Talk:42 études ou caprices

The first and the last pieces
I found several sources listing different versions of these pieces. A recording by Cihat Askin lists the tempo for the first study as "Adagio ma non troppo", whereas all editions I found list it as "Adagio sostenuto". The same recording lists the tempo of the last piece as "Allegro (Fuga)" (and the "Fugue" was also mentioned by someone in a previous version of the page), whereas all editions I found give the tempo as "Moderato", and the piece doesn't really look like a fugue to me. But the editions I found are all from the net and possibly outdated/wrong, and I am not a violinist, so I thought I'd add this notice here in case someone more knowledgeable wonders about the (possibly) wrong bits. --Jashiin (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Article move
I (User:JackofOz) moved this article to 42 études ou caprices (Kreutzer). That move has been reverted by User:Garion96. The following is copied from my talk page:


 * Hi, per WP:PRECISION I reverted your moving of this article. Since there are no other articles called "42 études ou caprices" it is unnecessary to add (Kreutzer) to the name. Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well, as I said in my edit summary: They're not so well known that people would have any idea who wrote them.


 * Literally hundreds of composers could have written a work by this title; indeed, I'm sure there'll be examples of 16 études ou caprices and 7 études ou caprices and various others out there. Even a professor of musicology would be hard pressed to say from the name alone exactly who wrote this 42 études ou caprices, and when, and for what instrument(s) they were scored.  At least with the name there, it gave the reader the essential key they need to make sense of the title.  (I can hear the thought processes now: "Kreutzer - oh, he was a violinist from around Beethoven's time, wasn't he, so these must be exercises for the violin from around the turn of the 19th century" - as opposed to, say, works for piano by Rachmaninoff from 1925).


 * But it seems you've taken us backwards, which is a great pity, because we're all here at Wikipedia to share and spread knowledge, not to keep secrets.  I hope you will reconsider.


 * Also, WP:PRECISION says: "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided". I would interpret that to mean that some disambiguation may be desirable even where the name is technically unique.  In that sense, my edit was not remotely what I'd call "over-precision".  But I would be tempted to call yours "under-precision", for the reasons outlined above.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to ask a third opinion somewhere but the easiest name should always be the name of the article. If there are more "42 études ou caprices" the article should be renamed, or even if there red links to other 42 études ou caprices (....) which I couldn't find. Regarding your last paragraph. If there are more "42 études ou caprices" a disambiguation article might be handy. If there aren't, than it's not. Garion96 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion now continues:

OK. I've moved the discussion here for all comers to have a say. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that étude, caprice, sonata, toccata, prelude, fugue, symphony, concerto etc are all widely used names for classical music works, and a particular grouping of 42 of them is not essentially distinguished, by the number alone, from similar groupings. The name of the composer has to figure somewhere in the WP title for it to be useful to our readers.


 * I note that 32 Variations in C minor (Beethoven), a much better known work than this one by Kreutzer, is given the composer's name in the title, even though I can't readily think of another set of 32 variations in C minor. If it's good enough for Beethoven, it's certainly good enough for Kreutzer. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Keep it simple, create a redirect Etudes (Kreutzer), if you want people to find that article. - I agree to the above about Beethoven, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 32 Variations in C minor is even a red link? Very stupid actually. When searching people will often type in 32 Variations in C minor but not many will add the " (Beethoven)" part. Garion96 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I half-agree with that. It's one of his best known works and people are certainly going to be looking for it.  But under what search key?  Some will assume (correctly) it's the only famous work of that name and dispense with the "Beethoven".  Others will not be so sure and will include the "Beethoven".  Either way, they get what they want.  But for every 1000 people looking for that work, there might be 1 at best looking for Kreutzer's 42 E&C.  It's not something very many people even know exist.  Hell, "Kreutzer" to most people brings up images of Beethoven's Kreutzer Sonata, Tolstoy's novel, and Janacek's String Quartet - before they ever think of the violinist/composer Kreutzer.  They might be vaguely aware he wrote some music, but could they name even a single one of his works?  Hardly.  So, this work is not something people for the most part are going to be actively looking for, but something they are going to come across by accident or chance in a category search or some sort of list, for example.  I first became aware of it while perusing Category:Solo violin pieces on an entirely unrelated mission.  I saw it under K, wondered who the composer was, clicked the link and there it was.  Wouldn't it be better to tell me up front the K stands for Kreutzer, rather than making me go elsewhere to find out?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps true. But on the other hand OK Computer (Radiohead album) is a red link which makes sense since there are no other OK Computer articles. I just prefer article names to be the actual topic of the article (the part usually in bold) and only add extra like " (Kreutzer)" when its needed for disambiguation purposes. Garion96 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "OK Computer" is inherently a very distinctive title for something, particularly a musical work or album. "42 études ou caprices" is not.  It needs help.
 * Leif Segerstam holds the record for most symphonies composed - he's up to over 220 now, far more than anyone else. If someone wrote an article on his 217th symphony, would it be just Symphony No. 217 (completely unique in your paradigm), or would they go the extra mile to Symphony No. 217 (Segerstam)?  The latter, I suggest.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the position that a disambiguator should only be used in an article title if there's a need for it; it is not a descriptor. In addition to the already quoted policy WP:PRECISION, see the guideline WP:DAB. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Incipits
A number of incipits have recently been added. I find them unsuitable because they are too large. Unless score can be coaxed to produce smaller output, the only viable way of showing incipits would be with scans from the printed score, or converting the Lilypond output into scalable graphics. I think a good example for using incipits on a large scale is the article on Schumann's Fantasiestücke or on Bach's Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes or Goldberg Variations. I suggest to remove all recently added incipits until a smaller version can be found. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the score tag is exactly so that one doesn't have to scan in a printed score, or output Lilypond files as graphics, or find someone to record the material that you want to notate. There are several reasons: Firstly it is much easier to edit directly in Wikicode than to install a separate piece of software. Secondly images are by their nature closed formats - no-one can correct them or build upon them. Thirdly the score extension will automatically generate audio so you can listen to them. I agree the size isn't perfect, but the use of score is a big step forward. The Land (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Faulty code for 17
Encountered a bug when trying to write 17. Using the following code produces a similar error to the one discussed here; http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki.bugs/319486 Oddly enough using only the first bar works fine. The Land (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I revise the score on zh-wikipedia (here) which looks similar to the original score. May be all of you can have a look.--Foamposite (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tonality of No.21
I am so surprised that someone undo my edit and claimed that "sources call No. 21 D major". First, Kreutzer did not indicate the name of the key on the score -- even you refer most of the scores you can get from a shop, or the copies from IMSLP. I check "An Encyclopedia of the Violin" by Alberto Bachmann and it does not mentioned either; second, the tonality is obviously a minor key instead of a major key; third, the most popular CD of this piece indicates is "b minor" (See this, a 40-piece version, therefore #20 CD = #21 here). Although another CD version by Cuhat Askin says it is D major, it is simply the norms of Music Theory, and should be corrected if "the source" is wrong.--Foamposite (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 42 études ou caprices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129030613/http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/preview/catalogueinfo.asp?catID=999901-2&path=2 to http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/preview/catalogueinfo.asp?catID=999901-2&path=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Numbering
There is some confusion about the numbering reflected in the comments. My best guess is the the published editions place the first according to the author of the Wikipedia article more difficult number one as number 42. Thus all the other numbers (and keys) are off by one. For instance in my edition the fugue is #41 not #42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.46.29 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)