Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I noticed the page for List of compositions by Francis Poulenc lacks the consistent use of catalogue numbers. There is a complete list available online on Google Books entitled "The music of Francis Poulenc (1899-1963): a catalogue" an easy-to-use, chronological list and catalogue is located in Appendix 2, page 525.

Taking the time to include this listing would be of great help to those seeking to research Poulenc. Nmitchell076 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There were some edits to the

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Fampas

The article seems to make claims of notability but has been challenged as unreferenced since October 2007, and I can't find any reliable coverage. Happy to withdraw nomination if anyone else can. --Deskford (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Surprised that La Petite Bande has no article I got more surprised to see that there was one but deleted in 2007. Looking a the many red links I think something is wrong here. The name of the group is "Petite" but not the notability. Please discuss and help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are not an adminstrator, you can't see the content of the deleted articles. It is not clear whether the article described the subject you are talking about. Of course, the recreation is possible - you can either start from scratch or ask the

Vejvančický (talk | contribs

) 14:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it would probably be best to start from scratch with some good sources. There are articles on the French, Dutch and Japanese Wikipedias, but all lacking in sources so probably not worth trying to translate. --Deskford (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(I wrote the following before the second comment, but it's still valid:) Thanks for the general advice. In this particular case I'm not familiar with the group but see them in notable discographies. I'm not so eager to start from scratch, working on other - related - topics. Would someone else perhaps volunteer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress, there are thousands of missing articles or

Vejvančický (talk | contribs

) 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I go for filling those red links, Edith Selig last, Siri Thornhill next. But that an excellent ensemble is deleted - that is new to me, so I'm trying to find out what that means. - Question for the next one: she is Siri Thornhill many places, Siri Karoline Thornhill many others, what should be the article name? The red links I found were the short version with one exception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Google Search gives more hits for the short version. --

Vejvančický (talk | contribs

) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added the project tag to International classical guitar competitions but am writing here to suggest that someone having more knowledge of the subject than I do should have a hard look at it. The article is extremely weak: unfocused, over-reliant on quotations, and to a large extent off topic. Evidently an article with the same caption was deleted earlier; to the extent this one is to avoid the same fate, I think it needs some serious help. Drhoehl (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to change

See here for our previous discussion. I've just discovered that this is linked to a Cfd about Category:Non-Western classical music genres see here. --Kleinzach 07:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is tagged as needing expert attention. Is anyone here an expert? Brambleclawx 21:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions on Special:Contributions/Karinpv? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a case of promotional spam. I can't find any reliable third-party coverage of this software — maybe not surprising since its official release date appears to be 25 June 2010! --Deskford (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Not quite that bad, the website indicates it's been around for a few years.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Versions 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9 have been around for a few years, whilst version 1.0 is released today (or yesterday, depending on which part of the site you read). The News page on their website reads "Thanks for the page... ABCMusiex depicts in Wikipedia! Thanks, students."

WP:COI? --Deskford (talk

) 13:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some one has PRODed

clipman

18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Karinpv (talk · contribs) accepted that the article did not meet notability criteria and nominated it for speedy deletion herself. --Deskford (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147, composed for 2 July and to be on DYK then, is not equal to Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, believe it or not. The article on the cantata so far seemed to suggest that. Interesting: the article on the transcription Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring had more info on the cantata. I tried to expand the cantata and reached the famous instrumental motive. How are these figures called? I tried triplets, was referred to tuplets which I found to be irregular, but the Bach ones are most regular. Language question. Also an invitation to improve the cantata further. - btw: THANKS to the editors who improved cantata and brought La Petite Bande from deleted to DYK approval, recommended reading and looking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(Just briefly, before the Netherlands/Slovakia kickoff.) The German word triole is indeed "triplet" in English. The English Wikipedia covers all such rhythms (duplet, quintuplet, etc) under Tuplet, the general term for these figures. The German Wikipedia covers the triole in within the article de:Notenwert (EN: Note value), but doesn't cover other irregular rhythms. The introduction to Tuplet seems overly complicated to me, but it is the correct article. The word "irregular" must be understood in a very narrow sense here; for a clearer explanation, see http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory15.htm#triplets ff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! So I will use triplet - afraid that the average reader may be confused rather than enlightened? I am tempted to link to this explanation, but understand that links to user space are not encouraged, smile. Next question (for after the game): the German term Hüpfen (of John) - is it best translated as jumping (as in the article visitation)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

King James and the World English versions use "leaped" in Luke 1:41. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good to me, changed both places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Gerda, I would suggest that you link to the triplet section, rather than to the top of the Tuplet article. However, it is also clear that "Explanation" is not a suitable heading for that section of the "Tuplet" article, and really must be changed for clarity, so perhaps it would be best to wait a few hours until I can make that and possibly other changes tot the Tuplet article. Thanks for calling my attention to this on my Talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Tuplet#Triplets! (How about Triplet for the rhyme?) - To make things more complicated, Bach didn't write triplet brackets, of course. Perhaps that could also be mentioned, the time of the introduction of those brackets, I mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though it may require a little more research to discover when exactly the arcs and square-bracket notation were introduced, and to what degree variations in their usage were matters of personal preference. It might be too complicated to mention also the common 18th-century practice of marking triplets only on their first two or three occurrences, leaving it up to the performers' common sense to see all of the subsequent instances.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion at my talk page, I am currently working on the article by adding sources and finding some research from a biographical book about Paganini online. Can you provide links to some reliable sources (i.e. books about Paganini or online databases) that can help improve this article? Thanks in advance, Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, everyone at WikiProject Classical music! I am here to inform you that a proposal has been made to modify your barnstar, here. You are invited to participate in the discussion! Thanks for taking time to read this notice. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello from a new member of the project! :) I've started working on cleaning the Mass in E-flat article up. The first thing I'd like to work on is references/citing; hopefully that's ok with everyone. As the article is now, references are listed but not cited. Thanks, Pianotech (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome onboard! Improving the referencing in this article would be very helpful. Thanks for taking it on. --Deskford (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Deskford, thanks so much for the welcome! :) Pianotech (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On the pages for Sokolov and Pogorelić, the repertory that they have taken up (through performances and recordings) is in a big list. I have not had the time to check the articles of other classical musicians or the histories of those two pages, but I am wondering whether this beginning to be a trend. The lists on those two articles, though organised, are visually dis-pleasing and may have more issues as well. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed a discography section from the disambiguation page Missa L'homme armé as this falls well outside the remit of a disambiguation page. Do people think we should preserve this information, perhaps as a List of recordings of L'homme armé masses or something of the kind? --Deskford (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Five (orchestras)

Classical music editors may be interested in the above. --Deskford (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And how can we revive it? Now is the time to get organized, ladies and gentlemen! —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I must also mention that we cannot continue to divide into more and more sub-projects while passing down responsibility to them, as this dissolves WP:CM's influence as a whole. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently contributed an article about

I think that would be a useful link to include. It would be helpful also to include independent references where they can be found, e.g. a review of the Ligeti recording in addition to the Teldec page. --Deskford (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here, for example, is Andrew Clements' review from The Guardian. --Deskford (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reaction. Another contributor has already added the external link to the management, and I have added the external link to the review you provided. Thanks again.

Francesco Malipiero (talk

) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A robot added cats - like works of 1723 - to pages on compositions, and I wonder by which criteria. Example: I just wrote Ärgre dich, o Seele, nicht, BWV 186 which Bach wrote in 1723, but mostly (!) using music of BWV 186a composed in 1716. So I added that year also. - Or was it 1717? Sources differ. 1717 was the year of the publication of the words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

More: now I encountered category:1915 compositions, that would make more sense than works in general - but there is no category:1723 compositions??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Observed now: categories of discographies moved, Don Giovanni to ... Italian artists. Why? Just because the title and text are Italian? I looked up which nationality is assigned to Mozart: now Austria, correct, so the cat should be what is now Austria artists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the opera discographies has been addressed and resolved. see

Francesco Malipiero (talk

) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

About a year ago I edited this biography and had problems with a SPI. I would be grateful if a more experienced editor could have a look.--Karljoos (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Viewing many of the concertos listed here, there seems to be no consistensy on the issue of key signatures of individual movements. They are listed in some articles, not on others. Given that movements often modulate between several keys, should these be listed at all?THD3 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We have two separate list articles:

• List of jazz-influenced classical compositions
• List of jazz influenced classical compositions

Clearly a merger is in order, but they are both such a mess that it is not clear which would be the best way to merge. Both are full of redlinks, and I'm not sure that, for example, Stockhausen's Tierkreis counts as "jazz-influenced", or Blitzstein's The Cradle Will Rock counts as "classical". Any thoughts...? --Deskford (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidelio discography

Editors may wish to contribute to the above. --Deskford (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The external links at the bottom of this article are not working on my computer. If this is a general problem, it might be better to delete them.

Same here; links should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed what seemed like a lot of unnecessary capital letters in the

Nope. The Music MoS agrees with you as does the main MoS. There might be an regional issue, perhaps? Maybe where ever that editor comes from they always capitalise musical instrument names? I am not aware of any places where this is true, however. I reverted to your version, therefore --

clipman

18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A late reaction perhaps but all the same: in German all nouns are always capitalised, whatever the context.

Francesco Malipiero (talk

) 17:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm from pl-wiki. We are reviewing and moving our files to Commons and I've spotted some of them depicting musical notes (like not a single ones, but different melodies or how is it called: see for example this gallery (just notes) or [2]). And most of them have rather poor quality (size) and I would like to make vector versions of them. However I cannot find anyone at pl-wiki, who'd be familiar with this. Maybe you could help? I'd appreciate. Masur (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that term virtuoso is being rather overused in articles about classical musicians? I mean isn't it rather pretentious that pretty much all well known classical musicians get that designation in their lead? Especially seen as most of those claims are made without any citations to justify it. I mean it isn't like all great scientist are getting described as geniuses in their leads.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If uncited it amounts to editorial

point of view, and even if cited it feels promotional rather than encyclopedic in tone. A similar one I have noticed is where someone is described as a "prominent" composer / violinist / tambourinist or whatever. My feeling is that such terms should generally be removed unless there is a specific reason for them, backed up by a reliable reference. --Deskford (talk

) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep; pretty much any performer who is internationally famous, or worthy of a Wikipedia article, is a "virtuoso" by the usual usage (and also "prominent"!) I'd say just take those words out when you see them; those kind of terms are removable peacock feathers, more appropriate in a press release or program-notes blurb than in an encyclopedia. Antandrus (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone who does deserve the appellation, in your opinions? Would the premier players of an instrument, those to whom other famous professionals look up, be entitled to the description, or should it never be used at all? To take a couple of examples, what about Itzhak Perlman or Yehudi Menuhin, each of whom is described as "widely considered to be ... virtuoso"? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, The article

I would welcome thoughts on how to deal with a long-standing probable copyright violation in the article on conductor Vakhtang Jordania. See Talk:Vakhtang Jordania#Close paraphrasing. --Deskford (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me to find out when In convertendo Dominus was composed? The liner notes just say "corresponds to the cathedral choir's mature period". - The psalm is #125 in Latin Psalters, #126 in King James. I am afraid that the number of a psalm says about nothing without mentioning in which system. There are many unlinked numbers in Psalms#Psalms set to music. - How about a Category:Psalm compositions ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Dutch biography in this source it was composed in 1926. --

Francesco Malipiero (talk

) 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Classical music editors may be interested in the above.--Karljoos (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found one piece missing from the list. Sonata in A Major Opus Posthumous for Violin and Piano: Sostenuto assai, Andantino variato, Variation I, Variation II, Variation III, Finale. While I have the piece itself (a copy from a prof who said not to bother trying to find it), there aren't many references to it. There is one artist who has recorded it and is available on itunes (Juliu Bertok). It is also mentioned in the biography, Nicolo Paganini: his life and work by Stephen Samuel Stratton pg. 170-171. Katherine.in.2010 (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I found that Kalevi Kiviniemi was the first to record the complete organ works of Jean Sibelius and would like to mention that under Sibelius, but found only a discography of his 7th symphony.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think discographies are (as indiscriminate information) essentially trivia and we should strive instead for "notable recordings" (sourced as such) where relevant. Eusebeus (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And what makes some recordings notable over others? And I very much doubt people who work with more pop related articles with agree that "discographies are trivia", though granted it's a different situation than classical music, it's still a point. But back to this topic, considering how few original works Sibelius wrote for organ -- all of five or seven depending on how you count (and in length not all that much either) -- I'm not sure it's really a big enough deal for it to matter. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• blah, blah: this is a venue for the discussion of articles related to classical composition. Although you may be incapable of adducing criteria for recording notability (I have little doubt), that does not mean the same is true for others who may have greater familiarity with the critical literature that does indeed suggest certain recordings are more noteworthy than others. Eusebeus (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as you're incapable of replying to people without constantly insulting them, I have little doubt. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the matter! Back to the question: I think it's worth mentioning that he also composed for organ, and the review of the specific recording tells me notable, of the music and the recording. One line is fine, but how and where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add info about the recording, the obvious place would be in the article

Francesco Malipiero (talk

) 16:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)