Talk:List of composers for lute (nationality)

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

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Paulmnguyen, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 16, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Many composers' articles seem to be missing, but they are not

For some reason, someone chose to write composers' names in the order

<surname> <first_name>

which is not the way they appear in their respective articles. So, in order for this list to be useful, someone has to do a thorough and painstaking job of rewriting the links to names, thus:

<first_name> <surname>|<surname> <first_name>

I intend to do a portion of that job, for the list is interesting and important. Regards, --AVM (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I cannot imagine what the creator was thinking, assuming they were thinking at all. I've just redone the French names, but there's a lot more to be done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the Italian ones, but lots more still needed. (RT) (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All finished. St Anselm (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of the national divisions appear to have been entered surname first. I notice, for example, that Algeria, Argentina, Australia, and Austria are all in normal name order. Wouldn't it make sense (and be much simpler) to put all of the names in normal (first-last) order?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dash style

Just copyedited this article for WP:DASH - future editors, please take care to maintain proper usage. Paulmnguyen (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking-of-facts

The idea is good and it is useful if it is well done that is why I found this page/article. However, if it's just a copy+paste it is useless and deceiving. Did the original authors check the catalogues? Where do the names come from? 2 Examples: I am quite sure Beethoven never composed for the guitar!! I know the catalogue of J.S.Bach: I am 100% sure he never composed for the guitar, baroque, early or classical guitar!! Why are these and many names I could mention and others I suspect in this list??? J.S.Bach composed for the lute and the lute-harpsichord! Perhaps someone was thinking of transcriptions! This is unacceptable, most piano (and other instruments) music can easily be and has been transcribed for the classical guitar! I am starting a new page with confirmed names! And contributors, hopefully, will contribute only names that were composed indeed for an early guitar or the classical guitar! GFlusitania (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only original guitar composers, please

There are a number of prominent composers on this list who never wrote a note for the guitar, such as Gounod, Offenbach, Bizet, Fauré, Satie, to name just a few examples from France. This can't be the purpose of this article, which should give an overview of composers who really wrote for this instrument. I am aware that there are clever arrangements of piano works of these composers, arranged for one or two guitars. But this is work by other composers/arrangers. Please join me in removing all names that are not original guitar composers.Aklein62 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo. I made a very feeble start along similar lines two or three years ago, but concluded that this was too big a mess for me to handle on my own. Thank you for taking up this daunting task.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Needless to say that the same applies to the 'twin article' List of composers for the classical guitar (chronological).Aklein62 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the same applies there. Come to think of it, I believe there is a now-stale proposal to merge three closely related guitar-player lists. Perhaps it is time to revive that proposal. A sortable-table format would preserve the functionality, and even add new categories (e.g., by years of birth and death). It would be a lot of work but worthwhile in the end.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I thought I had supported that merger proposal long ago, but evidently not. I've supported it now. --Deskford (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar versus lute composers

Another issue: I suggest to remove all 16th and 17th-century composers who actually wrote works for lute. There is a separate article here called List of composers for lute, where these composers should be placed (if they aren't there already) – all this notwithstanding the fact that of course there are numerous 20th-century arrangements of lute works for the guitar. Composers who wrote for the baroque guitar should remain. I am not sure when it comes to the vihuela (in Spain) – contemporary to the renaissance lute in the rest of Europe, but its body shape resembling a guitar. My preference would be to keep these Spanish renaissance composers in this list of guitar composers, which would then be an indication of the guitar's development originating from Spain – which is quite correct. Any opinions?Aklein62 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds exactly right to me. The vihuela is not the same thing as a guitar, which has a separate existence and history, but neither is the vihuela a lute, despite the identical tuning. I believe that current scholarly opinion supports your position on this point. The lute, on the other hand, most definitely is not a guitar, and music composed for it should not be included here merely because there may be guitar transcriptions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this list should not contain composers who only wrote for lute, even if their works were later adopted by guitarists. Not sure about the vihuela – I bow to your wiser judgements on this one. Going off-topic a little, I've always been unclear about the scope of these "list of composers for..." articles. Should this list include everyone who ever included a guitar in any composition? I note, for example, that Anton Webern is listed – as far as I know he never wrote anything for solo guitar and only used the instrument occasionally in the accompanying ensemble for songs. --Deskford (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deskford. Your off-topic question should be under the section above, but no matter ... Well, the title of the article says nothing about 'solo' guitar, just guitar, and if Webern scored pieces including the guitar he should remain on the list. It would be nice if such a work could then be found in the 'list of works' in the Webern article.Aklein62 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as if there is a very large number of ensemble works including the guitar, even if only in an accompanimental capacity. It would be a different question if we were talking about a list of composers for the violin, and included every orchestral composition that included the instrument. The problem of identifying those items in the list of Webern's works (or of other composers) that happen to include the guitar is a little more difficult a question. I hesitate to suggest that work titles could be added to this list, though that might be easier than trying to transform all the work lists of all the composers from Adam to Zemlinksy, in order to display all of the instruments in every work so that a search could be done for "guitar", "accordion", "flute", etc.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if this list included a very brief description for each composer that indicated the extent of their composition for guitar, whether they were a dedicated guitarist-composer such as Barrios, writing mainly for the instrument, someone like Britten who wrote only one major repertoire piece, or Webern, who used the guitar only in the Op. 18 songs for voice with E-flat clarinet and guitar (and I think also in the accompanying ensemble for Op. 19). --Deskford (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, man! Have you looked at the size of this list? It is absolutely enormous! How could we ever hope to annotate a list of this size in any meaningful way? Britten and Webern had the decency to use opus numbers, as did Ginastera, but even if every single name in this list could be reduced to ten or twelve added keystrokes, it would nearly double the list's bulk, and I can already see the "citation needed" flags sprouting like daffodils in the spring.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... good point! Perhaps I was getting a bit carried away with my idealism! --Deskford (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your heart was in the right place, but I think your ambitions may not be up to overcoming the practical limitations. However, this does illustrate the principle that the usefulness of a list is in inverse proportion to its length. This one has gotten so long that readers are entitled frequently to ask the kind of question your (sadly impractical) proposal is meant to address: "Did this person really compose for the guitar and, if so, what?" Links to the biographical articles may provide an answer, but in many cases do not (Webern is one example among many).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of article

Per the merger discussion at Talk:List_of_composers_for_the_classical_guitar#Re-proposals_of_mergers, nationality detail on the composers listed here has been moved into the sortable table that now exists at the other article. This move leaves the instant article with the names of only those persons who composed for lute. Hence, the re-naming of the article from "for the classical guitar" to "for lute". NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]