Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 37
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. 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. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Does anyone know if this composer is notable. His presence on DE and SK Wikipedias suggests he might be, but both are lacking in references, and I can't find any reliable sources. He's been unreferenced here for three years. I've just removed most of the text of the article as it appears to be a copyright violation of his personal website and there doesn't seem to be an alternative version in the article history. --Deskford (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Gubacina (talk · contribs) twice replaced the copied content (swapping the paragraph order and making minor alterations the second time) so I have flagged the article as a suspected violation. --Deskford (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Grammy Awards task force
| You are invited to join the Grammy Awards task force, a subproject of WikiProject Awards and prizes dedicated to improving articles and lists related to the Grammy Awards. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. |
In case any project members would be interested in assisting with classical-related Grammy Awards articles and lists... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Donald Covert
Can anyone improve Donald Covert? It's a bit low on reliable sourcing demonstrating notability. I found a couple of news articles, but it still needs work, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This list could use some major attention in terms of referencing and formating. Also, I'm not exactly sure whether this list is entirely useful. After all, there is already a list of List of classical violinists. Should these be combined?4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think it was separated out because it was getting too big. The general list has a link to the contemporary list, and vice-versa. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguating orchestral work titles from other non-musical uses
I'm interested in opinions on disambiguating articles on Western orchestral music, specifically in cases where a work shares a name with a non-musical entity. If you care, please discuss it at WT:NCM. — AjaxSmack 14:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Brass band arrangements performed by the United States Marine Corps Band
The United States Marine Corps Band have made a lot of recordings available over the net. FSC have picked up this and there have been a series of nominations for 'featured sounds'. Unfortunately, as members of the Wagner and Opera projects have already found out, many of the recordings are of pastiches, arrangements and abridgements of well-known works. The way FSC works is that recordings are first placed on a series of articles and then proposed for 'featuring'. The latest example is some Debussy, see here.
The titles of the files have often been inaccurate. I've asked for some to be renamed, see here [1]. --Kleinzach 02:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- These sound files may be wonderful examples of marine corps bands, but none of the ones I've heard so far should appear in any article related to the original work or its composers or related lists; e.g File:Humoresque 1955 performance.ogg purports to have some relation with Humoresque, Op. 10, No. 2, in List of compositions by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Even their File:Radetzky March.ogg, described in its Featured Sound candidature as "Strauss I's magnum opus", doesn't seem to me what Strauss wrote – although it must be admitted that this particular piece is submitted to this particular treatment quite regularly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Michael Bednarek)
- No harm in including these in the article on the United States Marine Corps Band itself, or on the brass band page, as long as they are clearly identified as arrangements, but putting them on the pages for the original works or composers seems inappropriate and potentially misleading. --Deskford (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Is someone making the point that Danses Sacrée et Profane is being performed by instruments other than those for which it was composed. From what I can tell these were composed for the Harp and String and are presented by the USMC as such here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Debussy scored the music for violin, viola, cello, double bass, and harp (one each). See here. --Kleinzach 08:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh don't be so jerkishly pedantic, but I guess coming from you this isn't a surprise. It's VERY often played and recorded with a string orchestra instead of single strings. This whole discussion is idiotic though -- is there really such a problem with an arrangement of a piece used as an audio example, so long as it's clearly identified as such? Why is this even an issue? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is the point that the USMC Chamber Orchestra in this sample is a much larger ensemble than 5 pieces.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Barber Opus 11, 2nd mvt., anyone? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be the same, as the composer made the string orchestra version himself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am concerned too about this practice of using arrangements to illustrate articles where the original work should be represented. The US marine/airforce/navy ensembles are excellent, but they're not a symphony orchestra or a chamber group. They arrange works from the classical literature because it expands their concert repertory; it's probably what I would do if I ran those groups. But here, encyclopedic value is at issue. Kleinzach also points out that the file names (and god save us, often the sound description pages) are misleading—as though to claim they contain the original work. Now, there's a bit of a race on to build up the cellar of featured sounds, since it was decided that two would be featured on the main page each week. This is no reason to unbalance the collection. Tony (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a major problem with these Debussy samples — the work is often heard in this form — as long as the file description is accurate enough to keep us jerkish pedants happy. My reservations related to the band arrangements such as the Tchaikovsky Humoresque identified by Michael Bednarek above — these deviate much further from the intentions of the composer. --Deskford (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have added the Debussy to String orchestra in a place where I think it is appropriate. Assistance in properly captioning the Tchaikovsky would be appreciated. Is this just a totally wrong ensemble type argument again or are there some subleties that might be addressed by proper captioning.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that the Tchaikovsky is a symphony orchestra performance. I thought this was what I was looking for for most Tchaikovsky compositions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a major problem with these Debussy samples — the work is often heard in this form — as long as the file description is accurate enough to keep us jerkish pedants happy. My reservations related to the band arrangements such as the Tchaikovsky Humoresque identified by Michael Bednarek above — these deviate much further from the intentions of the composer. --Deskford (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am concerned too about this practice of using arrangements to illustrate articles where the original work should be represented. The US marine/airforce/navy ensembles are excellent, but they're not a symphony orchestra or a chamber group. They arrange works from the classical literature because it expands their concert repertory; it's probably what I would do if I ran those groups. But here, encyclopedic value is at issue. Kleinzach also points out that the file names (and god save us, often the sound description pages) are misleading—as though to claim they contain the original work. Now, there's a bit of a race on to build up the cellar of featured sounds, since it was decided that two would be featured on the main page each week. This is no reason to unbalance the collection. Tony (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be the same, as the composer made the string orchestra version himself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh don't be so jerkishly pedantic, but I guess coming from you this isn't a surprise. It's VERY often played and recorded with a string orchestra instead of single strings. This whole discussion is idiotic though -- is there really such a problem with an arrangement of a piece used as an audio example, so long as it's clearly identified as such? Why is this even an issue? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "jerkish pedantry": performance practice is one thing and the encyclopedia is another. There's nothing wrong with a brass band playing pastiches of Wagner operas (e.g. File:Siegfried fantasie.ogg or File:Grand Fantasie From Die Walkure.ogg), but we don't want inaccuracies in articles, that is misleading for readers and damages our credibility as a source of information about music. --Kleinzach 23:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- And if it's clearly labeled, how is it inaccurate, misleading, or even come anything near "damaging the credibility"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The real problem: music samples
The real issue here is not whether orchestral arrangements of chamber pieces are appropriate for illustrating articles, but whether audio samples are available at all that meet Wikipedia's stringent copyright rules. I have been burned by this repeatedly. For example, in Death and the Maiden Quartet, all of the samples I had included to illustrate the analysis were removed for copyright reasons. The excerpts were less than 30 seconds and of reduced fidelity, and would probably have been acceptable as fair use had the source been copyright protected. But the source was the Isabella Gardiner archive which has a CC 3.0 (no commercial use) coypright, so fair use is not applicable. A bit absurd, no?
Almost all of our articles are lacking adequate audio illustrations. So if a brass band plays a Haydn string quartet, I think we should consider using it, as long as the notes are right, if no other example is available. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have one standard for the text and another, much lower, standard for the audio. Many older recordings are now out of copyright and these are available for use. There's no earthly reason why we should have brass bands playing string quartets. --Kleinzach 05:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think there is significant value to having arranged audio samples as opposed to nothing at all. The only problem is in the likelihood that having an arranged sample will discourage pursuit of a proper sample or discourage the addition/replacement upon finding a proper sample. I think String orchestra arrangments of string quintets and string quartets should be permitted in bio/composition lists/etc. Admittedly, brass band arrangements of string work is a bit of a grey area, but I feel something is better than nothing. However, I can see how audiophile might prefer nothing much like reference sticklers remove unsourced content that may be encyclopedic at times.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Bach identification
Can you help me identify this file as either Bach BWV 988 or 991.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Neither. It's BWV1068 — a bloated arrangement of the popular 'Air on a G string' from Orchestral Suite No.3 in D. Please don't add it to any Bach articles. Ideally delete the file as incorrectly named and unrepresentative. (BWV 988 is the Goldberg Variations.) --Kleinzach 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed this file from Air (music). It's not a good example of a baroque air. --Kleinzach 08:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- By bloated, do you mean an arrangement for a much larger ensemble than the original score?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have added it to "Air on the G String". Let me know if that is a problem as captioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have added a hatnote at Air (music). Let me know if it is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also to Transcription (music).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- And Arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- As far as transcriptions or arrangements go, its pretty tame. I would remove it from those pages. The size of the orchestra might be a bit larger but its still an orchestral rendition of a movement from an orchestral suite. When I think of transcriptions or arrangements I think of a complete reworking. Like Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quartet or a Liszt's arrangements of Beethoven Symphonies for solo piano. Actually, that 1920 violin/piano recording of the Air is a much better example of an arrangement.DavidRF (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- From the current text of trascription, it seems that a transcription is either a literal writing of the notes or a tame arrangement. Am I misreading that. It is certainly in the range of things that you guys complain about as an arrangement, but as you say, it is a tame one. Look at the second paragraph of the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. I removed it from arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- As far as transcriptions or arrangements go, its pretty tame. I would remove it from those pages. The size of the orchestra might be a bit larger but its still an orchestral rendition of a movement from an orchestral suite. When I think of transcriptions or arrangements I think of a complete reworking. Like Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quartet or a Liszt's arrangements of Beethoven Symphonies for solo piano. Actually, that 1920 violin/piano recording of the Air is a much better example of an arrangement.DavidRF (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Um....the Bach Air IS originally for string orchestra. 21 strings may be more than Bach woulc have had, but there's nothing /arranged/ about that recording. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. I have removed it from arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- By bloated, do you mean an arrangement for a much larger ensemble than the original score?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed this file from Air (music). It's not a good example of a baroque air. --Kleinzach 08:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger: "Two answers I never got"
I have not gotten clarification from the experts on two issues. First, why is a symphony orchestra performance of File:Humoresque 1955 performance.ogg is so terrible? Is this suppose to be played by a solo piano?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Was this edit a problem in the sense of putting high quality recording of an undesirable arrangement over lower quality recording of a preferable arrangement at William Tell Overture?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
1. It is not "so terrible", but it may well be inappropriate in the framework of an encyclopedia article. There are, in fact, wonderful orchestral arrangements of Tchaikovsky's Humoresque Opus 10 number 1, including one by Leopold Stokowsky. It is a piece that lends itself to orchestration. On the other hand, when you write something in an encyclopedia, you want your examples to be the real thing, and not something close. I don't know where you tried to use this file, so it is hard for me to say whether I think it is inappropriate or not.
When a composer writes a piece, he selects the instruments for a reason. It is not an arbitrary decision, but a calculated design. When the piece is played using different instruments, it is no longer the piece the composer had in mind.
2. In the specific case at hand, your recording was probably an improvement, for the simple reason that the recording that was there to begin with was also an arrangement. Both were for wind bands, neither is true to the original composition, and there is a good argument for removing both recordings. Perhaps there is a public domain recording of the William Tell overture as it was originally written? Find that, and you will be doing a real service to the project. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Later: here is one! --Ravpapa (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding a proper file. I am not sure about the copyright with noncommercial, but I will post it at commons and see if it checks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now can you help me find good recordings of "Flight of the Bumblebee", "Sabre Dance" and I am not sure if the "Minute Waltz" needs a replacement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- A simple solution to this problem is to link to, rather than upload, a recording on YouTube or, if one exists, in the Isabella Gardner music archive. When I link to a YouTube recording, I always choose one, usually by amateurs, that was self-posted; a lot of the recordings are commercial recordings that the artists did not post themselves and would consider the posting a violation of their rights. You can copy the format I created for these links from Chamber Music. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- WTF?? Are you serious? Youtube of postings considered a violation? I'm not going there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- From the point of view of the reader/listener — which is all that matters in the end — it's irrelevant whether the sound file is located on WikiMedia Commons or an external site. The only thing that's important is that the music illustrates the article properly.
- Specialized sites (like Audio Archive noted by Ravpapa above) are also much better at documenting the files than WikiMedia Commons. Commons have no real quality control — or ability to correct — as this whole farrago has shown. --Kleinzach 00:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Someone just clarified to me that the recording PD date is 1972 and not 1923. I have got the licensing for this file straightened out on commons. Tell me if you like the current usage at Transcription (music). Other uses I am pretty sure are fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- WTF?? Are you serious? Youtube of postings considered a violation? I'm not going there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- A simple solution to this problem is to link to, rather than upload, a recording on YouTube or, if one exists, in the Isabella Gardner music archive. When I link to a YouTube recording, I always choose one, usually by amateurs, that was self-posted; a lot of the recordings are commercial recordings that the artists did not post themselves and would consider the posting a violation of their rights. You can copy the format I created for these links from Chamber Music. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Orchestra
IMO, Orchestra should be a main article with sub articles for philharmonic/symphony orchestra, chamber orchestra, symphony orchestra and baroque orchestra. However, only the last two have articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is not even a list of chamber orchestras so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Did I finally really get one?
Do I finally have a string orchestra composition performed by a string orchestra with File:Serenade for Strings -mvt-1- Elgar.ogg (Serenade for Strings (Elgar))?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great! Good performance too. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, not even abridged. Just recovering from falling off my chair . . . --Kleinzach 05:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Bach cantata/s
I'd appreciate some extra opinions at Talk:Bach cantata#Odd focus.
Dear Gerda, whose done almost all of the work on the article, is having some trouble accepting my premise that the title needs some tweaking. Or maybe I'm out of step. It's theoretically possible. :) I suspect it's a language problem more than anything (my German is worse than her English). Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Replied there. Surprised this comes up now after I invited HERE to check it more than a year ago, s. context and announcement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Agustin Barrios Mangoré's Waltz Op. 8, No. 4 published pre 1923?
Was Agustin Barrios Mangoré's Waltz Op. 8, No. 4 published before 1923?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- This source says "circa 1919" for the set of six waltzes. But this one says "written 1923" for #4. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Given the Whitehouse.gov copyright policy would you assume that this is pre 1923 then.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- The second link, to the video, states "(public domain)". I assume that that annotation is referring to the entire package being distributed by the White House, including the underlying work being performed. In contrast, the video at [2] shows performances of what I assume are not PD works, and does not include the "(public domain)" annotation; which suggests to me that someone at the White House made a determination about that for the Barrios work. On the other hand, it may have been someone unaware of § 104A of the Copyright Act and its provisions for restoration of non-US public domain works. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
File:March_Slav.ogg
File:March_Slav.ogg has been nominated at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Slav.ogg. Please come and comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
White House recordings public domain or not etc.?
How is this PD, given the Whitehouse.gov copyright policy? It looks to me like 1924 is the relevant date for Tzigane.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are you going to argue with the president? All the videos on the White House site are marked public domain. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a fair question. The IMSLP page for instance lists it as non-PD US. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have prepared 6 of the 8 videos from this evening for WP and WP:FSC. I will may stay away from this one for a while. If someone else wants to see this file on WP, have at it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- "All the videos on the White House site are marked public domain." That's not correct; see [3], noted above in the section "pre 1923?". TJRC (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a fair question. The IMSLP page for instance lists it as non-PD US. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are right and wrong. It is true that I misstated when I said that all the videos are marked public domain - some are not explicitly marked. However, the Whitehouse.gov copyright policy states that "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." In other words, the video you gave as an example is public domain, since it doesn't say otherwise.
- I believe that the fact that the work performed is still under copyright does not mean that the recording of the performance cannot be public domain. Presumably, the performers paid royalties to the copyright owner to perform the piece, and they are free to distribute that performance under whatever license they choose. I say this based on a fairly superficial understanding of the law, but a deeper understanding of how music publishers work. Perhaps one of the copyright honchos can give us more insight into this question. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- That does seem to make sense, given the similar recording laws in Europe, where recordings over 50 years old are PD but the music itself isn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if those commenting here get this, though it seems rather obvious, but all recordings of music are derivative works, so if the composition is in copyright so are recordings. For the particular case of the Tzigane, the status is the same as with Peter and the Wolf: the composition is public domain in France as the author died over 70 years ago, but it is copyright in the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Provided copyright was not registered in the U.S., current agreement is that it can go on Wikimedia since copyright was restored, which may be unconstitutional and is up for a Supreme Court hearing in Golan v. Holder this year. (I'd think classical music editors would have heard of this, since the original works in Golan v. Holder were things like recordings of compositions by Stravinsky and Shostakovich.) —innotata 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- So this is the situation that made the Dover unable to continue selling Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues, and the Prokofiev orchestral works (including Peter and the Wolf)? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if those commenting here get this, though it seems rather obvious, but all recordings of music are derivative works, so if the composition is in copyright so are recordings. For the particular case of the Tzigane, the status is the same as with Peter and the Wolf: the composition is public domain in France as the author died over 70 years ago, but it is copyright in the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Provided copyright was not registered in the U.S., current agreement is that it can go on Wikimedia since copyright was restored, which may be unconstitutional and is up for a Supreme Court hearing in Golan v. Holder this year. (I'd think classical music editors would have heard of this, since the original works in Golan v. Holder were things like recordings of compositions by Stravinsky and Shostakovich.) —innotata 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- That does seem to make sense, given the similar recording laws in Europe, where recordings over 50 years old are PD but the music itself isn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that the fact that the work performed is still under copyright does not mean that the recording of the performance cannot be public domain. Presumably, the performers paid royalties to the copyright owner to perform the piece, and they are free to distribute that performance under whatever license they choose. I say this based on a fairly superficial understanding of the law, but a deeper understanding of how music publishers work. Perhaps one of the copyright honchos can give us more insight into this question. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
In spite of your obvious erudition in the matter, I am still skeptical. Of course the composition is under copyright. That entitled the author to receive royalties when the performer performed it. Here is a similar case: a radio station plays a recording of a work under copyright. The station pays royalties to the performer. Does the station also have to pay royalties to the composer? --Ravpapa (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- @ Melodia Yes, that must be so. It's sad, since it affects the majority of non-U.S. compositions after 1923. @Ravpapa First, who are you addressing? I don't know the mechanics of music royalties, but what however can the copyright in compositions not apply to their performances, or how can any permission be validly granted without in some way involving all copyright holders? —innotata 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio in Le temps l'horloge and possibly elsewhere
I was checking Le temps l'horloge today after it had been moved back and forth to different capitalisations. In the process, I discovered that virtually the whole article was a copyvio. I then found that it was the product of a class assigment. Students in that class created or expanded about 30 articles on classical compositions, composers, and musicians in February 2008. You might want to check the rest of the articles on the list at User:EvanCortens/MU222 for copyvio. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. I have checked a few of these (Philomel (Babbitt), Blas Galindo Dimas, and Four Anniversaries for the Piano [sic]), and so far they have been so badly written that copyvio cannot be a problem, but there are still a lot of others.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have now also reworked Le temps l'horloge, adding some references and supplying sources for a lot of previously undocumented material. I have also descended on Prayers of Kierkegaard, The Black Knight (Elgar), Four Last Songs (Vaughan Williams), Chamber Symphony No. 2 (Schoenberg), Magnificat (Pärt), and Three Preludes Op.18 for unaccompanied flute. Some of these are better than others (though I trust that Professor Cortens' students were mostly very disappointed in the grades they received for that class), but there does not appear to be any copyvio in them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Psalm 90 (Ives) also appears to be clear of copyvio, though it is 99% Original Research. Its main source is a text exegesis published a good 35 years before the work was composed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- No apparent copyvio in Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, though once again, if all the OR were to be removed, nothing worth keeping would remain.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Han-na Chang appears to have written he autobiography for the class. This article looks like a prime candidate for deletion on grounds of self-promotion, with no sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Han-na Chang is pretty obviously notable. At least seven albums, all on EMI. The article itself might be bad but she surely deserves one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. There's plenty of independent material on her [4]. It does need a liberal dose of the red pencil and referencing, though. The contribution from Prof. Corten's student appears to be this chunk. The article was started back in 2006, and has had various attempts at pasting in publicity material since then, e.g. [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Han-na Chang is pretty obviously notable. At least seven albums, all on EMI. The article itself might be bad but she surely deserves one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Han-na Chang appears to have written he autobiography for the class. This article looks like a prime candidate for deletion on grounds of self-promotion, with no sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- No apparent copyvio in Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, though once again, if all the OR were to be removed, nothing worth keeping would remain.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Psalm 90 (Ives) also appears to be clear of copyvio, though it is 99% Original Research. Its main source is a text exegesis published a good 35 years before the work was composed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have now also reworked Le temps l'horloge, adding some references and supplying sources for a lot of previously undocumented material. I have also descended on Prayers of Kierkegaard, The Black Knight (Elgar), Four Last Songs (Vaughan Williams), Chamber Symphony No. 2 (Schoenberg), Magnificat (Pärt), and Three Preludes Op.18 for unaccompanied flute. Some of these are better than others (though I trust that Professor Cortens' students were mostly very disappointed in the grades they received for that class), but there does not appear to be any copyvio in them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)