less well for classical music recordings, that's why I think specific project guidelines would be much better than depending on this other discography guidance. Lastly, regarding the "embedded" or "separate page" issue: when recordings are listed with no surplus of release data in the table, this usually gives a slimmer table, so can contain more recordings for the same amount of place in the body of an article. For me, in that case, I wouldn't object to "slim" recordings lists of up to say 40 or 50 recordings in an article about the composition, without needing to create a separate discography article, per the !vote mentioned at the beginning of this subsection ("... discographies ... are certainly unencyclopedic"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Whew rather long, but yes, you are absolutely correct: most of what is on WP is a list of recordings, not proper discographers (and it annoys me that bootleg recordings are listed as if they were intentional recordings). In light of that, I think what you have as "Recordings" is acceptable. (I think what you list as "Discography" is also just a list because it lack accurate recording dates and various reissues.) - kosboot (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Recordings" is to be preferred, just as "References" is much better than "Bibliography". We don't aspire to completeness, & shouldn't imply that we do. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• I also would prefer Recordings, but vaguely remember that when I wrote my first and called it that, it was renamed by someone else (Kleinzach possibly). Years ago. We have many pages about opera recordings titled Discography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In view of the above, I'd suggest that the project guidance about discographies reflect that vendor IDs such as sales catalogue numbers are not a common component of listings of discographies of classical compositions. If needed for identification they should probably rather be in footnoted references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I like these tables. Your suggestions are good Francis Schonken. My one caveat would be including the record label in both the recording template and the discography template. With so many pirate recordings out there in the classical world, its important we limit these lists to ones on reputable labels, and frankly its easier for the reader to locate the recording if they know the label it was recorded on. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree:

• Old, out-of-copyright recordings are not subject to "piracy". Example: this recording was originally issued on a minor label (the label no longer exists) – "minor" label is not indicative of piracy, how would it even be possible for such labels, long gone in the folds of history, to distinguish whether they are reputable or not? This recording is now available as a sound file at the British Library website – you can't say this institution is committing "piracy" can you? – for recordings of classical compositions (at least the ones with a long history of recording), "reputable label" is a quite unsuitable instrument to single out bootlegs.
• See the second table example in this subsection: the Rössel-Majdan recording was (simultaneously) distributed by Ducretet Thomson and Westminster: choosing a brand that may be better known in one continent (over a brand that may be better known in another continent) seems POV, and mentioning both is, imho, TMI anyhow (at least in a table), as the recording is now easiest to access on a National Library website.
• Since the last decades of the 20th century "reputable labels" have been very busy selling rights on classical music recordings. Some of the major labels have been merged, split, and/or re-merged with other labels at a pace that was hard to follow (and frankly, Wikipedia articles are too seldom successful in explaining the trappings, e.g. Sony Classical – not even half of the key developments involving that label are explained satisfactorily in that article). Virgin Classics, Decca, Deutsche Grammophon, Universal – which ones are reputable labels? Surprise: the first three are not even labels any more (they are brands at best), and the last one never gave it much thought to build a reputation in classical music recording: it owns the rights of reputable brands (no longer labels), as a commercial operation, but hardly has a reputation in its own right as a classical music label.
• As explained above, the world is changing: labels become less and less important, unless one is prepared to see Apple Music and other digital providers as record labels? ... and which ones would be the reputable labels then? Also here, as a tool to single out bootlegs this would be largely unsuccessful.
• Above, I mentioned the An Alpine Symphony discography. this was my last edit to that discography, begging the question whether one should mention the original (but obsolete) label, in this case Polydor (... no longer a label), its current incarnation (surprise, surprise: the Polydor label was bought by Universal), or the (less known) label that distributes a digital version of the-out-of-copyright recording (Music & Arts Program)? I'd anyhow not mention labels in the body of the table of the An Alpine Symphony article – mention it in a footnoted reference if needed for identification.

In sum, no, I'd tend to avoid labels in recordings lists of classical music (unless maybe for modern classical): they are not very useful to make a piracy/non-piracy distinction anyway, and would often better be positioned in the references (and/or sources) sections, if needed for identification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that labels are very mutable (particularly so nowadays). But I think it would be useful to indicate the label & issue number of the first release so that it would provide some context. - kosboot (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I pointed to some problems with that above:

• second bullet: which one is the first release of the Rössel-Majdan recording: "Ducretet Thomson 320 CW 086" or "Westminster WL 5197"? Afaik both were released concurrently, and I fear that trying to determine which one was actually first is an invitation to OR.
• fifth bullet: my edit to the An Alpine Symphony article (see link for the edit above) was precisely replacing a label with exotic (likely original?) issue number (while I could not find *any* information about it), with one that is documented in the given ref. "Polydor 66351" is imho too unhelpful on many levels to actually serve as a reference for that recording. Note that, for these older recordings, whatever is in some cases found about issue numbers is often compiled on hobby sites (still leaving doubt whether the information is actually correct). Other databases may be somewhat more reliable, but these would often rather use matrix numbers as unique identification for an older 78rpm recording, than issue numbers (which often appear to change soon after first release, so very hard to determine which one is the *actual* first issue – again sliding too easily to OR domain if you ask me).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with kosboot. Obviously if sourcing a label is a problem, then just leave it out to avoid OR. No template or system will fit every context perfectly. I think you are making this harder than it needs to be Francis. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And what would be the advantage of having such information in the body of an article or list, as opposed to having it in a footnote as part of the reference? The relevance is quasi zero (unless, when needed, as part of a reference): in the body of an article or list it merely detracts a reader's attention from the actual content. So please explain why prose or lists would benefit from being enriched by such rather extraneous data? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Compact tables

I'm a proponent of compact tables (see also example in OP of previous subsection), a further illustration:

Not compact

Title	Conductor / Choir / Orchestra	Soloists	Label	Year
...	... ...	... ... ...	... ...	...
J. S. Bach: Cantatas Vol. 34 (Cantatas from Leipzig 1725)	Masaaki Suzuki Bach Collegium Japan	Carolyn Sampson Gerd Türk Peter Kooy	BIS OCLC 811226000	2007 (2007)
...	... ... ...	... ... ...	... ...	...
J. S. Bach: Cantatas for the Complete Liturgical Year Vol. 6 (Sexagesima and Estomihi Sundays)	Sigiswald Kuijken (OVVP) La Petite Bande	Siri Thornhill Petra Noskaiová Marcus Ullmann Jan van der Crabben	Accent OCLC 936410457	2007 (2007)
...	... ... ...	... ... ... ...	... ...	...

Compact

Rec.	Conductor	Soprano	Tenor	Bass	Choir (alto if OVPP)	Orchestra
...
2007	Suzuki	Sampson	Türk	Kooy	Bach Collegium Japan
...
2007	Kuijken	Thornhill	Ullmann	Crabben	(Noskaiová)	La Petite Bande
...

References

As above: a compact layout may set the bar a bit higher regarding from which number of recordings a separate discography page is indicated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest to reflect in the project guidance about discographies that names of performers take precedence over titles of issued discs (such as J. S. Bach: Cantatas Vol. 34 or J. S. Bach: Cantatas for the Complete Liturgical Year Vol. 6) in listings of recordings of classical compositions. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The example is taken from Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 discography. (Something went wrong with the formatting, but I don't see where. Some curly brackets seem to be missing in the excerpt.)

On the titles: some are recognizable (Kuijken), some may indicate in which language, some may say what else on the same disk, - why not?

Names of soloists: I'd hate to have to specify the voice types. What for St. Matthew Passion with eight and more soloists? In your example, the soloists' names are mercifully short, but let DFD sing ;) - Why the alto in brackets? She's singing.

Choir / alto in OVPP: needlessly complicated. (First I didn't even detect "Choir".)

Summary: I think to do your kind of table in articles you write is fine, but for a standard, I see at least the above problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't think it is very easy to write general rules, afaics we can agree on that. The OP of this section mentioned two discographies, those of BWV 1 and BWV 53, so, yes, the first subsection's example was about BWV 53, and the second subsection's example about BWV 1. But I'll proceed with some other examples below (both written by me):

---

Recordings list of a composition for organ

I wrote this list some years ago:

Recordings of Reincken's An Wasserflüssen Babylon

Rec.	Organ	Organist	Album	Dur.
...	...	...	...	...
1994	Hus/Schnitger, Stade	Böcker	Denkmäler Barocker Orgelbaukunst: Die Huß/Schnitger-Orgel in SS. Cosmae et Damiani zu Stade. Ambitus, 1995. AMB 97 800 (CD)	17:16
1999	Schnitger, Hamburg	Foccroulle	J. A. Reinken, N. Bruhns: Sämtliche Orgelwerke. Ricercar, 2002. RIC 204 (CD)	16:50
...	...	...	...	...

I suppose that nowadays (with Wikipedia so often being accessed via much smaller mobile screens) I'd rather do it like this:

Recordings of Reincken's An Wasserflüssen Babylon

Rec.	Organ	Organist	Dur.
...	...	...	...
1994	Hus/Schnitger, Stade	Böcker	17:16
1999	Schnitger, Hamburg	Foccroulle	16:50
...	...	...	...

References

I really don't think it's worth it to have a wide sortable column with release data: release data, such as the title of a release, are generally somewhat less useful as sortable items, and they can easily be reformatted to footnoted references.

---

Recordings list of a motet

This one I wrote a few days ago (not even a list, just prose):

... Gardiner's live performance of Der Gerechte kömmt um, part of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, was recorded in July 2000, with a performance time of 7:47. A recording of the motet by the Norddeutscher Figuralchor, conducted by Jörg Straube, was released in March 2003 (performance time: 5:05). ...

References

I do think that this is much more informative than:

• ...
• Bach Cantatas Vol. 4: Ansbach/Haddington (2009), Soli Deo Gloria SDG 156.
• Johann Sebastian Bach: Die Motetten (2003), Thorofon CTH 2481/2
• ...

In other words, if you must have both (titles of recordings; and the performers performing the classical composition), that's OK for me, but, on the other hand, if one has *either* titles of releases *or* performers, then I'd say performers get precedence.

---

So, in general (I mean: as helpful guidance for Wikipedia editors regarding lists of recordings of classical compositions) I wouldn't go into minute detail whether there should be a column titled "Choir" or "Conductor / Choir / Orchestra" or "Choir (alto if OVPP)", which is widely unhelpful micromanagement (there might even be no choir involved in the performance; or the list may not even be in table format), but some broad principles. Current guidance at MOS:DISCOGRAPHY mentions this recommended format for list entries:

''[[Title]]'' (year), label – notes

... which I followed in my last counterexample above, but seems fairly useless for classical compositions: for starters, double square brackets would mostly create redlinks for releases that would generally not get a separate article. Some recordings of classical works are issued and re-issued so many times (with different catalogue numbers and all) that the title of a particular release is fairly irrelevant (and often not very recognizable either). I think this is the first information bit that should go (or at least: be relayed to the references list) when trying to make tables of recordings of classical compositions more compact, while omitting (main) performers from the list itself is hardly ever useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really a reply to this, but continuing from above (because you responded, and I wouldn't want to add above that): the template for a recording was designed to show that conductor, choir and orchestra are a team, and the soloists are a team. Think of a piece such as Mozart's Requiem, where they sing quartets: I'd like to see their names together, rather than a column of sopranos, a column of alto singers etc, similarly for conductor and ensembles. The titles could be shortened, no problem. To get a year to the front (some sources mention recording, some release) would only mean a change in the template design, not in individual articles, which I regard as a great advantage. Having only surnames is more compact, of course, but not all of them are known by surname alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Conflicting guidance on headers for whether the date (year) should be the first column in a table that presents recordings chronologically, or the album title. But imho, for this discussion, these are hardly relevant minutiae. I'd like to get rid of album titles as a (more or less) *compulsory* item in lists of recordings of a classical composition. It should be *optional* for this type of recordings list. Including (main) performers, on the other hand, should be rather basic for such lists (not even mentioned in current guidance). Whether these should be presented as groups, or separate, is again a discussion about minutiae, not relevant for the general project guidance about discographies. I suggest the project guidance does not mention whether performers should be in groups or not: neither would be an appropriate general rule, thus not suitable for general guidance. Above, as second post in the section, I mentioned An Alpine Symphony#Recordings – I don't think anyone would think it an improvement to group conductor and orchestra in one cell for each row in this case. That's too context-dependent whether such groupings are useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See however my next example below, illustrating that I'm not at all opposed to grouping of performers:

---

Compact with an extended apparatus of performers

This one, which I initiated several years ago, is an example of extreme grouping of performers (resulting in three cells per row of the table):

Recordings of Mozart's adaptation of Handel's Messiah

Rec.	Conductor / Orchestra / Choir Soprano I / Soprano II / Tenor / Bass ; (language)	Release liner notes
...	... / ... / ... ... / ... / ... / ... ; (in ...)	... ...
1988	Mackerras / RPO / Huddersfield Choral Society Lott / Palmer / Langridge / Lloyd ; (in English)	RCA 77862RC (2 CD box)
1991	Rilling / Bach-Collegium Stuttgart / Gächinger Kantorei Brown / Kallisch / Saccà / Miles ; (in German)	Hänssler 98.975 (2 CDs box) Andreas Holschneider
...	... / ... / ... ... / ... / ... / ... ; (in ...)	... ...

References

This is not a sortable table though (imho, for this reason, this extremely grouped format only makes sense if the discography list is not too extended: once the list is extended, the sort function is too handy imho).

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally am not a fan of redacted names. There are too many artists with identical last names, and that really only works well when the singers and conductors involved are famous and have highly recognizable last names (even then, many readers aren't versed in classical music history and major conductors, singers, composers, etc.) It's much more reader friendly to include entire names. Same is true for orchestras. Unless you are British or a classical music enthusiast, you probably won't know what the RPO is. I also don't see the need for separating out by voice type into separate columns. Soloists is fine, or you can list them in the order they appear with a voice type heading in one column if you prefer (like your last example). In general, remember that your target audience is the general public world wide. That means using abbreviations isn't helpful (unless you spell out the whole name somewhere earlier on the page, with the abbreviation in brackets afterwards).4meter4 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Two points:

1. It's far more counter-intuitive, imho, if in a sortable table a column of names of persons doesn't sort by last name. Several techniques are possible to accommodate that (which I'll gladly explain with more detail when I have somewhat more time than presently), but a column of such names sorting on first name is imho anyhow not done.
2. if artists share a last name, a solution as in the list of recordings in this section is possible, e.g.:
   • Oistrakh, D. vs Oistrakh, I.
   • Rosé, Ar. vs Rosé, Al.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's the somewhat more detail about the approaches regarding #1:

• Use "Lastname, Firstname" format ([[Firstname Lastname|Lastname, Firstname]] when linked)
• Manually add sort keys to the cells (see Help:Sorting#Specifying a sort key for a cell for the technique)
• Use {{sortname}} (see template documentation): {{sortname|Firstname|Lastname}} produces Firstname Lastname in the cell, but still sorts on Lastname.

IMHO, the first of these options is the least counter-intuitive, but can live with the other technical solutions too; the last of these solutions is probably most maintenance-friendly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

My preference as a reader is to have a visible first and last name with no abbreviation. If I see discographies without the full first name, I immediately become disinterested and won’t read them because I find them useless and too difficult to comprehend (ie If I have to click to multiple articles to figure out who the singers and conductor are, the template has lost its value) I know I am not the only reader who feels this way. It’s easy to set navigation templates up with visible names, so I am not sure why you are fighting for abbreviated names. It’s not a reader friendly format. Keep the full names in. Otherwise your discography or recording list isn’t useful.4meter4 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clinging to "last name only" (see my previous post in this section). Leaner tables have advantages (at least on smaller screens), but other considerations may apply, depending on circumstances. There's no general rule (currently), nor do I think we need one. From the examples above it is clear I've been doing "last name only" of and on for several years now (as a counter-example, here is an example of a recordings list I initiated with full names), but, for clarity, now, after so many years, is the first time someone objects to the last name only format. I'd think I'd have heard it before if this really was an issue.

But thus far you omitted to consider the more important point I made in my previous two posts: sortable columns with names of persons need to sort to the last name of the person, which is why your latest changes to the recordings list in the BWV 53 article are not OK: they sort by first name now (apart from poor Mr. Forck whose first name is not mentioned). Please don't do half work: if you add the first names, then you need to update the sorting mechanism with one of the available techniques. If not, it would be better to go back to the previous arrangement, that at least sorts correctly.

Finally, proposing another way to make the table at the BWV 53 article more compact:

---

Recordings of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde

Date	Singer	Voice type	Time
c. 1924	Emmi Leisner	alto	4:38
1936	Lina Falk	contralto
1946-10-24	Mary Jarred	contralto
1951	Hildegard Hennecke	alto
1952	Hilde Rössel-Majdan	contralto	9:35
...	...	...	...

References

---

Some of the information (that is, information that maybe does not need to be presented in "sortable column" format and/or is not really relevant to the narrative of the body of the article) only occurs in the footnoted references, and I'd be OK with that while it makes more sense imho – whatever information that merits to be mentioned in the body of the article and isn't in the table can then be put in the prose, e.g. introducing the recordings list, which is needed anyway, while the table remains lean and not overwhelming the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware that I had messed up the sorting by last name feature. Template design is not my strong suit as an editor. Apologies. If you show me what to do, I’d be happy to go in and fix it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be done is encoded in some of the table examples above, e.g. from the last table (giving the lines in the table syntax which mention the singers):

| data-sort-value="Leisner, Emmi" | {{ill|Emmi Leisner|de}}

| data-sort-value="Falk, Lina" | {{ill|Lina Falk|d|Q63486381}}

| {{sortname|Mary|Jarred}}

| data-sort-value="Hennecke, Hildegard" | {{ill|Hildegard Hennecke|de}}

| {{sortname|Hilde|Rössel-Majdan}}

(for clarity, this is a mix of techniques #2 and #3 in my little list of techniques above: these two techniques are compatible to be used in the same table). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: were you still going to do these updates on the recordings table of the BWV 53 article? If you want a more extended example of how it's done, see here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"Notable" recordings

Yesterday I removed the "Notable" qualifier from this article's section on recordings – as well from the section title as the hidden note referring to it. I thought we had this discussion before (though not sure where to find such prior discussions), but imho it is not possible to make a distinction, in Wikipedia's voice, whether a list of recordings only contains "notable" (or "noteworthy", "relevant", "significant", etc) entries, implying that whatever recording is not listed is lacking such notability, relevance or significance. This is a recipe for the kind of bias we'd want to avoid in Wikipedia imho. Even when based on an external reliable source, this would, at best, elevate an individual source's approach to a fact in Wikipedia's voice (we should at least have an in-text attribution in the sense of "[source X] lists these recordings as notable/relevant/significant" +reference). And what should then be done with recordings that were issued *after* that source discriminating on notability/relevance/significance was published? Would these new recordings inevitably be non-notable/irrelevant/insignificant? The example with which I opened this paragraph was even worse: it invited (in the hidden note) that Wikipedia editors would decide, for themselves, which recordings are notable and which ones are not, and publish that original research in Wikipedia's voice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I often find myself disagreeing with Francis, but I'm 100% with him on this one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this too. Personally, I'm usually annoyed that there is no distinction between commercially-made recordings and bootlegs (some of which—after much time—get issued commercially). - kosboot (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed unrelated to the notable/non-notable distinction. Nor being a commercially-made recording nor being a bootleg says anything about notability. On this different topic (which was BTW already mentioned out-of-context in the #"Recordings" vs. "discography" subsection above): how do you propose to make the distinction between commercially-made recordings and bootlegs? And which effect would that have on listing recordings of classical music? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Number of recordings (continued)

A new section below drew my attention to Das Lied von der Erde#Recordings. Is that "Recordings" section in any way problematic (it is a structured list with around 80 recordings)? I'd say it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Parnas

I've thought a few times over the years about creating an article for this classical cellist, who went to the same high school as I (though before my time) and who seems to me to be probably WP-notable. I tend, however, to write articles mainly on the basis of sources I have on my own shelves, supplemented by online material; and I own little stuff about music and can't really find enough accessible stuff online to write an article with, since his career mostly predated the intertubes. Can anyone point me to print sources that discuss him? (Or if anyone with sources at hand wants to have a go at an article, I won't complain.) Deor (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I would think the NY Times would have a reasonable amount about him. Here's the entire entry from Grove online:

Parnas, Leslie [by] James Wierzbicki, revised by Elizabeth Perten https://doi-org.i.ezproxy.nypl.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2292688 Published in print: 26 November 2013Published online: 25 May 2016

(b St. Louis, MO, Nov 11, 1931). American Cellist. He studied under gregor Piatigorsky at the Curtis Institute (1948–53) and then served as principal cellist of the St. Louis SO (1954–62). Parnas has won several coveted awards and competitions: he came second in the Geneva International Music Competition (1957), won the Prix Pablo Casals at the International Cello Competition in Paris (1957), gained top honors at the Trofeo Primavera (1959), and was awarded joint second prize in the Tchaikovsky International Competition in 1962 (no first prize was awarded that year). Since then Parnas has appeared nationally as a soloist with the New York Philharmonic, the Boston PO, the Philadelphia Orchestra, the National SO, and the St. Louis SO, with which he performed the premiere of Dmitry Borisovich Kabalevsky’s Cello Concerto no.2 op.77 in 1964, and internationally with the Hamburg and Moscow symphonies and the Leningrad PO, among others. Parnas has also given recitals, performing regularly with the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center. He has also toured widely with the Buswell-Parnas-Luvisi Trio and has participated in the Marlboro, Berkshire, Casals, Mostly Mozart, and Spoleto (USA) music festivals. In addition to serving as artistic director of the Kneisel Hall Summer Music School in Blue Hill, Maine, for 12 years (1973–85), Parnas has also twice acted as juror for the Tchaikovsky International Composition (1990, 1995). He has taught at Boston University since 1962. His playing is characterized by a sure technique and an aggressive approach to phrasing. He has played the “Rosette” cello made by Matteo Goffriller in 1698 since acquiring it in 1955.

- kosboot (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Bio at All music which adds a little more: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/leslie-parnas-mn0002176334 - kosboot (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes the NYT article is rather interesting, isn't it? There's also a short bio at Naxos. His daughter seems to be an accomplished cellist in her own right, though perhaps not to Wikipedia notability (yet), but the elder Leslie Parnas certainly is. Aza24 (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The Black Violin

Any input on if The Black Violin is notable? I'm having trouble seeing how (seems like mostly passing mentions), but maybe I'm missing something.... Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The articles in The Strad and in The New York Times and others are substantial coverage of its maker, Guy Rabut. There may be a better case for an article on him than on his instrument. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Bednarek - perhaps best to do an article on Rabut and WP:MERGE this to it? Also no explanation for the top of the three photos in the article, it seems to be UNDUE - and I am rather sceptical about the copyright status of all three photos.--Smerus (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes – speaking from a position of admittedly almost-total ignorance, I would say it seems to work better to focus on the luthier and include that particular fiddle as an interesting/important creation of his, rather than the current way round which feels – to me – slightly backwards. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of unusual violins in museums or in private collections of musical instruments, dating any time from the 17th century to today. One fails to see why this particular one (or its maker) would deserve a WP article. Browsing Internet shows this, among many others:

• http://www.pamelasmusic.co.uk/Library/Instruments/curiousviolins.htm
• https://www.si.edu/object/chanot-experimental-violin%3Anmah_605652
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQDmyWALhqc
• https://www.musicantic.eu/bowed-strings-instruments/decorated-and-experimental-violin/decorated-and-experimental-violin_282_uk_0_L.html
• https://www.andrewcarruthers.com/turtle-fiddle/
• Etc.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have boldly moved the article to Guy Rabut.--Smerus (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank Smerus, it looks quite a bit better. I hadn't even noticed the article was moved to the main space mere hours before my original query. Aza24 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the photos are indeed a copyright ifringement, I've moved deletion at Commons....--Smerus (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

O Fortuna

There's an article on O Fortuna (Orff) the first section of Carmina Burana (Orff). Should it remain separate (perhaps justified by its extensive use in popular culture) and expanded, or should it be part of the Carmina Burana article? - kosboot (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all.

Today, for perhaps the seventh time over the years, I attempted to find the article about O Fortuna, just to find pages about the poem and the larger work. I think the reason I keep forgetting it's not there is because it always seems like it should be. Every time, I think "huh. That seems weird. It's one of the most famous pieces of music of the past century, isn't it?" and then, at some point, I forget until the next time I look for it again. :) As sometimes happens after noticing something's absence enough times, I figured I'd do something about it.

I get that it's part of a larger work and based on a poem, but it's Orff's "O Fortuna" which is a ubiquitous part of pop culture -- appearing on countless soundtracks, commercials, sampled in other songs, etc. -- and not, for the most part, the rest of Carmina Burana or the poem it's based on (which isn't to say those aren't wonderful and popular works of music; just that they don't have the instant, far-reaching recognizability). To be clear, though I mention its relevance to popular culture, I'm not interested in this article becoming some collection of "in popular culture" trivia. What I mean is that there are good sources which talk about its use in pop culture and -- among other things -- how that has changed how we hear it. For example, the essay in The Oxford Handbook of Music and Advertising which uses an Applebee's commercial (to perhaps unintended comic effect) to illustrate how it has lost so much of its original meaning in favor of being a general index for some broad sense of "epic".

I feel like I've only scratched the surface of sourcing and plan to continue working on it in the coming days. I gave it some thought before starting, and think a stand-alone article makes sense (but then, I suppose the person who started it would say that). I'd invite others with more of a background to edit it and/or share sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm torn, in general, it seems like a fine article to include, but at the same time, much of its content seems to relate the the larger work, not really helped by the focus on news sources rather than academic musicological ones. Rhododendrites, you may want to take a look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture, perhaps that article can be merged into your new one. Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw that, actually, in the course of working on this one. While O Fortuna (Orff) makes for an obvious redirect target at minimum, since it does deal with the song in popular culture, the article up for deletion is almost entirely based on primary or low quality sources (as such lists usually are). I included a couple examples of its use in popular culture because they were covered by reliable secondary sources, and have no objection to including more which are likewise notable examples drawn from good sources, but definitely worry about adding a list like that, which would just wind up being massive. Suppose that's something for the talk page. As for the sourcing, musicology is not an area I have much experience with so I'd welcome help identifying those sources. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, a great deal of material on Orff is in German, which is less than ideal. Maybe your best bet is the grove article or this book; the Powers article you have cited is fairly well known. A simple JSTOR search might help as well, though I don't know how available information will be on the specific movement, further suggesting that it might be better off as an extended section in the main article. Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I'll take a look tomorrow. It would not surprise me if the musicology sources were more about Carmina Burana than O Fortuna in particular, since so much of the case for stand-alone notability of O Fortuna is in its presence in and relationship with popular culture. So these kinds of mainstream sources and other fields of scholarship will likely form the the primary basis for stand-alone notability. Of course I say that not having actually followed these links yet (working on something else at the moment). :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I placed {{split}} and {{merge portions from}} templates at O Fortuna (Orff), O Fortuna and Carmina Burana (Orff), each of them with a link to the discussion here. Personally I think that this set of articles should suffice for a detailed treatment of Orff's "O Fortuna":
  • O Fortuna – the intro of this article has currently one (small) paragraph about the Medieval poem, and two (larger) paragraphs about Orff's setting. The body of the article consists entirely of one primary source, with translation. The body of that article should be brought in line with its intro: the bulk of the article should be about Orff's setting, and the reception of that setting, which is indeed the bulk of what reliable sources have to say about "O Fortuna".
  • Carmina Burana (Orff)
  • Possibly a discography article.
  • Orff's setting should of course also be mentioned (without much detail) in the Carmina Burana article

I suppose that additional articles, or a different distribution of content among these article, would inevitably lead to one or more WP:Content forks of sorts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

While this discussion is ongoing, it appears Francis Schonken just took all of the content I added to O Fortuna (Orff) and copy/pasted it into O Fortuna as though there's consensus to merge here, and did so without attribution (nevermind giving someone who's been actively working an article a chance to merge it themselves). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

No content was copied without attribution --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

And where is O Fortuna (Orff) in that edit summary? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to apologize – I made an error: I wrote Carmina Burana (Orff) in the edit summary where O Fortuna (Orff) was meant (nothing was copied directly from Carmina Burana (Orff)). I'll put a {{copied}} box on the article's talk page to remedy ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture has come to a close (result: redirect). Proposing to proceed with the O Fortuna (Orff) → O Fortuna merge, as proposed a few weeks ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You are proposing this now as a fait accompli, having carried out the merge before any of the discussions were closed. The frustrating thing about this isn't that it was merged, which is fine, but that you did so immediately -- so quickly you messed up the attribution -- without giving discussion a chance to play out (or giving me the chance to merge it myself -- which isn't required, obviously, but seems like good wikiquette). I'll defer to others about what to do, and remove this from my watchlist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Levitsky's "Earth Prayers" as "answer" to Das Lied

I posted this at the talk page for Das Lied von der Erde, but wanted to make sure this request for consensus was seen by the wider community. It seems I have accidentally stumbled into a bit of a back and forth with 2-xite concerning Earth's Prayers by Alfred Momotenko Levitsky and how it relates to Mahler's Das Lied. Specifically, it deals with the work's designation as a "companion piece" or "answer" to Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde. According to a blurb on the Dutch New Music Now website, the work was apparently intended by its composer as an "answer" to the Mahler. I'll quote verbatim in Dutch (with bolding of word "answer"): "Alfred Momotenko-Levitsky schrijft met zijn premièrestuk ‘Earth’s Prayers’ een ‘antwoord’ op Mahlers ‘Das Lied von der Erde’." 2-xite keeps insisting I'm fabricating this or making a "speculation." Not even sure why they think this; I have tried making it clear to them in my edit summaries that the work is described as an "answer" in the article which I cited. It has nothing to do with me. To be clear, I have no horse in this race one way or another. I'd never even heard of Levitsky until another editor posted the work in the Das Lied article a few days ago. Anyway, I would appreciate getting some consensus on this matter in order to settle it one way or another. Deepest thanks in advance to all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

CurryTime, I hope you don't mind I corrected the syntax of the external link in your OP (the way you wrote it it linked to an error page). On the ground of the matter: not sure I would include this info in the Wikipedia article on Mahler's Lied von der Erde: based (exclusively) on a fairly recent primary source, it can easily be rejected on grounds of WP:RECENTISM or WP:TRIVIA. On a WP:DUE scale it may, failing any secondary sources agreeing or disagreeing with the composer's contention that it is such "answer" to Mahler's composition, range on a same level as some well-known computer game adopting a musical theme from a well-known composition (such entries are often removed from the Wikipedia article on the composition). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Francis, thank you kindly for your thoughtful reply. I agree with you and also believe the Levitsky work is noteworthy only for its purported “companionship” to Das Lied von der Erde, rather than for any intrinsic worth it may have. My initial thought was to remove mention of the work according to the same principles you cited, but ended up holding back lest I inadvertently upset other editors. So I moved Earth’s Prayers from a newly devised “companion piece” sub-section that was created by Babs Appels to the pre-existing “related works.” I then cited the aforementioned Dutch website link. Now that you bring it up, I suppose my question is now a wider one: Does the Levitsky work merit mention in the Das Lied von der Erde article at all? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Re. "I ... believe the Levitsky work is noteworthy only for its purported “companionship” to Das Lied von der Erde, rather than for any intrinsic worth it may have" – AFAICS neither has been established, I mean:

• It has not been established that Momotenko-Levitsky's composition is "noteworthy ... for its purported “companionship” to Das Lied von der Erde"
• It has not been established whether or not it lacks "intrinsic worth"

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to act as some kind of independent music commentators determining WP:OR-wise what the worth or notability of a piece is. That's why we need secondary sources. If and when such sources pick it up, that should determine where and how Wikipedia adopts it. As such, the assembled primary sources seem, currently, only to suffice to mention the composition in the Alfred Momotenko Levitsky biographical article (where it is, at Alfred Momotenko Levitsky#Compositions, referenced to three more primary sources). That is, until if and when someone can find a secondary source mentioning the Earth's prayers – Lied von der Erde link (and, depending on how credible that link is according to such secondary source Wikipedians can decide whether it should be mentioned in the Lied von der Erde article). It is not Wikipedia's task to take a lead in Momotenko-Levitsky's publicity campaign on his latest work. Similar objections seem also to apply to the other entry of Das Lied von der Erde#Related works... one would expect that after half a century (!), there would be more than a single primary source mentioning this other related work. So, for the time being, it seems that the entire "Related works" section should be removed from the Lied von der Erde article. As a side-note: the article on the composition seems to miss a decent "Reception" section: as is too often the case for Wikipedia articles on compositions it seems like editors thinking that listing recordings and some works referring to the composition ("in popular culture" and other) is a decent way to describe the reception of the composition. It is not. As another side-note, taking a look at the Alfred Momotenko Levitsky article, it has a half-way promotional look-and-feel (also, very surprisingly, Dutch Wikipedia does not appear to mention Momotenko Levitsky, not even once), and I wouldn't be too surprised if the English-Wikipedia article on the composer would be referred to WP:COIN for such reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The issue seems far from settled, see 2-xite's latest comment to the Alfred Momotenko Levitsky talk page --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Update on a blocking

Hi all, I just thought everyone should be aware—given his involvement in this project—that Francis Schonken has been permanently banned indefinitely blocked ([1] [2]). I will leave it at that, and merely urge others to avoid any Wikipedia:Gravedancing. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, not banned but just blocked for an undefined time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed (have corrected above), but the last one was for a year—it's looking like this one is going to be permanent, or for a very long time. Aza24 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm. @Tim riley: for interest.--Smerus (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Smerus, for passing this news on. I refrain from comment, in line with Aza24's judicious injunction, above, which is very much ad rem. Tim riley talk 19:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW there is now a proposal for a permanent project ban (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Francis Schonken - ban from the project?). Aza24 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. - kosboot (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So it goes.....--Smerus (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's sad, that someone so knowledgable seems never to have grasped that Wikipedia is for readers, not for editors. When I signed up, I quickly learned that the best way to avoid confrontation with FS was to minimise interaction. I haven't posted at ANI, because it would be WP:PILINGON. Narky Blert (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Sorry to give an impression of a cracked gramophone record playing the same few bars over and over, but I'm on about capitalising French titles (yet again). If anyone has views on Société Nationale de Musique -v- Société nationale de musique (the first being what our EnWiki article is called and the second being the French Wikipedia version) I'd be glad of a steer at our article's talk page. (And to anyone not old enough to remember cracked gramophone records: count your blessings!) Tim riley talk 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Cracked? I remember owning a much-loved version of "Robin Hood"/"The Ballad of Davy Crockett" on a 78 by Dick James (who did rather well for himself later). I accidentally sat on it. I still carry the emotional, though not the physical, scars. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The French website Orthotypographie, which deals with the rules of a correct typography, writes this:

Contrairement à beaucoup d’autres langues, le français n’aime pas la fatuité. Il sait vivre et répugne à multiplier les signes ostentatoires. D’où la beauté du musée du Louvre et de l’Académie française, de la mer Morte et du Massif central.

"Contrarily to many other languages, French does not like conceitedness. It knows how to live and is reluctant to multiply ostentatious signs. Hence the beauty of the musée du Louvre and of the Académie française, of the mer Morte and of the Massif central.

That is to say that only the names of institutions (Louvre, Académie) or important defining words (Morte, Massif) should take the initial capital. The rule (if any) is not very clear, though. And in addition modern book publishers in France tend to forget the typographic rules. This is no reason not to follow them... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)