Talk:List of compositions by Pierre Boulez

e.e. cummings
The name must be spelled like this, it is in accordance with the consequent spelling of the poet himself, and with the actual title of Boulez' composition. AlterBerg (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)AlterBergAlterBerg (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither reason given is sound. The poet did not prefer that his name be spelled in all-lowercase letters: this was a publisher's device, echoing the poet's practice in the texts of his poems, not the poet's own practice. See: E. E. Cummings. Second, what authority can you cite that the lowercase letters are in the "actual title" of Boulez's composition? What is an "actual title", anyway?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

References needed?
I am a little mystified by User:Jax 0677's recent addition of an "unreferenced" tag to this list. While there are a few (a very few) such lists on Wikipedia with references, the vast majority do not include them, presumably on the basis of WP:MINREF. Assuming that such references are needed, what exactly is it that needs verifying? Is it that one or two entries seem doubtful for some reason (in which case those titles ought to be challenged individually)? Is it necessary to proved sources documenting that Boulez actually wrote a work corresponding to each title in the list? Sources verifying the dates of composition? Sources verifiying the instrumentation, duration, or other details of each work? All of the above? If there is already an article on Wikipedia (such as for Le marteau sans maître or Répons) does this exempt that entry from some or all of the verification requirements? Is there a reason why Boulez's music should be subject to such a requirement when it is not necessary for, say, the List of compositions by Ottorino Respighi? A little guidance would be helpful here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, but in an attempt to resolve the issue, I've added a short list of authoritative sources which contain lists of Boulez's work. Between them they cover all the works listed here with different degrees of detail. Dmass (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Let us see if the use of general references is adequate to the demand, as it seems to me it should be. I have removed the banner, and encourage anyone who still finds this mode of referencing inadequate to flag individual entries, with an editorial note indicating the nature of the problem. FWIW, a similar issue was raised a few years ago at the List of compositions by Heitor Villa-Lobos, where it was addressed on a section-by-section basis, with a lot of needless repetition, in my opinion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jerome. I've looked at the Villa-Lobos page. In my view there is no need for that approach with Boulez (and I share your dislike of it). The number of works is small and, insofar as they exist in different versions, their history is amply documented in the four sources we now have. Dmass (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished/Withdrawn
Both terms are used at the moment, but not consistently. I would suggest: "unpublished" if the piece was never even performed (e.g. Onze notations); "unpublished, withdrawn" if it was performed but then abandoned (e.g. Polyphonie X). Any thoughts? Dmass (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion sounds good to me. Of course there are several other related categories, such as "unfinished but published in incomplete form" for the Third Sonata.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as you say there's probably not a one-size-fits-all solution... Dmass (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Links to the fairly obvious
Is it a convention that 'piano', 'soprano' etc. are given links in a list of this sort - or can I unlink? Dmass (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and 'French' and 'composer', I've just noticed... Dmass (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLINK will help clarify this issue. I would say that all of the words you cite fall into the category of "familiar terms" and therefore should not be linked.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)