Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Bach's secular cantatas: navbox and category

After setting up List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach I created the {{Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} navbox and Category:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. I implemented both the navbox and the category on following articles:

Then then navbox and category were removed from:

While they were kept on:

This seems rather random: if the navbox and category are viable they should be applied to all of Bach's secular cantata articles. If they are not viable: take to WP:TfD and WP:CfD respectively. A discussion on a related navbox is at Template talk:Bach cantatas#Split off secular cantatas? (on whether or not that navbox is trimmed down to the over 200 church cantatas only). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Template now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Francis, if there was a discussion about creating a separate navbox for the "secular" works, I missed it. {{Bach cantatas}} is a template with a long tradition, used in many articles. You split it, which I thought was a bold change, and reverted. I had no time to revert all your article changes, but took care that the template for all cantatas appears in an secular cantata that is related to a sacred one (and also in one for which I feel responsible). Bach took a New Year's cantata, put a new text in, and had an Easter cantata. HE didn't strictly differentiate. My suggestion: you revert the other ones also, - why should the reader of the Coffee Cantata not be enabled to navigate to all cantatas with one click? - I'd have no use for the "secular" navbox, but perhaps you do, so I won't start a TfD procedure. - The world waits for you to write an article about Bach's first Leipzig cantata cycle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Then there's the other secular cantata he converted into an Easter Cantata... but oh, wait, that Easter Cantata is not in the cantata navbox... why should its precursor secular cantatas be?
And how are BWV 210 and BWV 210a related to a church cantata (you removed the secular cantata navbox from both)?
Also, none of these reasonings (which I obviously can't relate to) are a viable excuse to remove the secular cantata box: if you want to keep all the secular cantatas in the general cantata navbox, and keep that box on all the secular cantata pages (which I wouldn't, but as said above that is a discussion taking place elsewhere), then that still is no reason to remove the secular cantata navbox from the secular cantata articles. Same for the categories you removed. Removing these navboxes and categories was shear WP:POINTyness. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it was sheer lack of time. Next time better discuss such a thing beforehand, with a week (at least) time between suggesting and implementing. You gave me unplanned extra work, rescuing the template readers are used to see. Adding it to those articles where you had removed it was easiest by revert, which removed the category also, sorry. BWV 210 and 210a are articles for which I feel responsible, as said in brackets above. Feel free to restore the category, but better not the extra redundant navbox. Please add Bach cantatas back to all cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Nah, your time schedule isn't mine, your ownership rules aren't mine (nor Wikipedia's), having no time to complete the disruption is no excuse for starting it. Please re-add the appropriate categories and navboxes where you removed them from
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If anything was a disruption, your split of the template was. I only repaired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me? Are you accusing me of disruption after your disruptive edits you refuse to repair? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I said "If". The cantatas are in the secular category. I will not add the redundant navbox which is up for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Tx for re-adding the categories. The secular cantata navbox still needs to be re-added to the seven secular cantatas listed above, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The secular cantatas template being at TfD is not a reason at all to keep it off these pages: keeping the template on all the secular cantata pages might increase participation in the TfD debate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Re. "(Bach) didn't strictly differentiate" – incorrect:
  • Bach's Nekrolog (1754, p. 168):
    1. Fünf Jahrgänge von Kirchenstücken auf alle Sonn- und Festdage.
    2. Viele Oratorien, Messen, Magnificat, einzelne Sanctus, Dramata, Serenaden, Geburts- Namenstag- und Trauermusiken, Brautmessen, auch einige komische Singstücke
    3. Fünf Passionen, etc.
  • Wikipedia, two and a half centuries later:
    1. Fünf Jahrgänge von Kirchenstücken auf alle Sonn- und Festdage.
      → Church cantatas
    2. ...
    3. Fünf Passionen
      → Passions
As you can see in Bach's time there was little perceived overlap between the "Kirchenstücken" (church cantatas) and the secular cantatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The CPE/Agricola classification from the Nekrolog gave me this idea:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Church cantata navboxes

Here's another one I'd propose (for Bach's chorale cantatas/2nd cycle):

This one intended for use in addition to the general bach cantatas navbox on the related articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Good work, but for whom? I'd rather read the lists (which have the same links) than a navbox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"Read" is an odd expression for navboxes: they provide navigation rather than readable prose of course. After reading an article on the chorale cantatas or second cantata cycle one would arrive at the bottom of the page, finding the box there. After reading the article on the general concept one might be interested to read the articles of the cantatas that belong to the set: the navbox can walk you through that in an organised way, without needing to return to the main article or list for the next article in the series (the "numbers only" navbox would be useless for that as it doesn't show these groups, and certainly not in a useful sequence). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Chorale cantata cycle}} has been created. Any reason to stall implementation in article space? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
You have not answered the "for whom" question. Why do we have abbreviations Trin. and "BWV" there, unexplained. I'd prefer this in the article as an explained table. I love the simple elegance with just the uncluttered numbers, - when hovering over the link you see the top of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Re. "for whom" – "After reading the article on the general concept one might be interested to read the articles of the cantatas that belong to the set..." (I did answer the question) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Re. "I'd prefer this in the article as an explained table" – a "vertical" version is included at Chorale cantata cycle#Development of the second cantata cycle and the chorale cantata cycle
Re. "I love the simple elegance with just the uncluttered numbers, - when hovering over the link you see the top of an article" – I added the full article title before a pipe for the first cantata in the "vertical" list ([1]), feel free to add the others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
1+2 In the article about the concept, all these links were there. I doubt that a reader of a cantata article will want to navigate exclusively to others of the same type/period.
3 I am not talking about linking full title instead of the shortcut (but think it's an improvement, thank you for that), but about the clutter of repeating an unexplained BWV all these times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Re. "I doubt that a reader of a cantata article will want to navigate exclusively to others of the same type/period" – Anyone having access to p. VII of Dörffel's Thematisches Verzeichniss der Kirchencantaten No. 1–120, or to pp. 32–37 of Zedler's Die Kantaten von Johann Sebastian Bach: Eine Einführung in die Werkgattung may be interested. If you're not, your loss.
Re. BWV abbreviation: it is technically impossible in mainspace to arrive at the navbox without passing by a bluelink that explains the abbreviation, for every article or list where the navbox is intended to be used (in other words: WP:ACRO is satisfied for every mainspace instance of the abbreviation in the navbox).
Re. other abbreviations (like "Trin."): I had my doubts about these abbreviations (I used them to reduce place in the navbox) and did not use them any further in the sister navboxes {{Bach's church cantatas up to first cycle}} and {{Bach's third cantata cycle and later}}: if they bother you in the chorale cantata navbox: feel free to expand them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

More discussion

A more general discussion about the navboxes for Bach (by BWV number and subgroups) is on Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Overhauling - Flute Sonata (Martinů)

This is an article that has been flagged refimprove since 2010. Of the two references in the article one is a deadlink and the other is a single word "Bethchander" which I cannot make head or tail of. In addition the article has a very short history section and a long analysis that is not referenced in any way and may be own research.

It might be worth making this one a project.

Graham1973 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.Graham1973 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Italian orchestras up for deletion

Several articles on Italian orchestras have been nominated for deletion. The articles may be poorly written and poorly sourced, but I suspect the subjects may be notable. Any help finding sources (or confirming lack of sources) would be welcome. --Deskford (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another tiny stub of an Italian orchestra (not hit by AfD, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve some attention while we're at it): Orchestra Sinfonica di Roma. I remembered it while I linked it from List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC) PS: another stub, Rome Symphony Orchestra, is not about an Italian orchestra: may deserve some attention nonetheless.

Nomination for merging of Template:Bach cantatas

Template:Bach cantatas has been nominated for merging with Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

closed, no merge --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Classical music Timeline error (technical problem)

Note that the entry for Enrique Granados is misspelled and mislinked to Enrique Grandos (although it shows as a blue link on the Timeline). Attempts to fix the spelling and link produce this mess. Does anyone have a idea of how to fix the error? Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Free license Chopin recordings

If anyone wants to help add sound files to Chopin articles, there's an index of high-quality freely licensed Chopin recordings from MuseOpen at https://app.box.com/s/xjti3obics0kuhzjht3o66dgbx8tcoul. You just have to convert them into Ogg files and upload them to Commons. Kaldari (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Rondo for Piano and Orchestra in A major (Mozart) - Reference overhaul

I've just discovered that the archived version of Dennis Pajots article on this Mozart composition which was on the Internet Archive has apparently been removed from the Internet Archive. This appears to have been the main source for the article when it was written and it now needs to be replaced with alternative sources. Graham1973 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sonatas: ongoing RM (relisted)

This requested move has been relisted a few days ago, without attracting new participants thus far. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted content and sources at Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1014–1019

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Deletions at Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1014–1019. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Brendel

Please take a look at the article and see what you think about Talk:Alfred_Brendel#Desert_Island_Discs. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Surprise Symphony page move

It just got moved to Surprise Symphony after years of being Symphony No. 94 (Haydn). I don't see any discussion on the talk page. It was submitted as an 'uncontroversial request' and an admin just did it. Seems to open a can of worms. Do we want this? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it certainly wasn't 'uncontroversial'! I've reverted the move. --Deskford (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps the can of worms will open anyway, but such a move should not have been made without soliciting discussion first. Opus33 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, not again. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The editor who requested the move seems to have very little history of editing classical music articles, so perhaps it was just a random well-intentioned suggestion. I'm prepared to assume good faith. --Deskford (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Me too. Opus33 (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

New RFC on Brahms

You are welcome to weigh in Talk:Johannes_Brahms#RFC:_Should_the_lead_of_the_article_on_Johannes_Brahms_include_counterpoint_as_a_key_element_in_his_compositional_style

Looking forward to hearing from you, Ravpapa (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Of possible interest

The daily hour-long radio program Exploring Music now offers all of its 170 or so week-long (5 one-hour episodes) programs online to listen to on-demand [2]. A handful of them are free; the rest are accessible with either a $60 year-long subscription, a $10 one-month subscription, or a $5 per five-hour 5-episode series. It is an excellent combination of very detailed information and music. My two favorite series are the 5-episode program on Wagner's Ring, which is wonderful for both novices and aficionados [3], and the 10-episode series on Mahler: [4] (Mahler is evidently a particular favorite of Bill McGlaughlin, the host and writer). McGlaughlin is a composer and conductor, and a diligent and encyclopedic researcher, which he belies by his intimate, down-to-earth presentation style. Lastly, the first seven minutes of each of the 850 or so episodes is free to listen to. [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

BWV 1044 sourcing

Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bach's Triple Concerto. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Improving Adagio and Fugue in C minor (Mozart)

I have started work on overhauling this article, which as written lacks any footnotes. This is especially problematic as there are two direct quotes in the article, one from Mozart and the other from musicologist Robert Levin, neither of which have any form of citation.

I am currently engaged in searching out sources. If anyone wants to join in, feel free to do so.

Graham1973 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Philip Cannon References

Hey folks! Philip Cannon (composer) now has the dubious honor of being the article longest-tagged as lacking in-text citations (tagged since July 2006). I know next-to-nothing about music, but I tried a quick Google search and Google Books search for references and came up empty-handed. There is a list of references at the bottom of the article, but I don't have access to any of them. Any chance someone here with a bit more knowledge on the subject could scrape together a few references? Let me know if I can help. Thanks a bunch and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Jordi Savall

Our article on Jordi Savall has long described him as "Catalan". This is the national identity he adopts, and by which he is generally known, but an IP editor recently changed this to "Spanish" without explanation. I reverted, but another IP editor, or perhaps the same one with a new address, has repeated the change, again without explanation. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but would welcome the opinions of others. --Deskford (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your reasons for calling him Catalan seems entirely sufficient to me, especially when the practice of telling Catalonians that they are really Spaniards has such an ugly history, particularly before 1975. So I reverted again. Thanks for bringing this up. Opus33 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

MGG Online

For those of you with access to major research libraries, MGG Online has announced its availability since Nov. 7 (available through RILM if the institution has paid for it). From personal experience, I note that MGG often has much better worklists of second-tier composers than available in Grove. No word on individual subscriptions but I suspect they'll be financially prohibitive. - kosboot (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Classical music/Archive 67 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Music template - time signature images.

There's an anonymous editor who is changing a lot of time signatures to their music template images. So when it said 4/4 before, it now says 4
4. See the Haydn Symphony category for lots of example articles. I'm not as active an editor as I used to be so I may be out of touch with the latest norms. It looks a bit odd to me. The text seems more readable. Do we like the way this looks?DavidRF (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it was clearer and more legible before the change. Opus33 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not see a lot to choose between them, myself. If the template was not created for this kind of situation, what is it for? If it really is no improvement over the usual plain-text method, then shouldn't the template itself be challenged or its use deprecated?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed those edits and decided not to revert them because I agree with Jerome's sentiments. I would, however, like some improvement to the time signatures produced by {{music}} (don't force bold serif), and I said so earlier this year in a discussion at Template talk:Music#Time Signatures. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Further to my comment, above, I notice one small formatting problem, in the List of musical works in unusual time signatures. When the template is used in the section headers, the "divisor" numerals are often cut off by the underscore (at least in my browser: Safari 10.0.1, running under OS X 10.11.6). This seems to be because the chosen (oldstyle) font has descenders for numerals such as 3 and 4. I suppose there must be some way of getting around this problem by manual editing, but it ought to be automatically compensated for in the template.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

We would like to wish everyone on the project a very happy holiday season! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Page on Bach's unaccompanied keyboard concertos?

Bach wrote concertos for one or more keyboard instruments, with an accompaniment of strings and continuo (BWV 1052–65, 1044 and 1050). These concertos are at Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach.

I'd like to start a page on the concertos Bach wrote for keyboard instruments without such accompaniment (BWV 592–7, 971–87 and 1061a). Discussions on whether that is feasible are at Talk:Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Link to List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach from this article? and Talk:List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. In that discussion it has been suggested to bring this here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Response

I have become one of the main contributors to the article Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. I have recently created detailed content on BWV 1052, 1053, 1055 and 1044. I have created similar content in articles on Bach's organ music (several articles, two ongoing); on his six sonatas for obbligato harpsichord and violin (BWV 1017 and BWV 1019 so far); and on one cantata BWV 39 (the article BWV 105 was also first created by me a long time ago). I have created audio files like

Adagio BWV 1017/3 • 3:31
Adagio BWV 1019/4 • 2:49
Larghetto BWV 1055/2 • 4:39

The article on Bach's harpsichord concertos had no proper references before I arrived and was full of errors. Many of those references are in German, e.g. the multivolume series by Siegbert Rampe published by Laaber in 2013, and are only available in university libraries. As far as I am aware Francis Schonken (FS) has no access to those references. There is also a large literature on the keyboard concertos of the Bach family, with the bulk of the concertos written by Bach's sons (WFB, CPEB, JCB). Again FS seems largely unaware of that literature. The principal contributors are David Schulenberg (one of the main editors of Urtext editions of C.P.E. Bach) and, for the keyboard concertos, Jane R. Stevens. Her book "Keyboard concertos and the Bach family: evolution of a genre" was published in 2001. It charts the development of the keyboard concerto and its influence on composers like Mozart. FS does not seem to know about this book, yet has claimed to have mastered the literature in the field. He has made the assertion that Concerto transcriptions (Bach) cannot be an article. These works form two sets composed in Weimar around 1713–1714. FS has said they belong in the article on Bach's own harpsichord concertos BWV 1052–1058, compiled in Leipzig around 1738: his latest "reasoning" is that all these works are transcriptions, although he has not explained why that applies to works like BWV 1055. I have not understood his reasoning at all; he seems to be using ideas that he invented himself, a.k.a. WP:OR, which lack any coherence.

There are three main sources for this material. Richard Jones discusses the history of these concerto transcriptions in the first volume of his "The Creative Development of Johann Sebastian Bach". He uses the term "Concerto transcriptions": he explains why these arrangements, mainly of Vivaldi concertos, were made by Bach in Weimar in 1713-1714 and the influence the Venetian school had on Bach's own concerto writing. Peter Williams discusses each of the organ transcriptions in detail in his book on the Organ Music of J.S. Bach. David Schulenberg discusses each of the keyboard transcriptions in his book on the Keyboard music of J.S. Bach. The Neue Bach Ausgabe refers to these two sets of works as "Concerto arrangements" in the Bärenreiter editions.

FS has militated against an article called Concerto transcriptions (Bach), but has not given any coherent reasons.[6] A glance at his editing history in the last few months reveals that he now spends most of his time following me around to articles. I don't know why he has been doing so, but he is repeating the disruptive conduct which was first witnessed on BWV 4 and Orgelbüchlein and which resulted in his editing being restricted. At present he is arguing that we should ignore the main sources and not differentiate between Bach's keyboard reductions of the concertos of Vivaldi and others for organ (BWV 592–596) and harpsichord (BWV 972-980) and Bach's original compositions such as the Italian concerto, BWV 971 and the harpsichord concertos BWV 1052–1058. His conduct and relentless outpourings on talk pages resemble what happened on BWV 4 and its talk page. I cannot see how FS's "ideas" help the reader. He has not added any substantial useful content to wikipedia recently; and now seemingly is trying to prevent others doing so based on his own semantic sophistry and faux Bach scholarship.

So far wikipedia has drawn a clear distinction between Bach's organ and harpsichord transcriptions of other composers' works and Bach's own original compositions. That is what happens in the literature and I can see no reason to change that. Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive fork articles/essays

Having had no response here, Francis Schonken (FS) has created a series of fork articles, pushing his own point of view. Two of these fork articles concerned the content of Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. They have been changed to redirects back to the main article. Apart from pushing his own point of view in ledes, hardly any new content was added. It seems that FS is not interested in adding detail about individual concertos, but instead about making unsourced statements in the lede. These statements seem to be his own individual point of view and are not a summary of modern Bach scholarship. By creating these fork/essays, FS is acting as an amateur untrained musicologist, presenting his own home-brewed theories in wikipedia's voice. FS has consistently made no effort to research the current literature, much of which is not available on the web but only in specialist (university) libraries. FS has for example written direct commentary on Forkel's 1802 biography as if he were a musicologist himself. The topic area—the concertos of Bach—has been written about in great detail by trained musicologists: because of lost instrumental works, it is known to be an area of uncertainty where conjectures are made on the grounds of reasonableness; apart from stylistic analysis, these hypotheses have also been based on circumstantial documentary evidence. FS in general has ignored contemporary contributions of Bach scholars and instead used primary sources and invented titles (e.g. "Weimar concertos") to push his own point of view in wikipedia's voice.

Regarding the original question raised here by FS, instead of creating an article on concerto transcriptions, FS wrote an essay article on the "unaccompanied keyboard concerto," again pushing his own private theories (that Bach's 1713-1714 transcriptions of concertos by other composers and the 1735 Italian concerto, an original newly composed work, belong to the same genre). The article has now been moved to Concerto transcriptions (Bach). It was disruptive to label it otherwise.

That topic—transcriptions for harpsichord and organ of concertos by other composers—has not so far been covered on WP. All the transcriptions are covered in a comprehensive way by Richard Jones (history), Peter Williams (organ transcriptions) David Schulenberg (keyboard transcriptions), as well as a long preface by Pieter Dirksen (the editor of Breitkopf's 2010 Urtext edition). The Bach scholar Robert Marshall has written a long article suggesting that the keyboard transcriptions might originally have been intended for organ (in "JS Bach as Organist", eds Stauffer & May). Based on his contributions so far, FS is not interested in researching or adding detailed content on these works. He has chosen to create a series fork articles to push a rigid viewpoint which does not represent Bach scholarship in any way at all. Any contributions should be added in the main articles which now are:

The evolution of the keyboard concerto in the compositions of Bach and his sons is discussed in the book of Jane R. Stevens, "The Bach family and the keyboard concerto: evolution of a genre". FS has so far made no attempt to write about the purpose of the transcriptions. It is stated quite clearly in various sources—sources of which FS is aware—that Bach probably wrote them partly at the request of his employer and partly to acquaint himself with the contemporary Italian concerto, particularly the compositions of Vivaldi. As pointed out by commentators, Bach would have been able to extemporise renditions of the concertos on the organ (or other keyboard instrument) directly from the original scores. As regards the history and purpose, Marshall explains that Bach's employer in Weimar returned from a trip to Amsterdam where he is likely to have acquired the scores of the concertos and where there was an established tradition of performing transcriptions on church organs. There is a large amount of content on the transcriptions and Bach's original concertos, that is missing from wikipedia. This is valuable content for the reader. Adding fork articles to push abstruse theories, not represented in Bach scholarship in not the purpose of wikipedia. These fork articles are just misleading and confusing to the reader. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's disruption has been more widespread than I understood. He created about seven or eight new list articles to spread his own views about Bach on wikipedia. He did not create any new content. He did not bother formatting references in the standard way. He mechanically copy-pasted content into several different places.
There is a lot of valuable content missing from wikipedia on Bach's compositions. It concerns Concerto transcriptions (Bach). There are detailed accounts of each concerto transcription in the books of Schulenberg (harpsichord) and Williams (organ): not one iota of that content was transferred onto wikipedia by FS. Instead of trying to improve wikipedia and help the reader, FS created a series of list articles to hammer home his own personal views on the concertos of Bach. He has disrupted wikipedia in a major way in so doing. He decided to label the Concerto transcriptions for organ as "Organ concertos" by creating Organ concerto (Bach). He is well aware that this terminology is not used. Similarly he attenpted to write another fork article Concerto (Bach). Again it was a list with the lede an unsourced essay by FS. All of these articles—forks/essays written by a non-expert which are misleading, inaccurate and confusing to any reader—have been redirected to standard articles. I see no rationale for creating Organ concerto (Bach), beyond disruptiveness. Similarly Concerto (Bach).
It is true that an article by Christoph Wolff was published in 2016 with the title "Did Bach compose organ concertos?" in 2016. Through an article title, FS has used wikipedia to reply "yes" to that rhetorical question. Wolff's question, however, did not concern concerto transcriptions. It was an intelligent question. Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mathsci, I appreciate that you have communicated here in a neutrally worded manner, avoiding hyperbole and attack. I also appreciate that as a practicing expert in this overall subject matter (the keyboard works of Bach), you are likely much more qualified than many of us, including Francis Schonken, in discussing and writing about this material. Given Francis's behavior which has spanned many many months and which necessitated editing restrictions at one point and which continued after the editing restrictions expired, I consider that you deserve assistance and a hearing on this matter, which you have not as yet gotten here, perhaps because of the holiday season, or perhaps because of the technical and academic nature of the subject which is your expertise. I'm not taking sides here. I would like to invite two level-headed editors, Voceditenore (who edits music articles here) and Johnuniq (who neutrally opined in the early ANI thread which led to Francis's editing restrictions), to opine here if they can. I believe if these two editors (Francis Schonken and Mathsci) cannot at this point edit collaboratively and respect each other's respective expertises, then another ANI, or even an ArbCom case, may be in order. It sounds to me as if Mathsci may have legitimate accuracy and NPOV concerns about Francis's activities in this subject area. It also does sound as if Francis is targeting Mathsci's activities/expertises. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This England nominated for Featured article status

I've nominated This England (album) for Featured article status. Project members are invited to participate in the Featured article candidate discussion. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

and for deletion....

I've nominated the same article for deletion here. Project members are invited to participate in the discussion. Smerus (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mozart, K. 491, Featured Article candidate

Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) is a Featured Article candidate. An approver has suggested that a music specialist review the article. Here is the link, in case anyone has the time and inclination, in which case I would be most appreciative: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)/archive1. Thank you. Syek88 (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

cleanup assistance needed

The current listing of WP:VA included only two composers without navboxes that seem to be in need of them. Based on List of compositions by Robert Schumann and preexisting templates, I have cobbled together {{Robert Schumann}}. This entailed preparing the preexisting templates for transclusion and creating {{Schumann choral works}} and {{Schumann vocal works}}. These two templates that I created could use a once-over from people who understand both music and WP.

The other composer without a navbox was Hector Berlioz. I have added a line to {{Berlioz compositions}} and transcluded it.

I am not sure how close either of these efforts is to what would be desired, but am receptive to any changes by people with greater understanding than I.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your great efforts. Both of these composers are difficult—Schumann more than Berlioz—because both wrote many works which don't comfortably fit into the typical compositional or instrumental genres (and oy, those songs....). Nevertheless, it's brave to start such navboxes for which I commend you! - kosboot (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Those boxes look good. Thanks — Iadmc♫talk  01:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Full format for discographies

Looking at Turangalîla-Symphonie#Recordings, I see that Jerome Kohl added a {{Full}} tag to each entry (over 4 years ago!), and asked for format and catalog number, among other comments. Fair enough, and I was about to add the two in my collection, but what's the preferred form of punctuation, parenthesis, or font? The Guideline/Recordings section links to three style guides, none of which are prescriptive or applicable. The examples cited in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Discographies don't have format or catalog number anyway. Is there a consensus or even an external style guide for how to present format, label, and catalog? Something like:

  • Myung-Whun Chung, Orchestre de l'Opéra Bastille, Yvonne Loriod (piano) and Jeanne Loriod (ondes martenot) – Deutsche Grammophon 1990, CD (431 781-2) (supervised by Messiaen, and first recording of the revised version)

(or DGG, or Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft?)

If the "label" is someone like BMG re-issuing another house's original, then how to specify that? And I'm not sure why the conductor is bolded anyway.

If the answer is "no need for consistency", that's OK too. David Brooks (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked the literature lately, but the last time I was paying attention to such things there was general agreement that discography formatting was still a wide-open area. The Chicago Manual used to make the point (and perhaps still does) that the important thing is to be consistent within any particular discography, and to provide whatever information is essential for accurate identification. This includes medium (CD, MP3 file, Edison cylinder, etc.), publisher, any sort of identifying numbers (catalog number is usually the easiest, though matrix numbers and the like may be necessary for archive materials). I have not myself been consistent about formatting from one article to another, but I tend to follow the Library of Congress layout, mainly because the LoC WorldCat is a convenient source. Depending on the type of article, it may be more convenient to make album titles, author (composer) names, record label, or some other feature the primary entry. In the Messiaen case, where the subject is a single composition, it makes sense to use conductors' names for this purpose, though they might instead be listed chronologically by recording date. Catalog numbers should be of first issue, though reissues can be noted at the end of the entry. Just my opinion, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jerome Kohl:: That sounds good, but can you, or anyone else listening, point to or transcribe the LOC layout, either by specification or by example? Perhaps we can even make it a suggested format, while still honoring the current "your choice, but be consistent" rule. About catalog numbers - I actually have no idea if the random set of digits plastered on the CD case is the same as the catalog number, and I suppose for full credit you'd have to go to the publisher (hopefully, the publisher's website). David Brooks (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The current LOC layout is a bit elaborate for use in discographies, since it now displays in table format, under a global title or author-title entry. The basic idea is composer-title (or album title); contents; performer(s); medium/specifications (e.g., LP, 12 in., 33⅓ rpm, stereo); label and catalog number. To this I often append location:publisher, year, which in the LOC entry appears at the beginning of the entry, in its current form. For examples of some variants I have used myself, see Violin Sonata No. 3 (Enescu)#Discography (full listings, with author name treated as part of the album title); Quatre études de rythme#Discography (chronological, non-italicised author entries mixed with album-title entries), Zeitmaße#Discography (chronological, with catalogue number given first, with composer and work title taken for granted and shortened data for recorded medium). As I said, I tend to adapt my formatting to the needs of the individual article but, as you can see, I am not consistent from one article to another. When doing chronological lists, I usually insert the venue and date of recording between the performer information and the medium, though LOC puts such information in the miscellaneous notes at the end of their tables.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I use a table format, see for example Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which, btw, needs a FAC review or two, - much appreciated as 2 February is the date hoped for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the inputs. The table structure seems heavyweight to me, although good for standalone articles like The Dream of Gerontius discography. But I'll note that neither that article, nor Mit Fried, has catalog numbers. I'll experiment with my own layout. Jerome Kohl, you seem to have incorrect italic markup on the 5th bullet under Quatre études. David Brooks (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks:fyi {{Ping|Jerome Kohl}} for @Jerome Kohl: — Iadmc♫talk  00:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You can use {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, etc to help with formatting which they handle automatically. They are found in the editing tools under "cite" but have different interfaces in the visual editor and the old code editor. Hope this helps — Iadmc♫talk  00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
OTOH, I should have looked at what you were actually trying to do... These templates may not help you much. And there is no {{cite recording}} even though everything else under the sun has a cite template. No idea, then.
I'd just shove the stuff in and let others quibble about formatting. The important thing is to have the info. Formatting is pretty low on the list priorities for now, IMO — Iadmc♫talk  01:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks: Thanks for alerting me to the markup error in the Quatre études discography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Signpost interview with User:Graham87

Regular visitors to this page will recognize User:Graham87. What many of us may not know is that he's blind. He's interviewed in the latest edition of The Signpost. - kosboot (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Great interview. Great editor — Iadmc♫talk  00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, guys! Graham87 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting article, and good to read a little background on one of our valued editors. --Deskford (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, well said, Deskford, and thank you, Graham, for all your help, beginning with avoiding links to the German Wikipedia, then all these page moves of Bach cantatas and hymns. I also remember smiling together about Gerlinde Sämann's (Google translate alleged) "tea rodent age" (Tee-nager-alter) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oboe-bassoon-piano trio

I just came across this article, Oboe-bassoon-piano trio. Strange title, strange content, with the works commissioned by one particular ensemble listed first, while the work after which they name themselves, Poulenc's, appears among others, in no apparent order. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say this a candidate for AfD. Firstly, there is no source given (and I know of no source) for the term used as the title. Secodnyl, its clearly aimed as a promo for the Poulenc Trio ensemble, listing a lot of non-notable works by not very notable or non-notable composers. Poulenc's Trio is the only notable work in this format it appears. Maybe it should be a redirect to Trio (music) with a mention in that article of Poulenc's trio and that other composers have written works for that ensemble?--Smerus (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, met the thing when I wanted to enter Poulenc's work to Piano trio repertoire where it doesn't fit because that list is only for the standard scoring. What would you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the article exists to promote one particular group and the works they have commissioned. Several of the works listed are apparently not for the stated oboe-bassoon-piano line-up, but for variants of it with added or substituted instruments. Of the works listed, only those by Poulenc and Glinka seem to have any claim to notability, and the Glinka is actually for clarinet, bassoon and piano. So yes, I would support either deleting or redirecting to the Poulenc. --Deskford (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice also that Piano trio clearly includes combinations other than violin-cello-piano, so I think this should be added to the Piano trio repertoire in a separate section. Probably just one: "Other combinations", because there are very few I think (but I might be wrong). Poulenc's also desperately needs translating from Frenglish. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

IMSLP has scores related to Piano Sonata No.16 in C major, K.545 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus).

Currently, links to IMSLP are made via {{IMSLP}}, which adds an inline entry under "External links." I think it would be a good idea to create a sidebox instead to give it more prominence, just like {{Commons}} or {{Wikiquote}}. Although it is technically not a sister project, it is a free-content wiki of material that fills a void in the Wikimedia family, and it's even so well integrated on Wikipedia that we have a scores: interwiki link for it, e.g. scores:Piano Sonata No.16 in C major, K.545 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus). What do you guys think? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – IMSLP is not only not a sister project, it has become infested with advertisements and has made access a bit more difficult now, (almost) requiring paid registration. Interwiki links exists for many sites (see m:Interwiki map) and their mere existence doesn't make them sister projects. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Sounds like a good idea, but as Michael Bednarek points out, IMSLP is run by a benevolent dictator (arguably the best form of government yet discovered, if the most fragile), and is not a community project. There are also other such projects, such as CPDL, the Choral (not-restricted-to) Public Domain Library, which would also have a case for appearance. I think it might be better to consider a generic "Get scores" box. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I have no opinion one way or another. I think Michael's claim that IMSLP is "infested with advertisements" is unfair - I have not seen any advertisements on IMSLP. On the other hand, its new policy requiring paid membership could well be a showstopper. I am a contributor, so I get free lifetime membership, and maybe that's why I don't see any ads. Also, Imaginatorium is right about the site being run by a benevolent dictator. On the third hand, you have to weigh all that against the fact that IMSLP is an incredibly valuable resource. Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm also a contributor (both of content and monetarily) so I don't see advertisements. But IMSLP is still an external link. Since WP takes great pains to clarify what's part of the encyclopedia and what's not, I think that should be preserved. - kosboot (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone with Imaginatorium's suggestion and created {{scores}} which allows you to add one or more boxes, where you pass in the page name as an arg keyed by the name of the website (imslp or cpdl). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal - Chamber Music of Beethoven Template

I noticed that someone recently created a unified template for Schubert's Chamber Music and thought that it might be a good idea to create something similar for Beethoven. Any thoughts on whether this would be a good idea or not? Graham1973 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Beethoven wrote fewer works than Schubert (if one counts each song not from a cycle an individual work). To me, it would seem more practical to have a navbox of all Beethoven's works. That said, I have nothing against one devoted to B's chamber music, assuming that it will eventually be subsumed into a larger "works" navbox. - kosboot (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Graham1973:@Kosboot: Actually, Beethoven wrote a ton of chamber music. There are the string quartets plus the Große Fuge and 2 preludes and fugues for string quartet (see {{Beethoven string quartets}}), the piano trios and the Trio for Piano, Flute and Bassoon (Beethoven) ({{Beethoven piano trios}}), three string quintets and other bits for that grouping and the Quintet for Piano and Winds (Beethoven), plus the string trios, and numerous other things like octets and septets... Not to mention the sonatas/movements for piano and violin/cello/horn/flute/viola, if they are to be included. 85 works according to List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven § Chamber music... a lot more than Schubert. This might work, actually, and I encourage you to do it! BTW, a unified template for all of Beethoven's work would be enormous! — Iadmc♫talk  16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_67&oldid=1191658203"