Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80

Hérold or Herold?

I'm awfully sorry about this, and I hate to be a nuisance, but I'd be grateful for views on yet another orthographic question, on the talk page of Ferdinand Hérold (or possibly Herold). Tim riley talk 16:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Even the Library of Congress prescribes an accent for the English-language libraries that follow it (several tens of thousands). - kosboot (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I think also that it is a normal respect for foreign languages to keep their accented characters or other special signs, especially now that unicode characters allow them rather easily. I remember the time when computers allowed only less than 128 different characters (ASCII – none of you were born then), but that is long over.
The French Society for Music Analysis has a vice-president called Hérold (with an accent): see https://www.sfam.org/nouveau/CA.php. The real problem, for most of us, is to have a keyboard that allows typing accents, but that should not be such a problem today (my own keyboard allows such characters as ǎ, Ç and ç, ō, ł, ñ, æ, ij, etc., but I imagine that that is not so frequent). On the other hand, for proper names, it is true that people tend to forget the accent in their own name, because they are too often forgotten anyway. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes - but - as I report on the FH talk page - I looked up his original publications on IMSLP (e.g. here and here - and here is a manuscript with signature lacking an accent) - they are all without acute accent......--Smerus (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for these thoughts. As I have noted on the article talk page, I think I can see a way to combine both possibilities reasonably satisfactorily, and will seek further views when I've knocked my draft into shape. (I see the French Wikipédia page on the street named after the composer says, but alas without citation, that his Alsatian name was generally spelled without an accent in the 19th century, and that the official nomenclature of the city of Paris has retained that usage, though with a certain inconsistency in places.) – Tim riley talk 12:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:George Copeland query

Hi all. I am currently working on an article on the pianist and pedagogue Carlo Buonamici (see this blog post for a general overview on him). In doing a New York Times archive search, I came across George Copeland's obituary which only names Carlo Buonamici as his teacher. (see here) Imagine my surprise, when the Copeland article doesn't even mention the one teacher named in his obit, but names a completely different teacher, Giuseppe Buonamici, as his teacher (in addition to a bunch of other instructors). It's cited to an offline reference which makes me hesitant to remove it, but I am questioning whether the original poster confused Giuseppe Buonamici for Carlo Buonamici. It is possible he studied with both, but considering Carlo Buonamici was teaching in the Boston area during the time of Copeland's formative years and the NYT obit specifically names Carlo Buonamici as his principal instructor on the piano I am concerned there may be some factual errors in the George Copeland article as it stands at the moment. I have started a query at Talk:George Copeland. To avoid forking the conversation please comment at the talk page discussion.4meter4 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

AFD for List of classical music in literature

Thoughts would be welcome at the AFD for this odd list: List of classical music in literature. Aza24 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Philip Ewell: Erasing colorasure in American music theory, and confronting demons from our past

Last month Philip Ewell wrote a blog post for RILM on confronting racism in classical music. For each day of February (Black History Month in the United States), he listed a black musician (mostly composers) and wrote of their coverage (how many articles) in RILM abstracts, RILM's music encyclopedias, the Index to Printed Music and MGG (he did not include Grove/Oxford). As a way to think about remediating Wikipedia, I added how many words their Wikipedia article contained (when there was one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosboot (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Name Dates Rilm
Abstracts		 Rilm
Enc		 Ind.
Printed
Mus.		 MGG Wikipedia
(words)
John Thomas Douglass 1847-1886 1 807
Julia Perry 1924-1979 7 13 7 981
Valerie Capers 1935- 3 6 7 493
José White Lafitte 1836–1918 10 431
George Walker (composer) 1922-2018 89 44 4 1484
Undine Smith Moore 1904-1989 16 13 10 2754
Horace Clarence Boyer 1935-2009 41 60 488
Zenobia Powell Perry 1908-2004 7 6 2 1338
Henry F. Williams 1813-1903 3 5 7 1203
Margaret Bonds 1913-1972 27 15 12 3536
Will Marion Cook 1869-1944 68 53 4 1 1842
Carl Rossini Diton 1886-1962 3 12 1 405
Calvin Bernard Grimes 1939-2011 1
Francis Johnson (composer) 1792-1844 28 29 53 1140
Joseph Douglass 1871-1935 1 11 418
Mary Lou Williams 1910-1981 110 31 15 3619
Roland Wiggins 1932-2019 1123
Olly Wilson 1937-2018 50 14 1 432
Harry Lawrence Freeman 1869-1954 6 4 1678
Jewel Thompson 1935- 4
Clarence Cameron White 1880-1960 9 6 1331
James Reese Europe 1881-1919 29 2 1 1723
Hazel Harrison 1883-1969 6 8 421
Robert Nathaniel Dett 1882-1943 73 28 46 1 2567
Dorothy Rudd Moore 1940- 8 10 2 654
Lucius Wyatt 1938- 11 7 350
Hale Smith 1925-2009 28 13 4 657
Kermit Moore 1929-2013 5 10 199
Interesting statistics Kosbot, many thanks for assembling them. I've just listened to the first three movements of George Walker's Lilacs—absolutely stunning. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I tweaked the table layout a bit (removing some rather less useful layout instruction etc), and made it sortable; e.g., sorting by the last column shows which ones would seem most in need of (expansion of) an article. E.g. it would seem Lucius Wyatt is currently more deserving an extra effort than Roland Wiggins. Suggestion: although a different topic than the #Philip Ewell section above I don't know whether merging this into that section would be a good idea? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorting was a good call. I'd say the above is mostly about Philip Ewell himself; though those these are his suggestions, we seem to be discussing our coverage on Black composers mostly outside of the context of Ewell here, so perhaps having separate sections is appropriate. Speaking of Wyatt, I'm not sure if he is the same person as the Lucius R. Wyatt grove author, but it seems so? Frankly—though admittedly with little research—I'm not sure if Wyatt, Thompson or Grimes are even notable enough for WP; they're all music theorist professors, and it seems like they have scarce coverage online. Aza24 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Seems like Wyatt regularly contributed to Black Music Research Journal – Maybe if some of the main contributors to that publication get some content in that article, then we could Lucius R. Wyatt redirect to the paragraph or section on this musicologist in that article (maybe not even as a permanent solution, if notability for a stand-alone article on the musicologist could be established). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Just created a stub for Lucius R. Wyatt. Those RILM encyclopedias really help! - kosboot (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking good! I'm in the process of expanding John Thomas Douglass. In doing so I stumbled across some fantastic work on Tammy L. Kernodle by @SyLvRuUz:, perhaps they might find this thread useful. Aza24 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Greetings @Aza24: and @Kosboot:. Thank you for looping me in here. Having this table from Ewell is an incredibly helpful resource for expanding these articles on black musicians. I will be happy to contribute to that effort in the coming weeks. Kosboot, I saw your above suggestion for creating a page for Ewell. I too was surprised (and then not surprised) that he doesn't have a WP article. I would be happy to help with that effort too. I am juggling a few other research projects right now, but expect to be able to help out by early May. I look forward to our continued connections. For now, take care. SyLvRuUz (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds great, thank you! I think I've added just about all there is available to John Thomas Douglass, I may even nominate for GA—not sure. Aza24 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello again @Aza24: and @Kosboot:. Update: I have begun a sandbox article on Ewell and hope to submit it soon. Will keep you posted. SyLvRuUz (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: and @Kosboot:. I just submitted a draft for review Draft:Philip_Ewell. I welcome your thoughts! SyLvRuUz (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Re. "created a stub for Lucius R. Wyatt" – @Kosboot: afaics notability has not been established yet:
  • not in WP:GNG sense: the entire article depends on a single source, which is hardly enough for the "... multiple sources are generally expected" condition of GNG.
  • nor in WP:NPROF sense: e.g., Wyatt has been department chair for many years (not even mentioned in the article), but this is just below what is needed to pass the 6th criterion of NPROF; it is possible the subject would pass other criteria of this guideline, e.g. those criteria based on the impact Wyatt made within or outside of his discipline, but none of that is even asserted in the article, leave alone referenced to reliable sources. What I'm mostly missing is some assertion they had an impact on how Black Music (or whatever the most politically correct expression for that) is perceived. "Black" (or any other expression denoting the topic Wyatt most often published about) isn't even mentioned in the body of the article before the "Selected writings" section (where it is in every entry without explanation). In short, Wyatt's claim to fame is all but clear from the article as written. Being a stub is of course no excuse for that: a stub should, if anything, make a claim to fame clear.
There are other problems with the stub, e.g. Wyatt is now marked as a "Florida A&M University alumni", which afaik he is not and there's no reference to a reliable source for that either – so this is verging into WP:BLP territory. Also, that Wyatt retired in 2007 (see p. 2 of this primary source) is not even mentioned in the article. As is, the article should be marked {{multiple issues}}, which I'll proceed with forthwith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
(Continuing on the notability of the Wyatt article): the Carol J. Oja article now contains "She collaborated with Lucius Wyatt (Prairie View A&M University) to found the Cultural Diversity Committee of the American Musicological Society" – alas, without a reference, so should in fact be removed from the Oja BLP until there's a reference to a reliable source for the information. None of Wyatt's possible involvement with the AMS, or any of its committees, is mentioned in the current Wyatt article. Anyhow, had a look at WP:NMUSIC whether notability could be established with the help of that guidance. Alas, again, it all seems rather "nearly there but not exactly" like with the NPROF guidance mentioned above. E.g., the fifth criteria for composers, "Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria," has not exactly been met afaics: Oja is a musicologist (not really a composer); and does a "collaboration" signify an "influence"? And remains anyhow a reference to be found for the collaboration on said committee before inclusion in a BLP... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Added a ref to the Oja article for the AMS committee collaboration with Wyatt. 07:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with Francis, Wyatt's notability for WP purposes doesn't seem to be met. Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The article specifically says he graduated from Florida A&M with a bachelor of science, reference to the Southern entry; so I don't understand your issue with that and will add back the category. As far as notability, I don't disagree. But that's exactly the issue Ewell is raising. You should be trying to help raise the article instead of tearing down what others are trying to do. - kosboot (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops, got the Florida A&M mixed up with Prairie View A&M, my apologies, should have looked more carefully. As for "trying to help raise the article" – I tried. Found myself improving the Carol J. Oja article instead, while finding clearer sources for content there. For example, I tried to find from when to when Wyatt was co-chair of the Committee on Cultural Diversity of the American Musicological Society. Based on (some on the matter rather vague) primary sources I suppose that was "around" the first half of the 1990s, but couldn't find anything more specific, etc. Besides, if this is an article that might be up for deletion soon, I don't see why a lot of effort should go into it. IMHO the "doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's notability standards" needs to be addressed first before asking anyone to put more effort in this. On the other hand, my suggestion above: find another article which may usefully have some biographical content on Wyatt, and redirect the Wyatt link to there is imho still a more safe road for now. That's the route I followed for Carol J. Oja's husband: Mark Tucker now redirects to that article. For Wyatt I'm thinking now that starting a separate article on the Committee on Cultural Diversity (of the AMS), with some biographical detail on its founders might be even better than my proposal above (which was: expanding Black Music Research Journal with such material and redirect Wyatt there). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Similar to the above, what about a "Frequent contributors" section in the Black Music Research Journal article and moving (probably trimming a bit) Wyatt's bio there? Aza24 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@SyLvRuUz: (It's always best to add notes to the bottom of the section, not in the middle where they can be very difficult to locate.) Do you want me/us to make emendations on the draft (which is a very good start), or do you just want to comment on it? (Btw, every experienced Wikipedian that I've encountered does not like the system of submitting a draft. I've never used it myself.) - kosboot (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kosboot: Thanks for the tips. You are welcome to make any changes you think are necessary. This is only my second article, and my first was through the article wizard. Do you recommend I bypass the draft process by simply moving it to the article space? SyLvRuUz (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I highly recommend skipping the AFC (articles for creation) process. Some people create a stub and then add on to it. I prefer to construct something more or less substantive in my sandbox and then I copy it to the mainspace. So I'll look over the article again during the weekend. One immediate suggestion I was thinking of is the lead. In addition to his current position, I'd want to add something like "Philip Ewell is known for..." (I was thinking of wording that wouldn't be too controversial) "...is known for raising issues of race in musicology and music theory" - or something like that. - kosboot (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kosboot: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I went ahead and moved it to the Article space as of 2021-06-02. I think that the lead is sufficient as it is but welcome any changes. If folks are interested in learning more, the rest of the page will help out. I've linked to Ewell on the Journal of Schenkerian Studies article, and could use help wikifying other pages that may mention Ewell. Thanks for all your help. SyLvRuUz (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks very nice and substantive, SyLvRuUz. The only change I was thinking of was adding a line to the lead about his "white racial frame." I would be the first one to say that's what he's most know for, but I fear it would limit people's understanding of his work particularly that which does not deal with racial issues. - kosboot (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Italics for minor works

User:Intforce and I had a discussion at Talk:Polka Italienne about the use of italics for minor works (the polka is about 2–3 minutes long). I pointed to MOS:TITLE#Minor works and wide-spread practice, Intforce pointed to MOS:MUSIC#Classical music titles which argues that "true titles" should be in italics. (The 1st example given there is poorly chosen.) To me, the concept of a "true title" is not clear. MOS:MUSIC also refers to MOS:TITLE which seems clearer to me. Intforce, who also changed the similar case of "Für Elise" to italics, then suggested to raise the matter here. Does MOS:MUSIC#Classical music titles need clarification? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I commented on a related issue here a while back. Perhaps others may find it relevant. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for a reminder of my apples ;) - There will be borderline cases. Let's remember that the whole thing is to distinguish titles from prose. Another question is what "minor" means: short? ... less important? - I understand that titles in sentence case - for example hymns ("Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt") are good to have in quotation marks, while I'd understand Für Elise because it looks like title case, and is famous. Some short motets will be minor works, but Jesu, meine Freude certainly is not. (Comments in peer review welcome.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the minor works guideline it looks like small independent works aren't included unless it's something like an album leaf. Just because it's a short polka doesn't make it 'minor' though the question of it could be a 'generic' title is perhaps a different issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
MOS:MINORWORK does not relate to minor works (no such thing if there's an article for it), but other short musical compositions. I think cases like e.g. "Für Elise" and "Polka italienne" are quite clear cut. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
What appears to be considered "minor" in MOS:MINORWORK is a work that is part of a larger one, as a chapter in a book, an article in a journal or, in music, "Songs, instrumentals, arias, numbers in a musical, movements of longer musical piece, album tracks"; it is by mistake, I think, that this entry adds "other short musical compositions": these should be considered "minor" (or treated as such) only if included in something longer. —Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that other short musical compositions is a mistake in this guideline. It's consistent with MOS:NOITALIC. I know that this principle is not universally followed in all articles here (what is?), but I think it's the nub of the argument and analogous to the other listed non-musical works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
In my own writing I follow the guidelines set forth by D. Kern Holoman in his Writing About Music: A Style Sheet (although the publications I write for have varying house styles and will amend my work accordingly). His guide makes no distinction between "major" and "minor" works. Let me quote some passages which may be helpful in this discussion:
  • "Generic Titles. Generic titles are those, in English, that use such describers as symphony, concerto, fantasia, and the like, often with an identifying opus or catalog number appended. These titles are given in roman type."
  • "Titles assigned by the composer (usually in their original language) are given in italics."
  • "Song Titles. Songs as freestanding compositions are rendered in italic. . . The same is true of named instrumental works." --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Question while trying to clean up Category:Lists of string quartets by composer

I've been cleaning up Category:Lists of compositions by composer and found Category:Lists of string quartets by composer which is something of a mixed bag. String Quartets (Ligeti), String Quartets (Schoenberg), String quartets (Waterhouse) and (considering he comp lists for all his generes) List of string quartets by Joseph Haydn seem fine.

However, I'm left thinking that String Quartets (Mendelssohn), String Quartets (Schumann) and List of string quartets by Louis Spohr should be merged to their respective comp lists for the time being. I'm also leaning towards merging for List of string quartets by Béla Bartók, as while it does have references, I'm not sure a list of influenced composers means much. Thoughts appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Support: Your plan sounds sensible. No objections from me. No need to have any hesitations with merging the Bartók article, by the way. It more than qualified for merging according to wp:NOTCATALOG and wp:INDISCRIMINATE. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input CurryTime, I just put merge proposals on the articles themselves. Any other page watchers have any insight? Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright, given no objects and the (I think) uncontroversial proposal, I've gone ahead with the merges. Cheers. Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Hyatt King

Hi all, I just created a quick stub on Alexander Hyatt King after I ran across his obituary in The Independent. There's a lot more that could be written on him based on the obituary alone if anyone is looking for a project. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

One more thing, the wikipedia page on the British Library Sound Archive states that Patrick Saul founded it in 1955, but King's obituary says he was the founder in 1948. I was going to add him to that article, but stopped when I saw the discrepancy. That's a mystery that needs some investigating. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this 4Meter4, just added a bit. Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Elgar Symphonies

I have raised a question about the Elgar symphonies template on its talk page, where editors may possibly like to comment. By no means a matter of life and death, but worth considering, I think. Tim riley talk 19:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joseph Szigeti

I have nominated Joseph Szigeti for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:All music pupils by teacher

I just stumbled onto this category page (original author User:Hyacinth) and it appears to have several issues. The last edit was made nearly seven years ago by User:Opus33, who referenced a discussion at this talk page. I assume the relevant discussion is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 50#"Pupils and pupils of pupils of X".

It appears that in an effort to solve several categorization problems, they may have overlooked a few things in regards to the category page in question.

  • The lone parent category was changed from hidden=yes to hidden=no, yet the page still has this note at the top:
This hidden category is added to pages by Music pupils by teacher, it is intended to provide an easier to navigate list that, though large, is not a tangled net like the category structure.

Any clarification or thoughts on what changes should be made is appreciated. --DB1729 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

DB1729, I see no real reason for such a category, especially for the reasons you've given. I would recommend nominating for deletion and then moving all the categories it currently encompasses to the parent "Category:Music pupils by teacher". Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Aza24 I'm hoping it's that straight forward. Having read through that 2014 discussion once more, I would like if at least one person from that discussion chime in here before we do anything; just to make sure the first step is in the right direction. Already pinged two above and now JackofOz, Kosboot, Stfg, Michael Bednarek if any would like to offer input. DB1729 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. My energy for this subject is now exhausted. The proposals above are reasonable, but doing nothing is not going to make the sky fall. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support deleting "All" from the title, which would make the category name consistent with most of what we see on Wikipedia. No further action should be needed at this time. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Schenker's racial views

Hello, I have created a discussion on the matter of Heinrich Schenker's racism at Talk:Heinrich Schenker#Mention of racism in the lead, to which other editors may like to contribute. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

<score> is back

{ \set Staff.midiInstrument = #"trumpet" \set Score.tempoHideNote = ##t \tempo 4 = 110 \key d \major d''4. a'8 b' a' r4 }

It has been noted here several times that <score> was broken. After a little more than one year, it's back now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles about classical compositions by Ibero-American authors

Hi there. I'm here from WikiProject Latin music to inform anyone who places the Classical music banner on behalf of this project. Classical music. Classical music composed by Ibero-American musicians fall under the scope of the Latin music project as well. While the Latin music project tends only to focus on music in Spanish or Portuguese, in the case of classical music, compositions in others languages (if it's not instrumental) may be included in the Latin music project scope but only if the composer is of Ibero-American origin. I personally will not be tagging articles about Ibero-American classical compositions that aren't in Spanish or Portuguese, but if any editor who is working on them wishes to include the Latin music project scope, I have no objections in them doing so. Again, this is just for anyone places project banners on article talk pages for this WikiProject. Erick (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Byron and Tennyson quotations in Elgar's In the South

I have raised a point on which I am puzzled at the talk page of the article on In the South (Alassio) and would be glad of suggestions there, if anyone has thoughts on the matter. It raises the question of what is a reliable source, and I am in some doubt in that case. – Tim riley talk 16:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Classical music vs classical music

There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Classical_music that I think members of this project should see – and about which they should give their opinion. The first recent question (I mean, similar questions already were asked close to ten years ago) was whether the article should not be renamed "Western classical music"; it later turned about the "roots" of classical music, then about "Classical music vs classical period" and, lastly, about "Classical music" (with a capital initial) vs "classical music" (without). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Input needed at category deletion discussions

Category:Jewish composers and Category:Catholic composers is up for deletion. All opinions welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 27.4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Topic of potential interest

I raised a topic of potential interest to the project at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Douglasburton and bruceduffie.com. Please weigh-in there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Score error-tracking category

As noted above, score has been fixed but some features that previously worked are now rejected. Problems are reported in Category:Pages with score rendering errors. At the moment, the only article with an error is Symphony No. 6 (Bruckner) which shows "Unable to compile LilyPond input file" at seven locations. I'm hoping someone here can fix the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Il Seminario Musicale

Hello, I like to know if there is any problem if I add the discography for Il Seminario Musicale to the english wikipedia.

I added it to the spanish wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Seminario_Musicale but the article has been marked for speedy deletion (they consider that the ensemble is not relevant). It will be deleted at any moment like was deleted the Gérard Lesne (in sp) one a few hours ago (the singer is not relevant either...).

Basically, I spent several hours checking every single disc in my own collection and in places like Discogs, Allmusic, MusicBrainz, etc. I checked personally at least the images of the cover and the back of the booklets and the discs themselves, to make sure all the info was correct, inluding the publication dates.

I think the discography is quite complete for the Ensemble. It doesn't include the rest of the Gérard Lesne records for other groups (they was in the GL deleted article).

I think it is a pity that everything is lost, but at least I'd like to keep the discography work in some place...

So, is there any problem or inconvenient if I add it to the english wikipedia? I don't want to have more problems... Thank you. Arcadelt Mouton (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm blest if I can see how an ensemble with more than 24 published recordings to their credit can be dismissed as not notable. There are numerous reviews of their performances in the learned journals on JSTOR, mostly in Early Music but one, at least, in The Musical Times. I see no reason why they should not have a discography here. Tim riley talk 20:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with Tim above. The only thing I would advise, Arcadelt Mouton, is to avoid Discogs (it's an unreliable source due to being user-inputted), and to make sure you include your sources in the article. Aza24 (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
These days, when mentioning recordings I generally dig out the OCLC numbers from WorldCat (e.g. this entry). Tim riley talk 07:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Tim riley and Aza24. I'd include only the discography. Many of the info included in the main section of the spanish article was from the booklet of the discs, what at this point, I don't know if they can be consider a primary source, so I am not going to modify that part. In Discogs, you can see, for most recordings, images of the front and the back, where you can check with your own eyes the interpreters, the recording dates, the year of the publication and the signature of the diferent editions of a particular recording. That was what I did, not copying the information from the database, but checking the images one by one by myself. Aside Discogs, I revised other places where I could check images directly or my own disc collection. I can include a Worldcat reference for every recording, but including boxes, they are about 40, and many of them with several editions over the years (with different signature). It will make the referece section very long, maybe the half of the article. But I don't mind to include it, if this is the way to go. Are there any examples of an ensemble or group with a developed and referenced discography that I can take as a template? Or some rule page that specify a format for discographies? Arcadelt Mouton (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There are a couple of Featured Lists you might like to look at as possible examples: Vladimir Horowitz discography and Oregon Symphony discography. Tim riley talk 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It seems like it will take a little longer than I expected. I'll probably do it first on my sandbox and once everything is ok, I'll move it to the article. Thanks again Tim. Arcadelt Mouton (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Those two are among the crème de la crème – Featured Lists – and you are not obliged to aim for that level of perfection if you don't feel like it. Many of us settle for much of the time for solid, reliable but unstarry work. Whatever route you take, please feel completely free to ping me if I can be of any help. Tim riley talk 20:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Tim, you are very kind. I will probably ask you at some point about the sources that can be considered reliable and which ones are not. Arcadelt Mouton (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Recently passed away: Igor Oistrakh

Hi all, I've just added some to violinist Igor Oistrakh's article (the son of the legendary David Oistrakh), who just passed away. The sources are all there, if anyone wants to add some, there's certainly more to say! Aza24 (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Whitty

Project members may wish to comment.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Which parameters count for symphonies?

A discussion is going on at Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) about which parameters to fill for {{infobox musical composition}}. We may want to discuss for that particular - unusual - symphony, but perhaps also here in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

articles on individual organs

I'veencoutnereda number of drafts like Draft:Melbourne Town Hall Organ. For all major instruments like this , there are probably multiple sources--I gather the main book on the subject is thevarious editions of Hopkins & Rimbault [1], which could probably use an article of its own. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi DGG - I'm not up on organology, but the book by RImbault (died 1877) is just a reprint with a new introduction. There are other books, undoubtedly more comprehensive in their coverage. - kosboot (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Dubé (musician)

Project members may wish to comment. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Rotari

Project members may wish to comment. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

I find that the archiving of earlier discussions goes too fast for this page. Archive 77 concerns discussions from June to September 2021 – less than a month ago! Was the last word said about these discussions? I don't think so. Is such archiving systematic in WP pages? I think to recently have seen talk pages where nothing was archived since more than ten years. Archiving pages may make the consultation easier, but it certainly terminates discussions that might be worth continuing. Could User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III be slowed down? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The archive frequency was set to 40 days (Biblical?), which is indeed a bit short. I now extended it to 90 days. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A Contentious AfD

If anyone in this project can help out with precise notability guidelines for contemporary classical musicians, please consider contributing to this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Agranovich. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Bradley Joseph

I have nominated Bradley Joseph for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Recently I heard (off-wiki) that an editor's edits were reverted simply because the sources were not in English. I thought that was incomprehensibly ridiculous so I posted to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. One editor responded, essentially justifying that argument. I still find it incomprehensible, especially for a project like this which heavily depends on non-English sources. If you are inclined, I encourage you to post to that thread (hopefully supporting the notion that non-English sources are valid). - kosboot (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Have chipped in, but Kosboot and Smerus are ahead of me, and between them have said all that needs saying, I think, to demolish the argument that foreign sources won't do. Nonetheless, I echo Kosboot's encouragement to add comments on that talk page. The more the merrier. Tim riley talk 16:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
One reason why Kosboot repeats this question here perhaps is that articles on classical music (and theory) may be particularly concerned, in view of recent attacks against European languages in music theory. Such attacks are among the most risible I have ever heard of. It goes without saying that Western music and Western music theory are best studied in Western languages. There are contributors to WP whose mother tongue is not English. Should they also be refused? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The article 20th century music

I have just come across Template:Western world, which led me to notice the article 20th century music. While I do find the missing hyphen (removed in October 2020 without any consensus and with a headless edit summary, which is not consistent with the hyphen usage in articles like 20th-century Western painting and 20th-century classical music) to be an eyesore, I'm also concerned that its content is all over the place and hardly appears to be being looked after, which has resulted in a patchwork of trivia, original research and empty "sections". While one would expect 20th-century music to be its primary (if not sole) focus, the lead's third paragraph opens with a discussion of Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Berlioz. I feel that the article includes multiple violations of WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, though it's hard to put a finger on all that is bugging me about it. There are also some formatting/syntax issues, such as the string "21st Century Music", which comes right before the "Notes" section (and could be the result of vandalism or a mangled visual edit).

As this article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects, others should probably be alerted to its existence and present state. Its inclusion in the "Western world" template is also problematic, as it may give the impression that 20th-century music was endemic to Western countries. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Basically the whole thing could be deleted on the grounds of WP:OR. The lead is an OP essay without references to support it. As an article it is a complete hotch-potch and performs no useful function afai can see. There is already in existence a not unreasonable article 20th-century classical music - and the other sections have not unreasonable articles of their own. --Smerus (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is a painful article to read through. I am fairly certain that there is no uniform and academic periodization of "20th-century music", which varies so much around the world that it would probably be an impossible periodization anyways. I don't know that it could make it through AFD (though you could try), where uniformed keeps will be given be users that know nothing of the topic. Perhaps it should be boldly redirected or manually deleted with a DAB page? A name change may be possible... though I don't know what it would be. Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

OK I have been WP:BOLD. Nnow we need to find and admin who can change back the title to include a hyphen. Feel free of course to add any articles you think ought to be there - I deliberately didn't include polka from the original article as it is scarcely central to the topic.--Smerus (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It indeed is much better, Smerus. Yet, I am somewhat puzzled to see "World music" relegated in the section "Folk music". This relates to a point already discussed (but unsolved) in the Classical music talk pages. Shouldn't "Art music" be renamed as "Western art music"? The problem also exists in 20th-century classical music." — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I would agree ---Smerus (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As some misguided fellow has now reverted back to the old rubbish article, I have taken this matter to the article talk page Talk:20th_century_music#Reform_of_this_article - see y'all there!--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

A new FAC

A new (new to me, anyway) editor has an article on Respighi's Sei pezzi per pianoforte up for FA. Aza24 and I have commented, and I think comments from anyone else who frequents this page will be welcomed by the nominator and the FAC coordinators. Tim riley talk 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Beethoven review in the June Preston article

I’d appreciate some other opinions, whatever they are, at Talk:June Preston#Beethoven review. Please read the review here: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92051916/choral-work-marks-symphony-concert/ and the talk page discussion and the article itself before commenting. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Florence Price discography

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Florence Price § Discography. Peaceray (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Peaceray (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments appreciated at Talk:June Preston#Is the information about Ravic's company even relevant?

Hi all. This version of the June Preston article written by the subject's daughter made some pretty extraordinary claims about Preston and her work with the Metropolitan Opera. The Metropolitan Opera Archives contain no record of her having sung with the company. The archive is a complete record of all of the company's performance both in New York and on tour; so it's clear that this information was false. I did digging and found sources in Variety (magazine) and Opera News which explained that the tour included singers under contract from the Met and other American companies, but that it was not affiliated in any way with the Met even though ithe company was billed/named "Stars of the Metropolitan Opera". There was some question raised about whether this content was necessary, but I feel it is given that inaccurate content has been posted by the subject's daughter on other websites. Thoughts on how we should handle this would be appreciated, whatever they may be. All comments welcome. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_77&oldid=1081690447"