Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

Howard Sandroff - composer

The page Howard Sandroff, Howard Sandroff, is an incomplete biography of composer Howard Sandroff derived from the Germany entry de:Howard Sandroff. The incomplete English version has been up there for some time (years?) is there someone out there interested in completing the English page (I will help supply text and references).

since I am Howard Sandroff, I can't do it myself. Your rules, not mine, just trying to play by the rules

20:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.60 (talk)

Comment: Is there an award for "Most Polite And Restrained Approach Ever From An Article Subject" that we can give Prof. Sandroff? There should be! :) DBaK (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, very kind approach. I'm not exactly volunteering, but if you can list any reliable online sources here (like a bibliography), that would be helpful. (Begin each line with an asterisk * and it will create a bulleted list as in the example below.) -- kosboot (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


  • reliable source 1
  • reliable source 2 etc.

Why not volunteer? Afterall, as I get even more famous, so will my biographer  :-) Look I'm just trying to stop looking more foolish than I already do having a German entry but none in english is silly. I had nothing to do with either, I only happened upon them when a student told me, only a sycophant would search for themselves in an encyclopedia. Never-the-less, I don't like looking silly so I will supply you with a collection of reference as soon as I eat my dinner and work out at my health club, unbridled ego without good health is foolish. And thanks for the suggested award, I'd be happy if only my Wikipedia entry were completed so that I may rest in peace, and finally reach my final reward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.60 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

14:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.60 (talk)

14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.60 (talk)

note for kosboot. I did everything you suggested, how about stepping up to the plate and fixing this mess. We have lots of things in common beside music. We are both of Ashkenazy Jewish heritage (russia/poland) we both know Phil Gossett (he is not doing well you know) and if you do I'll donate a score or recording to your library (is that legal in wikipedia land). Does anyone know how to get this message directly to kosboot or is that forbidden as well.

Thanks for all these sources (some are obviously better than others) - I hope someone will start to deal with this since I'm busy this weekend with [wikiconferenceusa.org WikiConferenceUSA 2014]. If you want to donate something to the library (which has nothing to do with this article) you can simply contact the Music Division at musicdiv at nypl.org. -- kosboot (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


Well kosboot, someone did step up to the plate and at least added the english translation of the germany entry, I think, I haven't checked that out but it looks like it and added some references some works etc. . . . if it was you thanks so much if not, thanks so much again. The bio is not entirely accurate and I'd be happy to help someone fix it, add newer works and photo or even do it myself since now the article is there and just needs a bit of repair, is that allowed? Anyway you folks are awesome, now that I am properely folded and spindled I can die in peace. 13:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.60 (talk)

(talk page stalker)Howard, the recent work was done by Nikkimaria and TJRC. If you ever want to follow progress on an article you can click its "History" tab and that will show you a page like this where you can see the changes made and by whom. Hope this helps, DBaK (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Sandroff -- yes, for the most part, my expansion was based on a machine-translation from the German Wikipedia page. Citations were to some extent derived from the URLs you provided, as well as my own research. I did drop some material where I could not find support; and Nikkimaria did some additional trimming and refactoring.
If there are errors, please note them on the talk page for the article, Talk:Howard Sandroff, rather than on this Wikiproject page. Please include the nature of the error, the proposed correction, and a reliable source for the corrected text. If I don't make the change, I'm sure someone else will. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This WikiProject is requested to take notice.

A discussion is underway that would benefit from the thoughtful consideration of the widest possible cross-section of Wikipedia's editing community. Aspects of the discussion are reasonably anticipated to be of interest to the editors known to monitor this page and all are openly invited to consider participation.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is a proposal to delete Category:American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable piano competitions

Anyone have a view as to whether any of the below are notable/prestigious piano competitions?

  • Circulo Bach Competition
  • International Fortepiano Competition Premio Ferrari in Rovereto (Italy)
  • International Competition Musica Antiqua Brugges
  • International Hans von Bülow Piano Competition in Meiningen
  • International Fortepiano Competition Schloss Kremsegg

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Beyond those that are famous, what would make a competition notable (for acceptance in WP)? -- kosboot (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This is in relation to whether a draft article about a pianist (Draft:Olga Pashchenko) should be accepted. The subject won or placed in each of these, but I'm not sure how well-known/prestigious these competitions are. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. The Rovereto competition brought in a prestigious judge (Malcolm Bilson), giving it cred, but as far as I can tell it was a one-off event; later competitions sponsored by the same foundation are in other areas. Seems like a judgment call. Opus33 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Never heard of any of them. A bit of Google research reveals that Circulo is a competition for period instrumentalists, whom it auditions by tape and restricts to playing nothing but the music of J.S. Bach. The names give away that three of the others are in the same performance category. The odd man out, the Hans von Bülow, hasn't been around very long; I found this announcement in a forum posting from 2011:
The first International Hans-von-Bülow Piano Competition will be held in July of 2012 in the southern Thuringia town of Meiningen, which is known for having once been the place of work for musicians such as Hans von Bülow, Johannes Brahms, Richard Strauss and Max Reger. In addition to the categories "children and young adults" and "professionals", the Hans-von-Bülow Society calls for competition entries from musically-gifted amateur pianists, who are not musicians by profession. The category "amateurs" will have an internationally-renowned jury awarding prizes in the sections "piano as a solo instrument and as part of a chamber music duo" and "piano as a solo instrument and piano concerto". The Meiningen Court Orchestra, which reached international fame under the baton of Hans von Bülow in the 19th century, will accompany the piano concerto performances under the direction of its General Music Director Philippe Bach.
...
Details regarding competition modalities, jury members and required repertoire can be found at http://www.buelow-wettbewerb-meiningen.de. Applications are accepted as of now. The application deadline is March 15, 2012.
So it would seem that the proposed subject won her award at the first outing of this one. If it develops into a major event, of course, that would probably be notable in and of itself. Even if not, personally I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. My (quite unscientific) impression is that competitions aren't as big a deal in the period instrument world as they are in that of more mainstream orchestral players and soloists, and certainly this player has won a bunch of 'em. And after all, if somebody is considering entry into one of these things and wants to research what sort of players have done well there in the past, a Wikipedia entry for one of the winners would certainly be useful. Mind you, I tend to have a fairly low threshold of notability in these matters--for my money, one of Wikipedia's strengths is its freedom to include figures and subjects that more "formal" references would dismiss as too marginal. Besides, any competition that promotes its connection to Max Reger is OK in my book! Drhoehl (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Aubrey Pankey

I have done a rewrite of the bio of Aubrey Pankey, increasing it from stub to full article. If someone from this project could review it and rewrite the lead (the Fénelon mention may not be appropriate, lead should summarize entire article) I would greatly appreciate it. If done in a timely manner I think the article could be DYK'd. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

400 free JSTOR accounts!

The Wikipedia Library is offering 400 free JSTOR accounts (as well as other databases) for 1 year. Go for it! -- kosboot (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

NMA linkage formating

I am currently working on an article covering the 6 Violin Sonata's KV 55-60 that were attributed to Mozart after his death, but are now believed to be the work of an unknown composer in Mozart's circle. I need help understanding the NMA link formatting as I have never used it before. Graham1973 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

These links are much more difficult to produce than necessary. Here's what I do: I visit the NMA webiste at http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nmapub_srch.php and enter the Köchel number into the search box and press the button "Go". On the search result for K. 55 ["Series X: Supplement – (1) Sonate in F KV 55 („No. 5“) K. 55 (Anh. 209c; Anh. C 23.01) X/29/2, p. 115"], I hover the mouse over the red bit ["X/29/2, p. 115"] and note the values for "&vsep" and "&p1" in my browser's status line. In this case, they are "&vsep=220" and "&p1=115". Those are the first two parameters for {{NMA}}. Because the steps to discover the Critical Report pages is more cumbersome, I usually don't bother with that as it's available from a tab on the score's page anyway. However, if required, one can click on the critical report's tab on the score and inspect the status line when hovering over any of the page numbers at the top for the value of "&vsep=" – it's usually +1 of the score's value, as it is in this case: "&vsep=221". The page number can be gleaned from the tble of content, here "&p1=56". So the complete NMA template for K. 55 is then {{NMA|220|115|221|56|Sonate in F, K. 55 ("No. 5")}}, giving
Hope this helps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks I think this will.Graham1973 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Kerry Turner

Dear classical music experts: This draft is up for review at AfC. The musician appears notable, although a lot of the sources are not independent. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like merely a resumé. --Stfg (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My personal preference for person with dubious notability is to leave them in. That said, I don't see a single reliable source among the many supplied in this article. -- kosboot (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... it appears to have been accepted. Maybe it needs some tags? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Keyboard Sonata No. 17 (Haydn)

From the above list of orphan articles I picked Keyboard Sonata No. 17 (Haydn), more or less at random. I added a link to it from List of solo piano compositions by Joseph Haydn. I don't know if one link is enough to justify removing the orphan tag - I guess it is, so I've removed it. However I notice that these two articles disagree on attribution. Whilst both agree it was probably not by Haydn, the article on the sonata attributes it to Seguace, whilst the list says it was "probably by J. G. Schwanenberg". Any Haydn experts out there able to clarify this? --Deskford (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's fine to remove the orphan tag. --Stfg (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Article cleanup - Twenty Variations in G major (Haydn)

I've started a cleanup of this article. Need some help with sorting out the full details of the two books used. I've cleaned up the creators repeated mispelling of the name Jeno Jando (They kept spelling it as Jenoe Jando) and converted all the liner note references to be Harvard Referencing format.

If anyone has any suggestions or ideas on how else to improve the article feel free to pitch in.

Graham1973 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like more cleanup is needed in other related articles. This well-meaning editor created several new articles on Haydn keyboard sonatas. The naming is inconsistent between Landon & Hoboken numbers -- a mapping between those two is available here: List_of_solo_piano_compositions_by_Joseph_Haydn. Putting aside which numbering scheme should be used for the titles, they shouldn't be mixed. The mixing and the redirects caused by them cause some awfully confusing double redirects: #34 redirects to #53 (H->L) so you think the pattern is to use Landon numbers, but #33 is actually Hob 33... but you can't move the #33 page to #34 because it points to 53. Similar confusion at 18 & 20.
Anyhow, we should probably decide on either Landon or Hoboken and clean up the titles and redirects. And probably add a nav template to aid with the confusion between the two numbering schemes.DavidRF (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a vague sense that nowadays Hoboken numbers are used more than the Landon numbers. The New Grove uses Hoboken numbers. Also, for what it's worth, Googling "Haydn sonata Hoboken" gives about 700K hits, "Haydn sonata Landon" only 60K. Opus33 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
For Hoboken, I prefer using "Hob. XVI/34" instead of "No. 34". When Landon numbers are used on recordings, they usually don't say Landon, they usually just say "No. 53". When discussing the sonatas elsewhere, I usually use both and I include the key, just to be superclear that people know which one I'm talking about. Is "Hob. XVI/34" too clunky for an article title? That's why I don't mind using Landon for the titles with Hoboken clarification on the first line.DavidRF (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gregson (cellist) copyvio

I've just removed the biography section from Peter Gregson (cellist) as it was an exact copy of the cellist's own website. I couldn't find anything in the history of the article that was referenced and worth reverting to, but if anyone else can do better please feel free. --Deskford (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amihai Grosz

Dear classical music experts: Here's an old AfC submission about a violinist which is inadequately sourced and will soon be deleted as a stale draft ... unless someone here thinks it's a notable topic and decides to improve it! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Lilliburlero Variations for Two Pianos and List of compositions by Christoph Willibald Gluck

I took on the variation set, cleaned the article up and extended it a bit. Still a tiny stub of a thing, but at least now it has links to two substantive articles and a list. Alas, one of those articles, Richard Markham, has only two citations (of which I added one) and has been challenged as possibly self-promotion. Sigh....

I also had a look at the purported list of Gluck compositions. It proved to be no such thing; it consists entirely of a link designated "main article: List of operas by Christoph Willibald Gluck" and one designated "main article: List of ballets by Christoph Willibald Gluck." Is this worth retaining as a separate article, or should we try to incorporate it into some sort of cross reference or redirect? Drhoehl (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, by the way, the variations article has two "multiple issues," and I'm not quite sure how to remove the "orphan article" tag without messing up the other one ("notability"). Perhaps both could go now, as I found a recording of the piece and an entry for it in a standard guide book; I'll leave that decision to those with better knowledge of such things. Drhoehl (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I've boldly removed the notability tag as well as the orphan tag from the Variations. I see what you mean about the Gluck list. He wrote symphonies and other stuff in addition to operas and ballets, so there is at least the potential for this article to have content. But then there's a list of compositions in the main Christoph Willibald Gluck article too. Maybe that should be transferred to the "List of compositions..." article. --Deskford (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

classical music orphans?

Hi folks, I see there are over 120,000 articles categorized as orphan articles. Is there a way to see only those orphan articles which fall under the aegis of this project? -- kosboot (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes! I've just tried doing this using CatScan and it tells me there are 60 such articles:

--Deskford (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Deskford. I actually was interested in seeing how to produce the list more than the list itself, but your efforts are appreciated. -- kosboot (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Grosse Fuge

I have just written everything I know about this piece. If anyone knows different, feel free to write. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, great work! Name: Grosse Fuge is wrong, at least in present German, it would be Große Fuge. It was published under a French title. Is Grosse something historic? I looked at the manuscript and couldn't find it. The second reference for Beethoven naming it that way in the manuscript is a dead link. - We had a similar discussion at Friedrich der Grosse: as a ship's name, it uses only capital letters, but back to lower case it should be "ß". Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"ß" is generally rendered "ss" in English, which does not have this arcane German character. But you are probably right that Grosse should be replaced with Große throughout the text (except perhaps in the first reference, so that we illiterate English-only bumpkins can read it). --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I could give you plenty of examples of "ß" being rendered as written, but that is not the question. The question is how Beethoven spelled it, if at all. I don't see it on the manuscript, but his handwriting is difficult to read, it may be there. - A capital "T" looks quite similar to a capital "F" in handwriting. - Back to "ss": it leads to a different pronunciation, short vowel instead of long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The Bote and Bock, Breitkopf and Hartel and Universal scores all say "Grosse". The Artaria score is in French, so that doesn't say one way or the other. The Breitkopf and Hartel and Universal scores are considered Urtext, but I don't know if that means we can rely on their spelling of the name of the piece. I think it means at least that "Grosse" is not wrong, without saying what is best. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Peer WP:DIACRITICS, what matters isn't what Beethoven wrote, nor what the urtexts write, nor what is correct in modern German, but what is most common in English-language reliable sources. I don't know what that is, but FWIW the first page of links in a Google books search for Große Fuge came back with all links to titles listing Grosse Fuge. --Stfg (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
So it looks like Grosse. Do we have to do a page move, too? I'm kind of fond of Große in the title - gives the article pizzazz. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's have to, more whether you want to. There's already a redirect from Grosse, so nobody looking for it will miss it. --Stfg (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before: in contemporary German (except in Switzerland), only "Große Fuge" is possible. The pronunciation of "grosse" would be considered rather comical. I suggest the article title stays as "Große Fuge". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Leave the title as Große but use Grosse (standards English usage) in the text. Just the way it is now. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Postscript: In English the letter is called "sharp s" ("eszett" in German) and there's an article on it: ß -- kosboot (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerts of Antient Music

I just put together an article on this concert series, mostly from the Dictionary of Musicians and Music (1900) entry. Perhaps someone with better access to academic works on music could add a bit more about the significance of the "Ancient Concerts"? I can see that there is a fair amount written on them, but I'm not a musicologist. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Those who have access (generally through libraries) to the database "Eighteenth Century Collections Online" (Infotrac - a product of Cengage/Gale) have access to many (all?) of this group's programs. Fascinating lists of players and subscribers and programs. If someone had time, it would be great to have a cumulation of all their concerts. -- kosboot (talk)
Couldn't resist uploading the cover of the inaugural concert - from the copy in the British Library. -- kosboot (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Program for the concerts of the Concerts of Antient Music, 1780
Great picture, I'll put it in the article pronto! 1780 wasn't the "inaugural" series, they started in 1776, but still great. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Violin Concerto No. 2 (Joachim)/Violin Concerto No. 1 (Goldmark)/Violin Concerto (Rubinstein)

I've started cleaning up this one. Got most of what I've termed 'pseudo-citations' (eg a direct link to an online article in the body of the text) turned into Harvard citations, which makes it a lot clearer as to the source of the quotes.

The text itself needs a rewriting as it is heavily peacocked as to the 'greatness' of the concerto, but is light on information as to when it was composed, date of first performance, publication, etc. Graham1973 (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done what I can with the text. I've found that most of the 'puffery' actually originated in the Hurwitz review that the original author used as the basis for his article. I'm not finding much online about the concerto save Wikipedia mirrors. I do need help on running down further information. What is needed is contained in my earlier message. Graham1973 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've decided to expand this attempt to clean up/expand neglected articles (By this I mean articles where the main text has not been updated for at least two years.) to the Goldmark Violin Concerto Nº. 1 and Rubinsten Violin Concerto. I am not having a lot of luck running down online sources for either. In the case of the Rubinsten concerto I've linked the Naxos liner notes to the article and noted that the entire text seems to be a straight lift from those liner notes. I am again putting out a call for anyone who is interested and who is better at research than I am to help in improving all three articles. Graham1973 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Naming an article

I'm getting ready to make an article and I'd like some advice on a title. The article is going to be about a painted portrait of Beethoven, done around 1804-5 by Joseph Willibrord Mähler. The most accurate title would be Portrait of Beethoven (1804-5) by Joseph Willibrord Mähler. That's kind of long, but the date is necessary (Mähler painted 3 other portraits) as is the artist's name. Anyone have other suggestions? -- kosboot (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Two suggestions for simplification: omit the painter's 1st names: "... by Mähler" and, more radically, omit "Portrait of", resulting in "Beethoven (1804–5) by Mähler" (that dash should be an en dash). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, (in case confusion may be likely) Portrait of Beethoven (1804-5) by J W Mähler. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the two years. Did he paint a different also in 1804 and 1805? Otherwise one year would be enough to distinguish. If two are needed, or standard is (1804-05), I think. Are there other painters Mähler? If not, last name is sufficient. My version: Beethoven (Mähler, 1805), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
These are all valid suggestions, but I think I prefer Gerda's version for its compactness. --Deskford (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The actual date of the painting is not known, the estimation being "1804-05." (That dating is used through most of the literature I've found.) Using Gerda's suggestion, the article title could be: Beethoven (Mähler, 1804-05) (although to me that suggests the title of the painting is "Beethoven" which it is not; it has no title). -- kosboot (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Beethoven portrait (Mähler, 1804–05)? I like Beethoven in the beginning, at least for a redirect, for searching, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Are there any 1805 portraits of Beethoven by other artists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if there aren't, how are we to prove there aren't? Extreme brevity isn't really needed, and I think Gerda's version lacks essential information: it needs "portrait". Andy's version looks OK, or the original omitting Willibrord (and maybe omitting Joseph as well), or maybe Portrait of Beethoven (Mähler, c. 1805) (which avoids implying that it was painted over the two years). --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Article titles appears to give some good guidance here. It suggests we should not include the word "portrait", and also suggests using the location of the painting to distinguish between multiple paintings of the same subject by the same artist. --Deskford (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My reading of this is that we should perhaps use Beethoven (Mähler, Vienna Museum) (unless of course Mähler's other Beethovens are also in the Vienna Museum). --Deskford (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Deskford. Actually it's a little more complicated in that I'll be writing about the painting as well as a famous copy of it (not enough to have it's own article). -- kosboot (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
So based on those guidelines, a reasonable title might be: Beethoven (Mähler, 1804-05). (I am reluctant to use the venue name; Mähler did 4 portraits of Beethoven and I believe more than one is in the Vienna Museum). -- kosboot (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems a good title (though usual practice is to use an en-dash rather than a hyphen between the years). In this case the date is probably the best disambiguator. --Deskford (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
and Beethoven should be italicized. --Stfg (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
... look above, we had that, but kosboot said it's not the title of the painting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the visual arts guidelines makes a distinction between titles (in italics) and those which are not. Thanks for all your input, and I'll let the project know when it goes live. -- kosboot (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Have a look: Beethoven (Mähler, 1804-05) The italicized title comes about as a result of using the visual arts template. -- kosboot (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
An interesting and well-written article. Good work! --Deskford (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Guttman

Dear classical music experts: Is this a notable musician, and should the page be improved and moved to mainspace? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

<sigh!> The usual resumé with heavy dose of name-dropping and the mandatory quote from a reviewer ("moments of melting beauty" -- puke!). If notability is all that's needed to get away with this kind of stuff, I reckon he probably is notable, to judge by this list of his recordings on Amazon. The article needs more citations, though, and I believe there's a COI. --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Stfg, encouraged by your glowing comments, I have made a start at improving the draft by removing some name-dropping and other fluff, and starting a discography section using the existing references. It still needs more work, but I am a bluegrass musician, and so help from someone more familiar with this genre would be appreciated. To get into mainspace, as well as notability, it has to be neutral, and any controversial facts about the living person have to be cited (because of this I removed the claim to being the "youngest ever to be in the Royal Conservatory" - difficult to prove). Thanks for the link to the recording list; although since it's a commercial link I can't use it directly, the titles are helpful in making a Google search for reviews and news reports. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Schubert list

Further input is needed at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert about the presentation of that list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Susan Eichhorn Young

Please help find sources. There's nothing on Google news and a single recognition in one Dummies book. Good luck. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt notability. I checked Google News too and it's empty. The only mentions on Amazon UK are 10 audio books by other authors, for which she is the narrator. She has a single album listed at AllMusic (ref 2). Ref 1 is her bio as a faculty member at a 2013 festival. Ref 3 is her bio as an examiner for the Royal Conservatory. Neither of these helps to confer notability, imho. Ref 4 is a primary source used only to identify her husband. All the external links are primary and promotional. There's an obvious COI here, and I don't think notability is even close to being shown. --Stfg (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guitar Duo KM

Hello again, classical music experts! The gutarists in this old AfC submission appear to have won some awards. Are these notable prizes? If so, I will look for references to verify them. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another blatant copyvio that should have been deleted on sight. (DupDet report). I've tagged it for deletion per G12, G11 and G13. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It has gone. --Stfg (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cum decore (song)

Dear classical music experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. However, even I, a bluegrass musician, have heard of Tielman Susato. There are plenty of search engine hits for this song, but I can't tell which ones are useful as references. Should the page be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about your last question, but it needs a lot of work. First, the title is wrong. The title is Signum, and Cum decore are merely the first two words. I suggest Signum (Cum decore) as the page title. This is also the title it gets on the CPDL page (ref 1). (Signum already exists as a disambiguation page). Ref 1 is good. Ref 2 definitely isn't, as it's a blog. Rather a good-looking blog, and I'm tempted to believe it may be reasonably accurate. But a blog nevertheless, and if they know all that stuff, they must have got it from somewhere; where is that somewhere? Ref 3 is lousy: all it has to do with the song is the words of the first stanza, which can be read at CPDL. Apart from that, it hosts continuous advertising, and McAfee blocks some of its content. Ref 4 also merely duplicates what is available at CPDL. The statement that "Wrekorder Wrondo" is a cover of it is OR by the author's own admission in this diff. He's right, of course -- but that's my own OR, I suppose. Hope this helps, but I still don't know the answer to your question. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Stfg, for taking time to check this out. Since it seems rather dubious, and I have a long list of other pages to improve, I think I will leave it to either be improved by someone more knowledgeable in this area, or to fade away if no one takes an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cármelo de los Santos

Once again, classical music experts, I ask your opinion about a draft article that is about to be deleted at AfC. The violinist appears to have won some prizes; are these notable awards? Should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO a blatant autobiography and puff piece. --Stfg (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but the issue is one of notability; if the subject is notable, the quality of the article can be fixed later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the issue is emphatically not solely one of notability. If you argue like that, anyone can write a puffy autobiog and we're trapped in the ritual of doing their research for them, not to mention cleaning up all those inline external links to individual whose notability would presumably need to be checked as well. All because we're too scared to delete a rubbish article about a subject that may be notable, even though no credible attempt has be made to demonstrate it. There are better ways to improve Wikipedia. We have WP:TNT, and imho this is a prime candidate. --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case, since I've just published it, you'll have no problem making a successful AfD nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ooh, snarky! And short-circuiting discussion. No, I'll not bother to AfD it. Enjoy your clean-up exercise. --Stfg (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: Would you be willing to reverse the promotion of this article while further discussion takes place, please? It high-handedly overrides legitimate objections. Moreover, Mabbett is insisting that the issue is one of notability, contrary to WP:AFCR, which also identifies failure of reliable sourcing and NPOV as grounds to decline. AFC is not the same as AFD. The POV nature of the article is pretty obvious: it's blatantly promotional and the REVEL section contains a sales pitch for a CD. As to sourcing, let's just have a look at the claim to have been a semifinalist in the Paganini "important international competition". Both the inline link to the competition site and ref 3 are dead links, and the only mention of the latter on the Wayback Machine is today's archive of its "page does not exist" version. http://www.violin-fund.ru/ itself does exist, and de los Santos is listed as a participant on its participants page, but he is absent from the lists of semifinalists at its history page. A Google search for him on violin-fund.ru yields nothing. Furthermore, the Career, Teaching, REVEL and Discography sections are all completely unsourced. So much for reliable sourcing. I would suggest that, per WP:AFCR, the article should have been declined. And an hour of my time should not have been wasted by that WP:POINTy promotion. --Stfg (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Stfg andAndy Mabbett: Sorry to have taken so long to respond; I have been camping in an alfalfa field at a Bluegrass Festival, an internet-free zone, and returned to find several items requiring my attention. The draft as it stood definitely wouldn't have passed a proper AfC review - far too promotional. I have edited it to remove the name-dropping promotional links and tone down the puffery, but more needs to be done per WP:NOTINHERITED if the article is to be kept. If it just needs that and proper sourcing with inline citations as a BLP, tagging it for its weaknesses would suffice. However, if Stfg is correct that the subject is non-notable, moving it to Draft space would be pointless unless it's on the verge of becoming notable, since the page would just become eligible for deletion again in six months. I will wait a few days to see if anyone adds some reliable sources, or adds a demonstration of notability in response to this discussion, and, if not, I will post it at WP:AFD, unless someone beats me to it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: I didn't say he was not notable, Anne. I said that he "may be notable, even though no credible attempt has be made to demonstrate it". The Júlio Cardona International String Competition may be enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, but it's only a listing, not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so I don't know. When he "postponed" the G13, Mabbett added a note saying "A Google search suggests notability is clear." But in all his edits he added not a single source. And in my Google search I see mainly promotional stuff, concert announcements and primary sources, nothing remotely like "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Oh, and this article, which has already made it to the first page of the Google listing.
Well, this is too bad. The only issue at AFD will only be notability. All the other things that are supposed to be considered at AFC won't count, and we'll probably be left with yet another of the promotional articles that are turning Wikipedia into a kind of schizophrenic LinkedIn. Yes of course we can cover it with clean-up tags, which will show it up for what it is. But that's not very nice and it just contributes to the huge cleanup backlogs. What on earth is the point of AFC at all if it's so easy to bypass anyway?
And one last thing: it's copyvio. The original article is constructed from copy-pastes from de Santos's own web site (see the external links). Here's a DupDet comparison with the originator's version of the article, and here's a Dupdet comparison with the current version of the article. So it seems as if the first test for an AFC has been neglected here, and the submission should really have been deleted a year or so ago. I'd have thought that, when there appears at AFC a promotional article listing someone's great accomplishments and listing names of all the famous people they claim to have worked with, then doing a DupDet against the originator's web site is the most obvious and essential first step.
Do you want to delete the article now or shall I just put {{subst:copyvio|url=link to source}} over the copyvio sections (all except the lede, the reflist and the external links) and send it to the copyvio team? Your call. --Stfg (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) Well, Stfg, it would have been helpful if any one of the people who worked on it (including me) had noticed the copyvio problem earlier! Thanks for finding it. While checking out the notability issue, I began to wonder why there were so many announcements of his performances by so many different organizations and very little followup news. I realized that the accent in his name was skewing the results: The announcements spelled his name correctly, but news reports often didn't. Also, of course, some of the information is not in English, making it difficult for an English speaker to choose the right search terms. By leaving out the accent I was able to find some reviews. In spite of having other projects I should be working on, I became interested, so I rewrote the copyvio material (except for lists of names, which should be okay) and added some citations. I agree with everything that you have said - the article shouldn't have been in mainspace as it was. Notability may be marginal (pending someone who can check non-English media), but hopefully the article is now not a disgrace to Wikipedia. About AfD: It's my experience that although notability is the usual reason for deletion or keeping, other weakness in an article are often corrected by editors who plan to argue "keep". —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a lot better, although there's still too much uncited bragging. I've placed cleanup tags on it, to illustrate how bad it still is, and done a little copy editing. Note that an announcement that someone will take part in a concert/festival/event is not a valid source for a claim that they did so; this is why I've removed one of your sources. Even now, the article still reads like a LinkedIn entry. What I mean by that is that it's full of what the subject would like people to know about him, rather than what the general public (who aren't looking to engage a soloist or teacher) would really want to know. Just for one example: what kind of reader, really, is interested in which festivals he has presented violin workshops at? That's all this article is: a resumé. I'll leave it at that.
Regarding spotting copyvio, I've put a little heads-up for reviewers on WT:AFC. This is really one of the easiest checks to do and one of the biggest savers of wasted time later. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. Someone writes about it every few months, and it seems that the reminder is needed. It's too easy to assume that the first reviewer has checked, and not do it oneself. Oh, and by the way, as an amateur violinist who attends festival workshops which are not always productive, I would be personally interested in whether the leader of a specific workshop had previous experience in this area, so that makes one. Stfg, you seem to be a thoughtful editor with a good critical eye; I hope that you will choose to participate in WP:AFC in the future, since obviously we are 'way behind. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Haydn keyboard sonatas numbering

There was recently a discussion about which numbering scheme, Hoboken or Landon, to use for articles titles of Haydn's keyboard sonatas. That discussion didn't reach a conclusion and so I'm raising the matter again.

Both system are currently used for article titles, which is confusing. The previous discussion, and a subsequent one at Talk:Keyboard Sonata No. 62 (Haydn)#Number seemed to lean towards Hoboken, which is also my position. The current situation is:

IMSLP uses Hoboken, as does James Webster in Grove and my Lea Pocket Scores which is based on the Urtext from Breitkopf & Härtel's Critical Edition, as does this site of recordings (cited at List of solo piano compositions by Joseph Haydn), and even articles named after Landon, like Keyboard Sonata No. 62 (Haydn), use Hoboken in the text. This is a mess in itself (No. 33/34!) and it prevents further articles; it ought to be fixed, and I suggest Hoboken. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It certainly needs sorting out, one way or the other. The usual way would be to go with whatever the majority of reliable sources use, wouldn't it? Another way, since the bare numbers are not agreed upon, would be to include L. or Hob. XVI/ explicitly in the title and in redirects from the other scheme. If that is done, the ordinary Sonata No. xx titles could either be turned into disambiguation pages or deleted (if the latter, better salt them, as people will try to recreate them and probably make a mess). --Stfg (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Including "L." or "Hob. XVI/" in the article name seems a good way out of this dilemma. As there are no Landon numbers for the dubious nos. 15 to 17, and because what I consider to be the preponderance of sources, I suggest to use Hoboken numbers. I also have some doubts about naming them "keyboard sonatas". List of solo piano compositions by Joseph Haydn calls them "piano sonatas", as does IMSLP in their list of Haydn's works, but the category is called Category:Keyboard Sonatas by Joseph Haydn and IMSLP uses "keyboard" for the individual works. Google seems to favour "piano" by 10:1. I also prefer "piano" and suggest a minimalist scheme following a pattern of Piano Sonata Hob. XVI/52. Whether the category then needs renaming is in my opinion not urgent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that scheme. Haydn would have identified them as being for Klavier, I think, which reveals nothing. Peters and the Urtext editions use the German names with Klavier. There's an ABRSM Publishers series that calls them keyboard sonatas, and they use some of them as set pieces for harpsichord exams. Other English-language editions (Schirmer, Dover, ...) call them piano sonatas. Whichever we use, I think we should provide redirects from the other. --Stfg (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. Hoboken seems in my experience to be more widely used in concert programmes and recordings. My only slight reservation would be over the use of the forward slash character. It's not forbidden in article titles, but gives rise to a slightly odd behaviour on talk pages – see WP:NC-SLASH. However I think we could live with this for the increased accuracy such titles would bring. --Deskford (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes. The example of Talk:R/2004 S 1 given at WP:NC-SLASH could be solved by making a redirect because R/2004 S 1 itself is a redirect. We wouldn't be able to use the same solution. If we use the proposed naming, perhaps we should create Talk:Piano Sonata Hob. XVI and put a banner on it saying please write on the talk page for the actual sonata? --Stfg (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would probably be the best solution. --Deskford (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I had a hunch that using a slash in an article title might lead to problems. Thanks for pointing out the details.
Maybe such problems can be avoided by a small change in the naming scheme: I think the names would be just as well understood if they used a hyphen (-) or a full stop (.) instead of the slash. (Using one of the symbols that look a bit like a slash, e.g. virgule, solidus, fraction slash, division slash, or similar, would only be confusing.) With a hyphen: Piano Sonata Hob. XVI-52, with a full stop: Piano Sonata Hob. XVI.52. Or should we stick to the slash and work out the talk page problems as indicated above? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a big fan of the full stop, but what about a colon? That would yield, for instance, Piano Sonata Hob. XVI:52 (Haydn). That seems to be one standard way of rendering these unwieldy numbers. Drhoehl (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! (I knew that doing nothing for a while would eventually yield a better solution – festina lente.) The result would be Piano Sonata Hob. XVI:52 (note the omission of "(Haydn)". Any further improvements?

Varda Kotler

Seems to me she fails WP:NOTABLE. Information virtually all from her own website and I can find no other independent sources. Any opinions?--Smerus (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Here are her AllMusic discography and her amazon.com listing. As you see, only the Mélodies CD is mentioned (individual tracks in the case of Amazon), not the other two. Individual tracks of the Gounod CD are mentioned on charles-gounod.com, along with many other performances of these works. The fact that, some time ago, IPs geolocating to her home country have been spamming various articles to insert mentions of her perfomances (and a youtube video), push me towards the negative. (I've removed a few of those just now.) And we have the usual completely uncited list of names of great people the article claims she performed with and operatic roles/other works it claims she has performed. The career section is an obvious WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of her own web site, although edited enough to get no protest from Duplication Detector. HTH. --Stfg (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK I've listed it for AfD.--Smerus (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Others may care to comment on the AfD entry which seems to have been bombarded by VK fanclub members who can't quite grasp WP standards of notability.--Smerus (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. 1, No. 2

As long as we are discussing standards and such, here is a problem that has rankled me for a while: We have often named articles on a series of compositions as "No. 1", "No. 2" and so on. For example, String Quartet No. 3 (Beethoven). The problem with this is, of course, that number 3 might not really be number three. String quartet opus 131 was written after quartets Op. 132 and 133 (the Grosse Fuge), so it really should be number 16, not number 14. While these numbers have had currency for a long time, they can be misleading, and are, in some cases, fading from use. Henle, for example, has published the Haydn Opus 20 quartets, numbering them in their order of composition, not in the order they are usually numbered.

I think it would be a wise policy to number series of articles by their opus numbers, and not by their serial numbers. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I guess that you mean catalogue numbers in general (Purcell Z, Schubert D, Schütz SWV ...) if you say opus numbers. We should certainly have redirects of them. However, some numbers are known so well that they are the common name. We probably don't want to move Beethoven's Fifths to Op. 67 or Dvořák's Eights to Op. 88 or B. 163, although the numbers of his symphonies are also not in chronological order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am generally in agreement with Ravpapa, especially with chamber music. I feel the exceptions would be works (or series) that are very well-known by their serial numbers (like Beethoven or Brahms symphonies). (Unfortunately determining whether something is "well-known" is subjective.) -- kosboot (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Far-reaching proposals on naming guidelines

I just wanted to reiterate the note that User:Francis Schonken has already placed on this page about his new proposals. Editors should appreciate that these proposals may have far-reaching implications for existing and future music articles. They include in effect a repetition of the proposals for naming Schubert piano sonatas which Francis originally put forward and which did not meet the consensus of editors on this page.--Smerus (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Smerus' contentions are incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Smerus should be aware of WP:CANVASS, having had it pointed out to him previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_51&oldid=626549293"