Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Haydn and Mozart task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Haydn Symphony Articles Structure

David and I have been having a bit of back and forth about the structure of the Haydn symphony pages. When I first created several of these articles, I used a boilerplate heading structure that consisted of: 1) the Date of Composition and Scoring; (2) Nickname and (3) Movements. See, e.g. Symphony_No._73_(Haydn). I then applied this boilerplate to most of the other symphony articles as they were created (e.g. by Heimstern, etc...). Now David and others have pointed out that linking DoC with Scoring is rather arbitrary. My initial logic was that scoring was date-dependent since as HCRL has shown the orchestral forces that Haydn enjoyed changed from period to period. However, I agree that is abstruse and that the headings probably make little sense to the average reader. So suggestions for improvements are welcome that we can apply, at a minimum, across the body of our Haydn symphony articles. Eusebeus (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure I am representing a minority view here, but I don't see any great advantage in having a uniform format for all of Haydn's symphonies. On the contrary, the average classical music listener is under the impression that all Haydn symphonies are the same ("He didn't write 104 symphonies, he wrote one symphony 104 times"), and using a uniform format only reinforces that impression.

I am not any sort of expert on Haydn's symphonies, but I am very familiar with his quartets. I think the lead of the article should include not only the nickname, but also why the symphony has that nickname, and the symphony's contribution to the advancement of the genre. In the case of Symphony_No._73_(Haydn), I would write "... It is often known by the subtitle La chasse (The Hunt) because of its use of a hunting motif played by the horns."

Haydn, after all, laid the foundation for the modern symphony. Readers need to come away with a sense of what each symphony contributed to the way symphonies are written - in terms of structure, use of instruments and orchestration, counterpoint as an expressive element in the sonata form, and so on.

At the risk of blowing my own horn (I know, I've done this before), I would recommend String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn) as a model. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we all agree that in the long run, fully fledged out articles like String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn) would be ideal, but most of the symphony articles are stubs and have been for a while. I think we're just looking for an easy framework that's easily extendable as facts get added. My comment before was the "composition date" and "scoring" are unrelated and for small articles it makes sense to put the composition date in the lead. Something has to go in the lead and composition date and premiere information seem to be what in the lead in most other musical composition articles (as always, if facts about the composition or premiere become lengthy it could get broken out of the lead but for >95% of cases we're talking 2-3 sentences. Then the scoring could either go in its own section or it could be placed above the the list of movements in the movements section.DavidRF (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my preference would also be for some kind of more or less stable structure, although we don't have to be completely stentorian about it, depending on the case. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I think it is reasonable to revise the original headings template and incorporate, per David's suggestion, the composition date into the article lede, and retain the individual headings for movements and, where applicable, nicknames. Eusebeus (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express agreement with Ravpapa, in that I don't really approve of adopting an iron-clad format for Haydn symphony articles. Each symphony is different, and may well require a different form of article organization. Moreover, it is regrettable when a template concept leads to deletion of material that may well be useful to readers, as I believe has happened with our Haydn symphony articles in the past. A template should only specify a minimum of what articles should contain, to help make sure that we don't forget to include crucial information. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the general agreement. As with Symphony_No._34_(Haydn), headings can be added as appropriate to the circumstance. Are you saying additionally you object to a more or less stable format for the presentation of common content (e.g. date of composition in lede; a movements heading, etc...)? Eusebeus (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm fine with uniformity of the kind you mention, just no Procrustean beds, please. Opus33 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Instrumentation tangent

Changes in the orchestration were very subtle over time. There was the point where the optional flute became mandatory (#70s), the point there the second bassoon became common (late #70s) and then mandatory (#80s) and then in London the second flute was added, trumpets and drums appears in "non-trumpet keys" and then on the second London trip, clarinets were added. That's all interesting, but for the first 70% of the works the level of instrumentation fairly static... sometimes flute, sometimes trumpets and drums but otherwise two oboes, two horns, bassoon and strings. (This tangent is relatively interesting, putting is in a subsection and would consider adding this information to the List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn article). DavidRF (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points all. We could consider, in fact, a separate article (or section of the LoS) to which we could refer from the symphony articles as needed. That would also be an ideal place to address the keyboard continuo issue. (I have refactored to make this its own discussion.) Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And you've also touched on the numbering somewhat at the top of the article on number 27. The symphony "numbers" come from Eusebius Mandyczewski from around 1900 (give or take a decade). He was proven wrong on the chronology in many cases, but he only missed two symphonies (A & B) which is remarkable for the era. Hoboken chose to stick with the Mandyczewski numbers when he did his catalogue in 1955 despite the chronology issues which were already known at that time because they were widely known. Don't have citations at the moment or I'd add it to the LoS article right now. Also can't put "give or take a decade" in an article either. :-) DavidRF (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)  Done DavidRF (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All this is fascinating to me and should be in an article. Why not write an article on The symphonies of Haydn? Sticking it in List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn would be unnatural, and kind of burying it. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, many of these "list articles" morph into fuller articles (that include a list) over time. We could rename or fork it off now or later, does not matter to me.DavidRF (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn: geographic key

I've just discovered this article. On first thoughts it seems anomalous, though the content is obviously good. Perhaps it could be integrated into the encyclopedia differently? Any thoughts? --Kleinzach 00:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote it because I kept reading about these places and wanted to visualize where they all were with respect to each other. It's also relevant to Haydn's life, e.g. he hated being in Esterhaza because it was so much farther from Vienna than Eisenstadt was. I made it a separate article from Joseph Haydn because, as you can see, the caption couldn't possibly fit.

User:BrianBoulton has done a nice map for part of Mozart's travels, and I would like to see similar maps for all of the great composers. Mozart will need about 20 of them... Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't really get it. Why is this material not in the biography? What was the problem with (which?) caption? BTW I'm strongly pro-maps so I agree entirely with your aspirations! --Kleinzach 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach, The reason is that the main Haydn article is already quite long, and it would be pretty tedious to include all the detailed geographical locations in the narrative. Only Haydn buffs really care about all the street addresses. So, I'm following the general principle: put the most important stuff in the main article, and the details in satellites. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: By "captions" I meant "whatever would be needed for the map to make sense". And this would be the entire contents of Joseph Haydn: geographic key. --o33

Main biographies need splitting, but in this case both the split and name given for it are unusual and the link is difficult to find. In terms of structure it seems to be a sub-sub-page, not a split off the main page, but a split off a section of the main page.

My suggestion would be to reduce the main page by splitting off the works section (and probably the bibliography) and re-integrating the biographical information, including the geography. I agree that "only Haydn buffs really care about all the street addresses" but general readers will be interested in the photos, perhaps consolidated in a gallery. --Kleinzach 01:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Kleinzach has a very good point here. Eusebeus (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any more thoughts? Opus33? I'm wondering if I should start to implement my copyediting suggestion? --Kleinzach 06:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach. Sorry to be in disagreement with you, but in truth I'm really quite opposed. Those locations are not important enough for the main article, and the content of what Haydn wrote is important. So if you make these changes, I will heave a weary sigh, then start edit-warring. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My two cents is that its the name of the article that is causing the most confusion. Joseph Haydn: geographic key just doesn't look right, sounds odd and doesn't have any precedent. It does seem to beg to be merged back in as suggested above. Its only upon a third look, that I realized that the large number of photos along with the timeline that the article should stay. Is there a way the article could be renamed so that editors don't have to go through three iterations of thought before concluding that things are OK as they are? List of residences of Joseph Haydn or Timeline of residences of Joseph Haydn... (I don't like either of those names, but there might be a good name along those lines somewhere).DavidRF (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution for this is to create an interactive Haydn tour in Google Earth, and link to it from the Haydn article. Most of the sites mentioned are already there, and many have pictures and popup blurbs. I have never created a Google Earth tour, but it doesn't look like too forbidding a task. Opinions? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• A tour in google earth is a good idea, but Kleinzach's initial point is that the content here represents an unnecessary fork and that the residence locations could be included in the main article. I tend to agree as we could easily sidebar the information as the overall content weight is slight. Eusebeus (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, here are my reactions to the above feedback:

• Concerning the weirdness of the format of Joseph Haydn: geographic key, I think DavidRF is right. This is probably what led to this contretemps in the first place. I suggest improvement thus:
  • Rename it to List of residences of Joseph Haydn as David suggests. This would solve the "no precedent" problem, since while Wikipedia has no geographic keys, it certainly has plenty of lists.
  • Thumbnail the images and interleave them into the timeline.
  • Any images from Joseph Haydn: geographic key felt worthy of inclusion in Joseph Haydn could go there if there's space.
• However, I still would be very opposed to including address trivia in Joseph Haydn, or removing discussion of his music.
• Google Earth is a fine idea but addresses a somewhat different issue than what we have here.

Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming to List of residences of Joseph Haydn would be a good start towards making the information more accessible.

There's plenty of space in the main article for more photos. Most high-profile composer biographies have more illustrations, and a gallery can be used if necessary to conserve space.

Opus33: I trust you weren't serious about starting an edit war? After all we're talking about presentation, not interpretation or facts, and I think we should all try to respect each other here.

Ravpapa: re. interactive Haydn tour in Google Earth, definitely worth trying as an experiment, though regrettably I can't offer Earth skills myself. --Kleinzach 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Ok, as a token of good faith I've carried out the name change; I can start redoing the picture gallery and transplanting pictures when I have time if no once else does it.

Kleinzach -- my proposed edit war reflects no disrespect, but only my own strong beliefs about article organization. I hope you will not take offense (or at least, not too much offense) at my remark. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Trombones in Mozart symphonies?

A couple of the symphonies (22 and 23) are listed as being scored for trombones. I'm 95% sure that this is supposed to be trumpet. A. Peter Brown lists "Tpt" in his tables. But, when I look at the score at NMA, it says "Trombe" instead of the usual "Clarini". Before I switch the link from trombone to trumpet, I thought I'd pick the brains of the group here. Is there a difference between "Trombe" and "Clarini" or are they complete synomyms? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Clarini and trombe are indeed different but both are trumpets. Neither of these are scored for trombone! Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks. Out of curiosity, what the difference? Pitch? Clarino makes me think high. DavidRF (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Motivistic link between Haydn-30 and Haydn-48

In the development of the Symphony No. 30 (Haydn), the "do-re-mi" part of the Alleluia theme (CDECDC) is repeated at different pitch levels seven times. To me, this is strikingly similar to Symphony No. 48 (Haydn) where a rising three notes is repeated seven times at different pitch levels in the exposition... then in the development of 48 it happens again, only this time its 11 times.... then seven more times in the recap. I'd like to include this connection, I can't find a citation for this though. Hodgson? Does anyone know the pattern of the pitches that are cycled through? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Its a combination of backwards circle of fifths and a broken scale. ABC--DEF--GAB--CDE--FGA--BCD--EF#G#... often resetting an octave below so that the notes stay in the same pitch range.DavidRF (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"What links here" ignoring template links

Is there a way I can get "what links here" to ignore links in templates? I was adding a link to Symphony No. 92 (Haydn) from Symphony No. 62 (Haydn) and I could have sworn I added a similar link in an earlier symphony a few weeks ago. Trouble is, because of the template, they *all* link to #92. Anyway I can see which ones link to #92 in the text of the article? Just a wishlist type of question... thanks. DavidRF (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be nice? Also, but less crucially, all those annoying "new article bot" listings. Maybe try the techie part of Village Pump? Opus33 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Haydn Symphony Scores

All 106 are available (for viewing anyways) here. Just a heads up in case anyone is interested. Really makes it easier following along while listening and reading Landon or Brown because they like to refer to measure numbers. It doesn't seem as obviously public domain as NMA so I won't add links from the articles yet (and if I've "said too much", feel free to delete my post :-)). Otherwise, enjoy. DavidRF (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. It will be useful to help understand queries made about the music, such as the one you made above. Opus33 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a phenomenal resource, excellently put together. According to the home page, the music has been made available courtesy of Universal and Brilliant classics. This is, of course, an annus mirabilis for Haydn enthusiasts with festivals all over the place; every symphony is being performed in Eisenstadt, for example. (We had here in Montreal this Spring a festival that performed every string quartet he ever wrote.) So it is not unusual that such resources should spring up; the question is whether these will be permanent, in which case we would be able to link every symphony to the Dorati/Fisher/Hogwood performance + relevant score. It might be worth writing to the Herr Doktor Intendant to find out.... Eusebeus (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The interactive map

I have made an interactive map for the Haydn article. I have a shocking suggestion: why not make this article a subpage of Haydn? Joseph Haydn/List of residences. The rationale is that the only way people are going to get to this article is by clicking on the link on the Haydn page; neither the title nor the subject lends itself to a search.

I know this is a radical departure from the way we usually do things at Wikipedia, but it just makes so much sense - it is a computer, not a printed encyclopedia, and if we can do things that will make information more organized and available, we should. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[Deep breath] Sorry, but I think the 'interactive map' on Joseph Haydn looks amateurish. But what do other people think? Re your subpage idea, I don't really get it. At the moment List of residences of Joseph Haydn is effectively a subpage of Joseph Haydn linked through the navbox. Am I missing something? --Kleinzach 09:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. Like Kleinzach I don't want to seem mean to Ravpapa, but I also am not very happy with the interactive map. While I admire its technological cleverness, I feel that it's not really helpful to the reader -- the pictorial links make no sense unless you've already read the article. In addition, the map sends a message to readers that I would prefer not to send, that is, that packaging is more important than content. Take a look at the reference sources on your bookshelf, and you'll probably notice a common visual theme: sober packaging, as a token of earnestness and accuracy. We should do this too. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to concur and suggest it be removed. Eusebeus (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mozart requiem child articles

I found these articles: Requiem (Mozart)/Recordare and Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum. Each article consists mainly of the Latin text and contains barely any Mozart at all. There's already discussion on the talk pages about whether the articles should be renamed or redirected, but I thought I'd bring it to people's attention here because these articles were until recently uncategorized and might have gone under the radar. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to the main requiem page. Eusebeus (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Early Mozart Violin Sonatas

I've created an article Violin Sonatas, KV 6-9 (Mozart) and I'm merging information into there from the Violin Sonata No. 1 (Mozart) and Violin Sonata No. 2 (Mozart) articles which I plan to replace with redirects. I think these early juvenilia pieces are best served in group articles. Also, I've gone with KV numbers in the page title instead of ordinal numbers. I know we tend to use ordinal numbers over catalogue numbers if at all possible, but I think this is one of those rare instances where ordinal numbers are just too confusing. Its not that ordinal numbers are used less, its that they are are never used. Anyhow, this note is a general FYI. If anyone has strong feelings about what I've done, I'm open to tweaking, renaming or even undo-ing.  :-) DavidRF (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea and great writing. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a Userbox for the Wikiproject

I have only just joined but wondered if you would like to have a userbox for this wikiproject. I would happily spend some time creating one if you would like it. --Pianoplonkers (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the project! Most of us here are fairly no-frills with rather plain-looking user pages. I mean, if you enjoy making userboxes, then feel free and I'll put on on my userpage... but if its a lot of work, then don't worry about it. Again, welcome. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the first copy of the userbox

This user is part of the WikiProject Haydn and Mozart

Please give any suggestions for improvement or even improve it here--Pianoplonkers (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the second copy of the userbox

This user is a member of WikiProject Haydn and Mozart

Please give any suggestions for improvement or even improve it here--Pianoplonkers (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New Userbox Proposal

Whilst I realise that Pianoplonkers has preposed this beforehand, I still think that this WikiProject shoudl have its own userbox. I have modified Pianoplonker's original to produce the below template; but please feel free to edit and improve it.

This user participates in the
Haydn and Mozart
task force.

Most other WikiProjects have their own userbox, and so I think that we should too. It could also help to get more users to join the project, which could lead to more articles on Haydn and Mozart. Anyway, just a suggestion.--Egemont (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don Giovanni

Don Giovanni has been seeing a lot of activity, constant changes to the voice types in the roles table, dumbing down of the story in the synopsis etc. The involvement of some cool heads and attentive eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There's been a lot of talk page for this article already. There's a single enthusiastic editor who is intent on spicing up the opera synopses with more colorful language (as if the plot synopses weren't already colorful enough). He's also editing The Marriage of Figaro and in the recent past touched all the Wagner Ring Operas. To be honest, I usually let the WP:OPERA crowd police these pages as they're usually on top of things.DavidRF (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on things. The problem with these kind of edits is they are usually inconsistent with both our style and content guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mozart Violin Sonatas

Someone added an article for K.305 last month. With three mature sonatas (304,305,526) having articles and the three early sets having articles, I went ahead and created Categorty: Violin sonatas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Template:Mozart violin sonatas. Like his piano sonatas, they might not all be worthy of full length articles, but I didn't see any way to collect them into sets (other than the early ones). I'm flexible on the template's format. More than any other group of Mozart's pieces, I'm not happy with the ordinal numbering convention of the violin sonatas. That's one nice thing about the template - we can stress the K-numbers and keys - but it could be that we want to de-emphasize the ordinal numbering even more. Please feel free to provide any feedback. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Books for Haydn and Mozart

I have created 'books' (collections of articles that can be made into a pdf/book) for the two composers, see:

• Wikipedia:Books/Joseph Haydn
• Wikipedia:Books/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Perhaps other members may be interested in helping to develop these resources? --Kleinzach 04:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What do we do? Just create a big list of links? Is there a goal to which articles should be collected? Is the look and feel of the final PDF file supposed to motivate further editing? Certainly a neat tool.DavidRF (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking into the possibilities. I think the output is more of a 'booklet' than a 'book'. (See discussions here and here using Chopin as an example.) To cover a subject as large as either M or H we will probably need a series of 'books'. (As for motivating editing, I think it may be useful in some circumstances.) --Kleinzach 01:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)