Talk:List of composers for the classical guitar

Untitled
Isn't this article just a category? We need to beef up each name, like elaborating on how Frank Zappa is a classical guitar composer. AdamBiswanger1 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi - No, it's not just a category. I think it would be extremely unwieldy to add the 'composers for classical guitar' category to every composer's page on this list, as the vast majority have also written for many other instruments - indeed, their classical guitar output might in many cases be minute in comparison with their total oeuvre.


 * Oh, and as for Zappa, he wrote a very short twelve-tone waltz when he was 18! (It was recorded by David Tanenbaum, if you're interested...) Best wishes, Matve 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sortable list
Rather than maintain three different lists at List of composers for the classical guitar, List of composers for the classical guitar (chronological), and List of composers for the classical guitar (nationality), perhaps a single list sortable name/date/nationality would make more sense?

This would let anyone select their desired sort and avoid maintaining/coordinating the same content in three different lists... 214.4.238.180 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of composers for the classical guitar (chronological)
With one table that can be sorted, all three lists of composers for the classical guitar lists can be combined, making the information more useful and manageable. gidonb (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support  Rlsheehan (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, as with the other merge proposal.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. ComfyKem (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not sure how this will make the information "more manageable" or useful, unless the table can be set up to change like a database. If I understand it right, one will no longer be able to see a single country's musicians across time, and thus loose the big picture.Jacqke (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as below. The concerns expressed by will be addressed by using a sortable table. --Deskford (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of composers for the classical guitar (nationality)
With one table that can be sorted, all three lists of composers for the classical guitar lists can be combined, making the information more useful and manageable. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Rlsheehan (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, enthusiastically. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. ComfyKem (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By showing musicians by country, one can see the breadth and growth or decline of talent across time. Will the table allow us to look at a country's composers together? If yes then support. If no, then oppose.Jacqke (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Presumably, this list is the model that would be followed. It is sortable by nationality, amongst other things.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Managing three separate lists is impossible as they inevitably become out of sync. A sortable table should allow all the functionality required. --Deskford (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-proposals of mergers
Hello, folks. On behalf of WP:WikiProject Merge, I am prepared to perform the two merges that were discussed back in 2013. When completed, this article would be a sortable list similar to that found in List of 20th century classical composers. However, in looking over the pages that are proposed to be merged into this one, I see a problem that hadn't been discussed. Whereas this article restricts itself to 'blue-linked' names, the other two do not. Including every name that appears in the other two articles would cause this article to be impractically large.

Frankly, I don't see the encyclopedic value of including those non-linked names, especially because virtually all of them appear in the lists at the Musicated site. The simpler approach is to leave the non-linked names out of the table and then tell the reader that a more complete listing is available via a link in the External Links section.

Before implementing this idea, I'd like to get comments (and consensus) from the discussants. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging discussants --, , , , ,  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur: exclude the redlinks. And thanks for undertaking this task.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur; if they are on the list you mention, then they can be added later if someone wants to do the work.Jacqke (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. Redlinks on a list like this are only useful if referenced, and if we allow referencing in lists we could easily end up with something as unwieldy as List of Australian composers. Thanks for taking on the task. --Deskford (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with removal any red links. NewYorkActuary, thank you for taking this on! gidonb (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, and indeed, many thanks! – Aklein62 (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Original guitar composers only!?
Dear fellow contributors, if you followed this list in the past few days you may have noticed two recent changes to the introductory paragraph to the list. They concern the question whether this should be an exclusive list of composers who wrote original music for the classical guitar – or whether the list should also contain composers whose works have been arranged for the guitar by others. My opinion is very clear: composers with arranged works should be omitted, because they would expand the list infinitely. You would have to include Beethoven and many other well-known names who never even touched the instrument. This would include, of course, composers like Albéniz und Granados whose music sounds really good on a guitar. But the whole point of this list is to show who were original guitar composers. If we don't do that we don't need the list. Therefore, the phrase including "music which has been arranged for it" should be deleted. I deleted it once, it has been reinstated by the anonymous user "Auganism". Please share your opinion here so that we have an agreed opinion by the group. Thank you. – Aklein62 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur. I recall this question coming up once before, perhaps on one of the lists now merged with this one. There is a truly ridiculous example further up this page, however, where Alfonso El Sabio and Arnolt Schlick are two of the names shown in a suggested table format. Arrangements would indeed stretch on to infinity, but this would also raise the issue of whether the arranger should be listed instead of the original composer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Observation. The editor who insists on that change states that the list "contains many composers who have never composed directly for the classical guitar". If this is the case (and I do notice a number of very suspicious names here), and it is also generally agreed that composers of pieces that have been arranged for guitar (as well as composers of pieces that have the potential to be arranged for guitar, or of pieces that would be difficult or impossible to arrange for guitar, etc.) really have no place here, then the obvious task is to start weeding out the spurious entries. If memory serves, this was already done for the now-merged "List by nationality", and User:NewYorkActuary must have encountered a large number of problematic cases in his epic efforts in effecting the mergers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. As I describe more fully in the report (below), I didn't weed out any names other than those that didn't have articles.  I was quite aware that I was merging names that appeared to have little or nothing to do with classical guitar composition, but I never looked into the question of why those names made it onto the "nationality" list (which is where most of them came from).  I suspect you're correct in thinking that some of them were there because somebody else subsequently arranged or transcribed their work for guitar.  It's also possible that the person who added the name might have been aware of a brief dalliance with guitar composition that didn't get mentioned in the composer's article.  And I couldn't rid my thoughts of a third possibility -- that the names were added by someone who didn't read the article's title very carefully, thinking it referred to any classical composer.  But regardless of the reason, I estimate that about a third of the names currently on the list have articles that don't even mention "guitar", not even once and not even in an associated "list of works" article.  Below, I propose that these names simply be identified and removed.  Your thoughts on that will be welcome.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely. It seems to me that it is better to err on the side of deletion than to waver because there may be some doubt. If there is no mention of guitar composition in a composer's bio article or list of works, then the name should be removed. If someone later objects, and has a reliable source supporting restoration.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreement from me too. To my mind, composers only belong on this list if they have written music intended for the guitar. Composers of music for lute, piano, or anything else, shouldn't qualify simply because someone else has arranged their music for guitar. I seem to remember in a previous incarnation of this discussion raising the question of Anton Webern. He is presently included on the list; he didn't write anything for solo guitar but included the guitar in the instrumental ensemble accompanying a few of his songs. Is that enough to qualify? --Deskford (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger report
Hello, folks. While I was doing the merge at the end of last year, I intended to issue this report within a few days of completion. But the "by nationality" page had so many names that I was almost literally burned out when I finished merging them here. And so, what I expected would be a two- or three-week "break" from this article turned into a break of two months, then three months, etc. But when I saw that a definitional issue was arising here, I resumed work on this report and, indeed, I was putting the finishing touches on it when I got the ping in the section above. (I'll comment in that section later today.) Nonetheless, I regret the delay.

When performing the merge, I took my remit very literally -- merging only those entries in the "chronological" and "nationality" articles that had blue links. It was not feasible to check every red-linked or non-linked entry in those articles, because there were far more of those than there were blue-linked ones (and there were already a whole lot of the latter). And I followed these rules even when I knew that a musician did have an article (e.g., Paul McCartney) and even when I was reasonably certain that the blue-linked entry had little or nothing to do with classical guitar (i.e., Dave Brubeck or the guy whose chief claim to fame was cataloging Dvorak's work). Regarding the latter type of entries, I'll say more in a moment.

After merging the blue-linked entries, I removed them from the original "chronological" and "nationality" articles. This left the articles with only those names that applied to pre-guitar composers (i.e., lute, vihuela, etc.). The articles were then re-named so as to use the word lute in their titles instead of classical guitar. Thus, we now have List of composers for lute (chronological) and List of composers for lute (nationality). The original titles are now re-directs to the instant article.

There is an extremely large number of names here that probably should not be on the list. To give an idea of the scope of the problem, note that the category Category:Composers for the classical guitar has a bit more than 150 names in it, but this article now has about 750 names. Of course, some of the "extra" names ought to be placed in the category. But this is not the case for hundreds of others. I'm not speaking here of guitarists who are not really composers (although there are some of those here), nor am I speaking of guitarists whose compositions are not really "classical" (and there are some of those, as well). I'm speaking of people whose articles do not even mention the word "guitar", not even once. To get a sense of the magnitude of the problem, I looked through all of the articles on people whose surnames began with either "A" or "R". I found that, of those names that did not already appear in the category for classical guitar composers, a bit less than half had biographies that did not have a single mention of guitar (and, for those biographies that had separate "list of works" articles, no mention of it there, either). Extrapolating this to the entire list of names, I estimate that between 250 and 300 of the names now appearing in the article have nothing whatsoever to do with guitar.

I suggest that these hundreds of non-guitar names should be removed from the list. But given the very large number of names to be removed, I think that there should be a consensus to do so. And if that consensus does arise, I'll be happy to help out with the task (but I'm not anxious to volunteer to do it all myself -- divvying up the alphabet amongst other volunteers is more what I have in mind).

After that is done, there are some other issues that ought to be discussed. Briefly, these are:


 * Exactly who is a "composer for the classical guitar"? Does Frank Zappa really belong on this list because he wrote a single short piece when he was 18?  And if the answer is "yes", what about Martin Quittenton, the guy who wrote the prelude to Rod Stewart's "Maggie May"?  Quittenton's article even describes him as a classical guitarist, which makes the case for his inclusion even better than Zappa's.  But I think that neither name belongs here.  At some point, there needs to be some discussion as to how substantial a composer's output needs to be before being listed here.
 * Exactly what is "classical" music? At some point in the past, somebody decided that if a guitarist was from an Hispanic or Portuguese country and played a gut-string guitar, then they were players of classical music.  And thus, we have names of composers who are known only for their work in the genres of flamenco and bossa nova.  I have no doubt that many of those guys could play classical music, but they weren't known for writing it.
 * Non-notable composers Regarding the use of Wikipedia as a platform for promotion, there's nothing unique about classical guitar.  But by the same token, it's not immune from the phenomenon.  There are plenty of people on this list who are unarguably "composers for the classical guitar", but just aren't notable.  I'm unsure how to handle this, other than to suggest that these articles be nominated for deletion, either as Proposed Deletions or via the Articles for Deletion process.  If they do prove to be non-notable, and get deleted, then the names become red-linked and their removal from here will be an easy decision.

These three items are the ones that look to be the most substantial (in terms of number of names that might be removed from the list). There is also a fourth topic, that of composers who write orchestral pieces that include a guitar as one of the instruments. I don't think such pieces rise to the level of being "for the classical guitar". But there might be disagreement on that point.

For some of the names, there was a good deal of subjectivity in deciding what "nationality" to assign a composer. When facing these tough cases, I used the "Notes" column to provide whatever additional detail I though might be helpful. I generally did not equate "nationality" with "ethnic heritage" or "nationality of a parent". And with regard to alphabetization, I used whatever was being used as the category "default sort". These default sorts are specified by the authors of the articles and probably do not all use a consistent set of rules. The problem is especially troublesome with the many names that have "di" or "von" (or similar) in them. Some use those words as the beginning of the surname, but others don't.  For both of these questions (i.e., nationality and alphabetization), general rules will probably only get us so far and person-specific discussions will need to be held. But, there's no point in having these discussions for names that are going to be removed from the list, so it will be best to leave this issue until everything else is decided.

Again, I regret the great delay in issuing this report. I look forward to any comments you might have on it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. After that, all I can say is that the whole international guitar community is forever in your debt (without most of them knowing it). I agree wholeheartedly to everything you say and follow the decisions you made when in doubt to one hundred percent. You have done a really great job, academically sound, comprehensive, and plain and clear for everyone (one should think). Indeed, what remains to be done is to identify the true guitar composers, based on at least a handful of solo pieces. If one has written chamber or orchestral music with guitar, so much the better. The single or occasional use of a guitar in a work of chamber or orchestral music should not be enough to be identified as a "composer for the guitar". If that phrase is to have any meaning, the guitar must be visible in one's work-list. And we should really talk about art music composers, to avoid the term "classical" and to exclude the use of the nylon-stringed guitar in pop, jazz, and flamenco. That is indeed something we should all share doing. Given the (likely) fact that we all have other things to do in our life, this will probably be done on an occasional basis and not as systematic as your previous work. At least that would count for me. – Aklein62 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Initial purging of the list
Hello again, folks. I saw enough agreement that I went ahead and began purging the list. However, at this initial stage, I suggest that we go after only the "lowest hanging fruit" -- names whose articles (or associated "list of works" articles) don't mention "guitar" even once. I think this will eliminate most of the "on the list only because of someone else's transcription" names and will allow us time enough to discuss the other issues mentioned in the Merge Report.

I recognize that none of us is really in a position to commit to putting in a set amount of time on this initial stage. In my first round of removals, I looked only at the names beginning with "A" and left the following edit summary: Purge list of non-guitar names: A (13 names removed) If each of us leaves a summary that specifies the letter that they worked on, then it will be relatively easy for the rest of us to see what letter should be done next.

By the way, one of the names that I removed did have the word "guitar" on the page, but only in one place -- in the category for "composers for the classical guitar". That name was Georges Auric. I not only removed that name from this list, I also removed it from the category.

I'll be happy to address any questions or comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work! There is a solo guitar piece by Georges Auric called Hommage à Alonso Mudarra, I believe. --Deskford (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was hesitating, too, when I saw the name of Auric on the purge list. But I checked: Auric really only wrote that one piece for guitar, Hommage à Alonso Mudarra, published in 1960. It's two pages long in print, 1:15 minutes in performance. Seems too little to me to qualify as a "guitar composer". – Aklein62 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It does raise an interesting problem, though. What is the threshold for inclusion on this list? Will Manuel de Falla be excluded because he, too, wrote only one piece for guitar? Or will he be included because that one piece is more than three minutes long? If the latter, then will some other composer with a single piece lasting in the neighbourhood of two minutes (say, Paul Hindemith), be excluded or included?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, folks, this is precisely the sort of discussion that we need to have. Before commenting, I'll address the two names that got mentioned. De Falla is going to survive this initial round of purging, because his "list of works" article mentions the guitar. As for Auric, I'm really not looking to make final decisions as to the inclusion of any composer. If any of you wants to add that one guitar composition to his biography (preferably, with a source), then just let me know it's been done and I'll be happy to add his name back to the list here. But as to the instant question, I think it turns on the question of what you want this list to be. A list of anybody who ever wrote a piece for classical guitar? A list of people who are primarily notable for writing pieces for classical guitar? Something in between? I myself am not really sure. I've been toying around with the following notion -- imagine that the Wikipedia article on the composer was expanded to Feature Article status, and then imagine that all mention of guitar was removed. How much of a loss would that be to the article? In the case of Fernando Sor, the answer would be "My God, there's nothing left!" In the case of Auric, you wouldn't notice much of a difference. Indeed, his single guitar piece might not have even made it into the Feature Article. But de Falla offers a more interesting (and thornier) question. You wouldn't lose much from the article in terms of volume, but you would lose mention of the Homanaje. Or will an objective approach be preferable? Are there any reliable sources that can tell us how many times a composer's guitar pieces have been recorded? If so, might that serve as a proxy for "significant in their field"? Or how about a topic-specific analogue to the general notability guidelines? If we look at books that are histories of the classical guitar, does the composer tend to be featured as a significant force in that history? Do such books even take notice of the composer? This approach might be harder to implement than some of the others and it almost certainly would leave us with "borderline" cases, but it does seem more "Wiki-like". I'll cease my ramblings here. I look forward to hearing your comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, when notability is applied to single guitar pieces, then de Falla must invariably rank higher than Auric. But Jerome Kohl's comment does make me reconsider what I said before. Would it be a compromise, then, to keep those composers with a single guitar piece, provided it's a solo piece (and not the use of the guitar in a chamber piece). Writing a solo piece for guitar does require understanding the instrument better than using it as a mere aside, I would argue. In that case, Erich Apostel must be reinstated, too. He wrote 6 Musiken für Gitarre, Op. 25, and some chamber music including the guitar, like Studie, Op. 29. In that case, what we should do, too, is to include these pieces in the articles on those composers (i.e. the work-lists). How about that? – Aklein62 (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now, we are at the very beginning of a discussion about inclusion criteria. This discussion might take a few days, or it might take a few weeks.  Until we actually have the discussion, there's no way to predict whether our individual views are close or far apart.  But right now, I'm working only to purge names that would not meet any reasonable inclusion criterion, because they have biographies that do not mention the word "guitar", not even once.   And what we've all just learned is that there a few biographies that could have mentioned guitar, except that they didn't.  Whether we're speaking of Auric or Apostel, my position is the same -- I'm not looking to be the final arbiter of inclusion and, if anyone wishes to add those guitar pieces to the biographies, that's okay with me.  Let me know when it's been done and I'll be happy to add their names back to this list. But perhaps there's been a change of heart since yesterday.  Perhaps you folks would prefer that I simply stop this initial round of purges.  That's okay, too.  I won't object if any of you decide to revert my "A-name" edits.  Indeed, I'll take it as a signal that I should stop doing any more of them. I'll be happy with either approach.  I look forward to knowing which it shall be.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of continuing the purge of "obvious" names. For me, the example of Auric merely reinforces the idea that names can always be restored later, if and when an editor comes up with the requisite evidence. The issue of chamber-music including the guitar is an interesting additional issue. The Hindemith example I am thinking of is not a solo piece but a trio—for three guitars. Surely that would not make it a less worthy example than a solo piece of equivalent length. I imagine that Aklein62 had more in mind pieces like Anton Webern's songs Opp. 18 and 19, though even here there is a quantitate and qualitative difference, since the former accompanies the voice with just the guitar and an E♭ clarinet, whereas the latter involves choir, celesta, violin, clarinet, and bass clarinet in addition to guitar.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A further thought: I notice that the column headed "notable works" has exactly one entry: the one verifying that Frank Zappa's sole composition for the instrument cannot possibly be regarded as notable. Would it not be helpful in some of the marginal cases to include the notable work in question (such as Falla's Homenaje)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have seen in all the big encyclopedias that only for Italian names the sorting is i.g.: De Curtis, Ernesto (the same with the "De", "Di", "Del" or "Della") and always capitalized. In all the other languages it is sorted the other way round (and not capatilized!): Lucia, Paco de _  Murcia, Santiago de  _ (and see in this list:  Leeuw, Tom de  _ Call, Leonhard von _  Falla, Manuel de  -  Wikipedia should follow the big encyclopedias - otherwise it will cause confusion - that's my opinion. Best regards  --Rainer Stelle (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)