Talk:Lists of composers

This article was nominated for deletion on August 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Composers This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I suggest we add references to all composers not working in "song form". Such as composers for Multimedia, composers for Television, composers for Film. I think that the idea that a "composer" is someone that only uses an orchestra or someone that lived 100 years ago should be adjusted. Search google for -composer- and note the variety of todays practicing composer.

Jonathan

Should this page only list 'classical' composers? Should the list be divided according to periods (as on the

Where are all the gals? --User:Juuitchan

OK - I put in Beach, Boulanger(s), Dring, and Fanny Mendelssohn. Oh, and I'd already put in Maconchy and Lutyens. Do you know of any more? David Martland 08:27 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get rid of all the "unclassified composers" by putting them in the right category. I've deleted the "impressionist music" division, because it's too vague to really be useful. It might be good to put it back as part of an alternative classification system for classical composers according to style rather than period (eg, impressionism, avant-garde, expressionism, and so on). This might be a good way to break up the too-large-to-be-useful "modern composers" section.

A question: do the one-letter lists of composers serve any purpose at all (Composer/G and its chums)? I assume they can be deleted once the composers on them have been properly classified on this page, yes? --Camembert

I wonder whether it's more useful to have the composers listed alphabetically as the periods are quite arbitrary. For example, Beethoven could be easily argued to be a classical composer, especially in his early period. Alternatively they could be classified by nationality or century of birth. --andrewthorne

I would say by period or century. The whole "by country" thing opened a whole can of worms on "nationality" vs "culture" on the list of authors page, and as it currently stands is a hideous mess, which I can't fix for fear of edit wars -- Tarquin

Yes, this is a chewy problem indeed. I don't think an alphabetical list is very useful - the search function (either wikipedia's or a browsers "search in page" thing) makes alphabetic lists redundant, it seems to me. But there are problems with other classifications, too - "by country" is a problem as Tarquin indicates: is Gustav Mahler Bohemian, Czech or Austrian? Is Igor Stravinsky Russian, Soviet, French or American? "By century" is fair enough, and non-controversial, but also not especially informative, particularly when you get to the twentieth century; Philip Glass and Arnold Schoenberg are/were both 20th century composers, but that's where the similiarity ends. "By period" or "style" or whatever you want to call it, is better, I think - most composers are pretty clear-cut cases (Wagner is clearly romantic, Bach is clearly baroque), and for those that do cross boundaries, I think it's not only acceptable, but very useful to put them in all suitable categories. So Beethoven should be listed under both Classical and Romantic, Schoenberg under Romantic and "modern", and so on. By the way, if anybody fancies trying to split that big "modern classical" group into more meaningful and managable classifications (minimalist, serial, etc), then that would be great (I'd do it myself, but I'm too lazy). --Camembert

It's not always easy to draw lines as to who should be in - and who not. However, I have included several of the French spectralists - Grisey, Leroux, Hurel, Murail in the modern list. Time will tell whether they should remain! David Martland 08:18 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go back on what I said earlier and say that we should divide the list up by century of birth. The reason is that the "period" or "style" divisions are too complicated. What is John Williams? Is Nielsen modern or romantic? Sibelius? I'd say they were both romantic, but chronologically, they're 20th century. Can Brian Eno be considered a classical composer? Better known for pop, certainly, but he did some things which are close to

ragtime music, and so on. --Camembert

OK, but let's not completely lose the style/genre association. How about listing the genre after the name? If there is more than one they fit in or a similar ambiguity, list both. --Amillar

Absolutely - what I'm planning to do is this: move the lists as given here now to their respective genre pages (I've started on this already); then rearrange this list in chronological order; then annotate the list so it will say "Ludwig van Beethoven (1770 - 1827), often regarded as the first Romantic composer" and "Terry Riley (dates), minimalist compsoer noted for works such as In C" or something similar. Sound OK? --Camembert

I've added a first draft for an English Wikipedia article on the Austrian-German composer Franz Schreker. Since I'm not a professional musician, English is not my mother language and this is my first Wikipedia article at all, any improvement of the draft is appreciated. --Jürgen

I've deleted the massive alphabetical list of composers. I believe it was redundant, at best, and served no use that was not already served better by the various listings by certain categories. It's not totally gone, of course. If anyone wishes to reference it, you'll find it here. Naturally, if anyone strongly objects to this removal and thinks this article ought consist of composers of all genres and eras in a single alphabetical list, then we can talk and work it out.

Rohirok 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. Thanks. Isomorphic 00:37, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In English these days students are taught that a composer is anyone who creates a text of any form (print, film, audio, music etc). Do we need to expand this page to include that?

I don't think so. I've never heard of that and I don't think people will search composer looking for authors or filmmakers. PrettyMuchBryce 01:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the logo like this may be used at the end of the Composer articles:

This Composer article is part of the Composers Project

• (Meladina 00:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sorry, no. It's Wikipedia policy not to link to project pages from the main article space. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this was deleted. It wasn't THAT big and it is useful. I've reverted this, pending a discussion of this specifically. I fail to see how supressing information adds anything. Musikfabrik 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not suppression of information. I have no interest in preventing people from being informed about composers. I do believe that they will be better informed about composers if they can easily browse for them by era, genre and other classifications. I doubt anyone really needs to know where a specific conductor falls in an alphabetical hierarchy, and the dates for birth and death are the only marginally useful thing within the alphabetical listing. What useful purpose does the alphabetical listing serve?

Rohirok 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that this is not very useful as an entire list of all composers. However, this list was merged into this article from "List of uncategorized composers" by me about a month ago. Perhaps adding the header "Uncategorized composers" on the list of names might help. I realize that would be a mess too, but the list of composers used to have a bunch of fragmented lists (Ragtime composers, jazz composers, etc... see bottom of article). All of these lists had their own articles, so I deleted those lists and merged the uncategorized composers here. Basically I merged 2 messes into 1 mess. I started by removing Andrew Lloyd Webber (musical theater composer categorization), hopefully more to follow. Dafoeberezin3494 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • What useful purpose does it serve? It serves by allowing people to push "T" to find the Tchaikovski page and then finding the Hilary Tann page, which should be there....It's not that long, and the use of the list is obvious.
  • The whole business of removing things on one list and putting them on another is another hopeless task. What about Andrew Lloyd Weber's cello Sonata? Are you cutting that out completely by putting him into the "Music Theatre" slot? It's not so cut and dried as all of that.
  • I really don't understand what the point of trying to make something which is never going to be a "neat" list into just that. There is no way to make this list into and once you do, it's going to be a mess just a few days later. I firmly believe that "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it"...Musikfabrik 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that because there cannot be clear cut mutually exclusive categories for any of these composers, except last names I guess, that it would be better to keep an entirely unorganized list than to attempt any sort of categorization at all. Would it please you if we got rid of all these lists and just had 26 lists, one for every letter of the alphabet? Why don't you create those categories instead? Categories are supposed to be alphabetical, lists not necessarily so. Dafoeberezin3494 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Musikfabrik: If people wish to find information on Tchaikovski or any other composer, they can just type it into Search. They don't need an alphabetical list of composers for that. You will notice that neither Tchaikovski nor Hilary Tann are currently listed. This makes sense, given Dafoeberezin's explanation that the names are listed here because they were uncategorized. If this were to be treated as a list that ought to be comprehensive, it would no doubt explode in length, necessitating a split. But such a hypothetically comprehensive list already is split, since lists of composers according to genre, era and other classifications already exist. If that is what the list is to be, then it would be redundant. But as a list of uncategorized composers, it is not redundant, but it surely should be split off into its own article.

Rohirok 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at Wikipedia:Lists, I see the following policy regarding the purpose of lists-

• • Information

The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

• • Navigation

Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).

• • Development

Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.

It would appear that the first "purpose" "Information" would seem to support your position. My position is that the last two purposes support my inclusionary position.

• • You are assuming that people looking for Tchaikovsky would know enough to look in the "List of Romantic composers", would know which spelling to use, would know that Tchaikovsky was Russian. I am assuming that they wouldn't necessarily know that, but would know enough to be able to type composer and then choose from a general alphabetical list of all names in all catagories. Not everyone has taken music history class. Don't forget that grade school children who are doing reports for class might need to find this information too. What about people who are only browsing, looking for ideas, but who don't know what they're looking for? Research isn't always structured.

• • The general alphabetical list of composers is also extremely useful in terms of the last criteria- Development. Having a general alphabetical list of composers and seeing which names are dark is a quick way of seeing what needs to be done. There is something to be said of generalization, even of large subjects such as this...

• • So, you see, the general list is not necessarily redundant, nor is it necessarily not useful. It depends simply on how it is used. Plus, regardless of how much you want this list to disappear, there will be people who add "composers" to the "composer" category and once you get the "mess" fixed, it'll just be recreated in a matter of weeks or days. And is it really a mess? I don't think so myself....

• • Why am I not doing away with all of the lists you're creating? I have no problem with other lists existing, for those who seek specialized information. I just don't believe that these specific lists replace a general list, for the reasons cited above. The category of Russian composers and the category composers may overlap, but what's the problem with that? Musikfabrik 08:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • A further point- I really think that adding the "uncategorized composers" bit could have waited until this discussion was finished; While it might have been there before, it wasn't there when I reverted the alphabetical list. There is a need for a general list of composers which are listed outside of genres, aesthetics and nationalities. It seemed to me (perhaps mistakenly?) that a "list of composers" would be just that...Perhaps the "uncategorized" qualification might be removed while the discussion is taking place, simply as a means of respecting the discussion process? You will note that I did not delete this...Musikfabrik 09:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Musikfabrik, I do not expect grade school children doing reports on Tchaikovsky to look in List of Romantic composers and find him there. I expect them to look in a category, or better yet, type it in the search bar. You propose a list of all composers, even unifying that with songwriters, with no distinction between style of music composed, and yet you warned me on the List of composers by nationality that it had the poential to get extremely large very quickly. I'm sorry, I really just don't understand your argument at all. Dafoeberezin3494 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You expect grade school children to look in a category, but how are they to know what category to look in? I'm favouring a list which contains all composers listed without categorization because this is an encylopedia. An encylopedia, as I've explained to you before, is the universal description of all knowledge arranged without either bias, or hierarchization. The purpose of an encylopedia is to objectively describe the Universe without judging the contents.
  • These qualifications as to what a composer is, arranging based on perceived notions of style (which are quite often very arbitrary, as your own work on "list of Romantic composers" has probably shown you, if you've been paying attention), ideas of value based on established cultural criteria which are often quite arbitrary as well (bias towards European men, undue attention paid to certain forms and not enough to others) are all attempts to establish a hierarchy which clearly goes against the whole idea of what an encylopedia is.

• • It would seem that the basic conflict here is that some of you working on this list have thought that the list of composers was useless. I personally see a great deal to be said for a general list. I think that it should be allowed to exist, since it seems clear to me that it will continue to exist regardless of what any of us do to stop it from existing. That said, presenting the specialized information in the various sub-categories is only logical, but is only useful for people who already know what those labels mean....or what they're supposed to mean according to
    Donald J. Grout
    and the like...

Regarding your (Dafoeberezin3494) specific question, I only pointed out that your List of composers by nationality was going to get extremely large because it seemed to me that you were trying to create a small compact list, using a subject which could not be small or compact. It seemed to me that your objectives and your subject were not compatible.

I also perceive that you (specifically Dafoeberezin3494) believe that I am making these comments as some sort of personal crusade against you personally. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. This isn't about me or you. This is about how this information should ideally be presented. Please don't see this discussion as anything else. Musikfabrik 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musikfabrik, I cant find an article on Wikipedia that has entire list of people for something so broad as composers. There is the List of people by name, but for specific occupation these huge broad lists either do not exist or I can't find them. If you know of some please provide some links. I'd really rather see the List of composers by name series be recreated, including the 7 that I deleted, than to see one giant list of composers. If it means having 72 lists of composers, then fine. Dafoeberezin3494 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples-

Here's one - List_of_inventors

Here's another - List_of_boxers

Here's yet another - List_of_biologists

Here's a fourth, divided by Nationality -

And speaking of huge categories - List_of_dentists

There are probably many more dentists in the World than there are composers....and yet they all seem to fit on one page....

The List_of_famous_conductors is arranged in an alphabetical list...I could do without the "famous" bit, myself...

So, these sorts of lists do exist. Musikfabrik 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of those lists are nearly as long as the list that you are proposing, Musikfabrik. Do you realize that the

List of conductors. So other people could do without the "famous" bit as well, Musikfabrik. Dafoeberezin3494 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Also please note, Musikfabrik, that you are proposing an entirely new direction for this list. If we follow your recommendations, the list would be quite a bit longer than it is now. The editors who have brought the list to this point had already decided to split the general list into more specific lists, and the composers that remain are here because they haven't yet been categorized. Changing this into a comprehensive list of composers would be a step backwards, not forwards.

Rohirok 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The point I'm trying to make is that the specialized lists do not replace the general list because...they are specialized. In order to use the specialized lists, you have to have more knowledge than the "general audience" refered to in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions has. I remember during my student days hearing an otherwise very talented pianist ask my analysis professor at the Paris Conservatory whether Bach came before or after Beethoven. If someone who is studying music professionally asks these sorts of questions, then how can you expect people whose exposure to classical music consists of listening to Strauss Waltzes on the afternoon Classical music station while they're ironing to know the difference between Classical and Baroque Music? How many people in the "general public" know that "romantic music" has nothing to do with Harlequin books? These are the people that this project is aimed at, not those of us who already have more in our library shelves than is already in the entire music section of this site...

This is further complicated by the fact that scholars who are specialized in these fields find these labels of "baroque", "classical", "romantic" etc to be essentially meaningless outside of a specific standard definition which fails to hold up when you look at what's actually happening. Monteverdi and Handael are both "Baroque" composers, yet they really don't have very much in common if you look at the music itself. If you consider that Francis Poulenc and Anton Webern are contemporaries, what does "Modernist" mean? Even today, Jean Françaix, Steve Reich and Morton Subotnik were all alive and composing at the same time? What does this mean? I know that Françaix knew Reich's music because I personally introduced it to him, but I'm absolutely certain that he didn't know anything by Subotnik. What meaning does it have to lump them together? Is it any more meaning than putting people in alphabetical order? I don't have the answer to this question, but it merits reflection.

So perhaps, in this light, an entirely new direction is needed? If the article of "list of composers" is too long, why not do an alphabetical list, divided up by letters? This would permit those who don't know what the periods, styles and the like to be able to browse names and find what they need....which is ultimately the point of all of this, isn't it? In any case, this isn't about what "we" think, it's about what's useful as a reference for the "general public", at least as I read the official policy. Musikfabrik 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean by doing 26 alphabetical lists? Because it seems like I suggested that earlier and you did not acknowledge that. Dafoeberezin3494 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one list is too long, that does seem to be the obvious solution, doesn't it?Musikfabrik 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I suggested it!!! Let's see what Rohirok thinks... Dafoeberezin3494 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether specialists or the general public are looking at Wikipedia, because a general list of all composers gives neither of these groups anything of value that a category or use of the Search function would not give. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that's exactly what such a list would be, especially if it is to include not just those colloquially disinguished as composers, but songwriters too. Meaningful divisions according to genre, era, nationality, etc. help both specialists and general readers better use, digest, and even browse through information. What you propose does not make the information more accessible to anyone, but more remote and even less useful, because it divides composers up according to less meaningful alphabetical distinctions. Uninformed readers who wish to know more about composers aren't going to navigate through 26 different lists--some of them no doubt massive--of names they don't recognize so they can learn more about composers. They'll be better served by following a judicious and representative sampling of the most prominent composers within an article about composers. As they become more informed, browsing specific lists will be more edifying than browsing merely alphabetical lists.

Don't forget that this article was recently on the AfD chopping block, and only survived because there was no consensus to keep or delete--not exactly a resounding endorsement of its current state. The reasons given for deletion pointed out precisely the problems that will only be exacerbated by making this a comprehensive list of all composers and songwriters.

Rohirok 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

For example, in order to properly use the search function on Wikipedia, one has to have a pretty clear idea about how something is spelled. How many native English speakers can instinctively know how to spell names in other languages? What happens when you put "Chaikavski" or "Yanacheck" into the search function? Try it and see. This is clearly an issue in this category.Musikfabrik 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, it's not a crime to make redirects for misspellings. Dafoeberezin3494 11:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true, but decidedly beside the point. If you're trying to spell something phonetically, it's easier to be able to choose from a list which you can skim, rather than trying to guess using limited linguistic skills. There's certainly no way to redirect all misspellings in all cases, in any case. Musikfabrik 12:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if someone not musically inclined spells it "Chaikavski", they are going to search a gargantuan list and use phonetics to find him in the Ts? I simply fail to see the logic behind this. It's not beside the point. Please don't dismiss my argument. Dafoeberezin3494 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is faster to skim a list than it is to try to guess alternative spellings. One could reasonable skim 26 lists (even if they were long) than one could type in spellings and wait for the responses. The alphabetical list is useful for this. Musikfabrik 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the distinction being made between "composer" and "songwriter". To quote the dictionary definitions in two standard dictionaries-

• Merriam-Webster = [1]

one that composes; especially : a person who writes music

• Cambridge Dictionary of American English = [2] A person who writes music

There is no distinction bectween the person writing and what is written. So, someone who writes symphonies and someone who writes songs are both composers.

Are Franz Schubert, Francis Poulenc, Charles Ives and Ned Rorem then "song writers"? It seems to me that the distinction is not only false, but also creates a false hierarchy. Musikfabrik 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cracked this evening and had to change the opening blerb. A composer is someone who writes music and there should not be distinction made concerning what is being written, according to the dictionary definition...Musikfabrik 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give people a fair chance to compare here are the dictionary definitions of songwriter-

• Merriam-Webster = [3]

a person who composes words or music or both especially for popular songs

• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary = [4]

a person who writes the music and words of songs

Just so people can see those definitions as well. Dafoeberezin3494 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken, but the definitions are not exclusive, as far as I can see. Musikfabrik 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're technically correct that a songwriter is a composer, colloquially speaking, a songwriter is generally understood to be a writer of (usually brief) popular songs within in certain genres, such as blues, rock, pop, country, etc. In contrast, a composer is generally understood to be someone who writes pieces or works (usually longer than "songs") within various classical genres, but also jazz or even ragtime. When's the last time you heard a pop songwriter referred to as a composer, or a classical composer referred to as a songwriter? The distinction exists in everyday speech, and I think it ought to reflected here, even if there are exceptional cases.

Rohirok 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You are speaking from the vantage point of outdated Eurocentric musicological rhetoric. Current thinking would tend to blur the distinction between popular and serious forms since historically they are generally not present, outside of the 19th century post-Beethovan German aesthetic of "composer". Yet, Schubert's Ländler and Brahms Waltzes are clearly popular forms, so even here this distinction does not hold up to closer analysis. Quite clearly, the dictionary definition of the word "composer" does not make the distinction between what is written and the intention with which that is written. I would think that, especially given the current climate in musicology, this defintion could be taken as a "given". I also think that a lot of people that you're lumping into the "songwriter" category would have quite a bit to say about what that implies. I think that calling everyone who writes music a "composer" is only respectful all of traditions and all intents. You might try reading "Tristes Tropiques" by Lévi-Strauss (or really, anything by him) before you start judging cultural creations with the rules of another culture.Musikfabrik 09:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too much to ask that deletions or additions not be made on the so-called "list of uncategorized composers" while this discussion is taking place? While the usefulness of the list is being discussed, it would seem to me to be important that changes not be made until the issue is resolved, to avoid an unnecessary "edit war". Thank you. Musikfabrik 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute about whether this article should include a comprehensive list of all composers alphabetically by name, and about whether all songwriters ought to be included in such a list. 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Such a list would be redundant and an indiscriminate collection of information with no use that could not be better served by a category or the Search function. Songwriters ought to be listed separately from composers, since they are considered distinct in everyday speech.
  Rohirok 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Using the conventions of
  Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
  • • "articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.",

Furthermore, according toWikipedia:Lists, the purpose of lists is three-fold

• • Information
  • Navigation
  • Development

The alphabetical general list clearly provides all three aspects of the list definition presented without the assumption that everyone who needs this information has had a music history class. All one needs to know is to have a vague idea about the spelling of a given name and one can choose from a list. Or one can simply click names. The list of all composers also provides a very clear view of what articles have been written and which ones have not, on a general topic basis. This is clearly an advantage.

If the specialized lists are allowed to remain (and this was never at the center of the debate), the general list provides the function of allowing people without the specialized knowledge to be able to find the information they need...or simply browse in unstructured research, from an alphabetical list of names which are uncluttered by notions of geographical location (which changes over time. For example, Brussels, Belgium was located in France during part of the 19th century. Is Franck therefore a French composer?), conventions of stylistic periods which have been shown repeatedly to be meaningless by musicological research, and justaposition of composers who, although were contemporaries, clearly have nothing to do with each other musically.

In any case, given the simple fact that the sucessful navigation of the "period" and "geographical" lists require understanding which cannot of expected of the "general public", it seems clear that they do not replace the general category of "list of composers".

Given the argument of "the list will then be too long" if all composers are listed in the category, the compromise has been offered to divide the general list into 26 alphabetical lists sorted by first letter. Since many of these alphabetical lists were deleted due to "lack of entries" previously, it seems to me that these 26 pages would all be of reasonable length. If they weren't, then "List of Composers:TAI-TEU" etc (which seems to work for libraries well enough...), would then be another way of splitting the various lists into reasonable length.

Seperating "composers" from "songwriters" is clearly going against the dictionary definition of the word "composer", does not take into account classical composers who wrote popular songs (Where do you put John Gay's "the Beggars Opera", which is in every general Music History book that I've ever seen, but obviously a collection of popular songs arranged into a book musical...) and which creates a hierachy based on assuptions of value which do not take into account specific cultural meanings of works within specific cultural systems. Musikfabrik 08:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I wish I had a more definitive comment to add. While my inclination is to list everyone who writes music (would either proposal include lyricists and librettists?) - the concerns over space do seem legitimate - yet if I were a twelve-year-old schoolchild I might not know enough to do a genre search. Is that muddled enough? I noticed that Hildegard of Bingen was absent and added her. Durova 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your two concerns- Lyricists and Librettists would clearly be in other lists entirely, but perhaps links to these lists would need to be added to allow browsers to find those topics. Concerning the space issues, surely there is a way to divide the list up alphabetically and then further dividing the longer lists using the same system that libraries uses for this kind of division (BAI to BED or something like that....). The space issues can be resolved and the benefits clearly outweigh the drawbacks, at least from my point of view.

Hildegard of Bingen had already been moved to one of the "genre" lists. Thank you for adding her again to this list. I really wish that the deletions would cease until this issue is resolve, which would mean less work in putting the list together again, if it is deemed worthy of keeping it.... Musikfabrik 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that certain people wouldn't complain every time I make an edit. I don't know if you noticed, Musikfabrik, but I have not taken Germaine Tailleferre off the list yet. She could be placed in Category:Composers for piano, or a stylistic category. I see she even has some film scores; that's good as well, because it's okay if she is in a few categories that make sense. I noticed you have put her in these categories yet. You seem to edit that page a lot, why don't you do that? Dafoeberezin3494 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then from what I understand about Wikipedia lists, either approach would be feasible as long as the introduction defined the list in an adequate way. The only real difficulty I see is in defining a disctinction between high art and popular music. "Classical music" means different things to different people: to the general public Bach and Vivaldi are classical composers, but to a music historian they're baroque composers. Individuals such as George Gershwin who wrote both "serious" and popular music could appear on more than one list (if the lists separate). If the lists do remain together, then how would you handle jazz - in which the musician's contribution may be the most important creative element - particularly free jazz artists such as John Coltrane? Durova 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the difference between "high art and popular music", I personally believe that this distinction should not be made since it goes against the encylopedic idea of not creating hierarchies. What do you do about the instrumental music of Middle ages, which is almost exclusively in the area of "popular dance music"? What do you do about people like John Zorn and Frank Zappa who work in both worlds?

The genre distinctions are much more complex than all of that. To a serious music historian, Bach and Vivaldi are not both "baroque" composers because the term "baroque" is a reference to the Catholic counter-reform and only really refers to architecture. True baroque musique basically only exists, oddly, at the French court of Louis XIV at Versailles, a king who could not stand the baroque aesthetic, because the music accompanied entertainments which only lasted during the evening. To a non-specialist, the genre lists are incomprehensible. To a specialist, they are meaningless. And since we're supposed to be writing an encylopedia for the general public, isn't it better to at least provide a way of finding the information without having to wade through these very questionable classifications?

Dafoeberezin3494, I must say modestly that there is perhaps one person in the World who knows as much as I do about Germaine Tailleferre, and there is certainly no one else who knows more. Tailleferre could be placed in the categories of opera composer, modernist composer, 20th century composer, film music composer, musical theatre composer (she wrote a musical for the cornation of Prince Rainier of Monoco in 1953), and popular songwriter (she wrote a number of works for the French Pop singer Jacques Douai which were recorded and which are still available on CD). There is no easy way to categorize her career, simply because she wrote in all styles, from serial music to outright pop idiom. Plus, she was on e of the first people who understood the important of French baroque music and even wrote a work in 1936 which uses the baroque instruments which in the collection of the Countess de Chambore and which are now the basis of the Paris Conservatory collection. If anyone proves that these classifications are artificial, it's Tailleferre.

If you feel that you have have something to add to the Tailleferre article, please do so. Articles should be written about her two Violin Sonatas and the late Violin Sonatina. Please write them if you feel so inclined.

However, as a specialist, I feel strongly that people who are doing research should not have to know as much I do in order to find their information. That is the point of this discussion. Again, I ask you to please not take this personally.Musikfabrik 19:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the length at

WP:FLC toward featured status, I suppose length isn't an issue. This looks like a compelling argument (and even makes me question the somewhat arbitrary divisions already in place at a featured list I edit: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Is there a counterargument I should take into account? Durova 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, if you look at the edit history of this article, you will see how there was a list or each of the 7 eras on this page before it was split into 7 separate articles. Apparently no one has noticed this yet. Dafoeberezin3494 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then would the two of you consider a compromise and use Category:Composers as the overarching theme and divide the names over smaller era- and genre lists? A person who composed in more than one style of music could appear on more than one list. Durova 23:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Composers has also suffered the same sort of dismantling, for much the same reasons. This is part of the same issue, but I felt that it should not be addressed here, as this discussion is about this list. It's much better to focus on this one issue at a time, rather than trying to solve everything at once.

I do not see this as an acceptable compromise as

• 1. the general list is specific enough to be considered "discriminant", or at least as "discriminant" as many other lists are. A general list of composers has been demonstrated to be a needed ressource according to the latest AfD discussion.
• 2. The uncategorized contents would provide an easier way for people who were not aware of these questionable "periods" and other such issues to easily find content.
• 3. Its conformity to established Wikipedia policies concerning lists has been demonstrated above.
• 4. The length issues can easily be resolved by dividing the general list into smaller subsections and then maintaining those, dividing as needed.

• Why is it such a problem to allow what should exist to exist? I fail to see why this is such an issue. Why not just allow what is to be, since it is clearly needed and will exist, regardless of what any of us do? Musikfabrik 07:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musikfabrik, if you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, you will find that they say to avoid placing composers in the broad Category:Composers, regardless of what you think.

If you think that all these periods are questionable, then why don't you bring it up on any of those pages or on the WikiProject page? Why here?

And you still haven't acknowledged that the page would be 5x the length of

List of 20th century classical composers, unless we split it up. How about this Musikfabrik. 26 new lists, with a template at the bottom linking all 26 together. I do like colorful pages (note the flags of List of composers by nationality. I really just want to avoid a gargantuan list of composers at any cost, even if it means having 72 lists. Dafoeberezin3494 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hm - how about posting to the Wikiproject and asking its participants for their advice? I seem to be the only respondant off RfC and I'm certainly no music expert. Best wishes, Durova 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dafoeberezin3494, I really don't mind if there are two hundred different alphabetical pages. I think that the basic resource of "list of composers" should be there and can certainly accept it being split up into any number of chucks. I still think, looking over the "genre" pages, that 26 lists would probably be about right, but it could be split up any way, as long as there was a way to browse all of the pages using some sort of a table with all of the lists linked, such as in

Jen Powell-Psmith 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC) New Wikipedia user comments I am a novice here, but in case a fresh point of view helps:[reply]

• I would expect to find composers / songwriters listed separately. In the same way that I would expect to look for opera in a different part of the CD store from Jeff Buckley, or say the Sound of Music sountrack (I am a fan of all three). But I would also expect to find the links, just in case I get lost. Separating songwriters would allow for a shorter and consequently more reader friendly list in both cases. I don't think the way the lists are sorted has any bearing on the merits of the individuals.
• I looked at how some other similar Wikipedia lists are composed, such as artists who can be sorted any number of ways (by medium, by movement, name, nationality and style). I like the current arrangement of listing composers different ways, including alphabetically.

Hope this helps.

I would not object to creation of a comprehensive list of composers by name if it were given its own article under

I would object to reclassifying all songwriters as composers on utilitarian grounds, since most readers looking for information about composers are unlikely to want information on people conventionally referred to as songwriters, and vice versa. The distinction that the general public makes between "composers" and "songwriters" is a real one, even if it is somewhat arbitrary, and even though there are certainly overlaps between the two categories. If a list of all those conventionally considered composers and songwriters were to made, I believe it ought to be called "List of composers and songwriters."

However, I strongly feel that the general alphabetical list should be located at List of composers and songwriters and the lists of periods and nationalities should be transfered to independant lists of composers (and songwriters) by nationalities and periods, leaving the general list in the main genre category. I think that this should be the case because this general list is indeed to be a primary resource for those who don't have the knowlege to look in the period lists. This would fulfill the basic criteria of naming the list for the general public and those who understand what the period categories mean can just as easily click on the seperate specific lists.

This does not solve the problem of people who will inevitably put "composers" into the "list of composers" which will eventually be recreated...unless someone has an idea of how to get them to put composers in a composite list? It still seems to me that "list of composers" is the natural place for all of these to be, but I am willing to compromise if that creates some sort of settlement of this issue.

Is this acceptable?Musikfabrik 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to create a separate article entitled

• Support.
  Rohirok 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. As an acceptable compromise. Musikfabrik 21:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. And we can break it up as needed from there. Dafoeberezin3494 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've added a link to this discussion and a brief summary on the page Talk:List_of_composers_by_name. While it's generally not done to edit other users talk page contributions, if anyone feels that I've misrepresented anything there, please go ahead and edit what I've written there. Or simply add the material which you feel should be there. Thanks. Musikfabrik 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Friendly suggestion: a table formatted list could provide a quick reference for time periods and genres. While the construction of such a list would be daunting, it might ultimately qualify for
  WP:FL. Durova 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. Looks very nice and tidy. Good work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support; responding to RfC. Given the debate about songwriters/composers, name the page
  List of composers, and make no distinction on the "by name" page. The "by name" page serves as a literal "index" to individual articles, if all the person searching has is a name and little else. The more scholarly lists can and should also exist alongside this superlist, IMO. OscarTheCat 23:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I vote that we remove the list of quotations in the article. They don't really add any new information and it's rather unencyclopaedic to keep them there. Is anyone opposed to this? --DearPrudence 17:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the section. --DearPrudence 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why Satie is not listed, or was this just an oversight. He didn't write a whole lot, but his Gymopedies are famousDrmrj (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list anywhere? There are hundreds of such people. Candidates would include:

• Henry Litolff - known for the scherzo movement of the Concerto Symphonique No. 4
• Christian Sinding - known for "Rustle of Spring"
• Hamish MacCunn - known for "The Land of the Mountain and the Flood" overture
• Ignace Leybach - known (if at all these days) for the "Fifth Nocturne"
• Emil Reznicek
  - known for the "Donna Diana" overture
• etc

-- JackofOz (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a list of Ragtime composers, why isn't there a list of Jazz composers? --66.81.159.156 (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a list of Film Score composers and also a list of Soundtrack composers? Aren't they the same? --66.81.159.156 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact

List of soundtrack composers just redirects to List of film score composers, so it need not be listed on this page. Well spotted! --Deskford (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to see Stanisław Skrowaczewski added to the articles "List of Composers" and "Category:20th-century conductors (music)." I'm assuming that it was only by oversight that he was left out, since he is quite prominent and is included in the articles "Polish conductors (music)" and "Minnesota Orchestra Music Directors," among others. KasperCat (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skrowaczewski is included in "List of Polish composers" as well. KasperCat (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]