Talk:Piano quintet

Untitled
Hi-- I'm just wondering if this article should be merged into Quintet. Cheers. --bleh fu 04:06, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suggest not. After all we have wind quintet, brass quintet, string quintet, and maybe some more.  Since there are unique characteristics to these different types of quintets (much of which is yet to be written), and specific literature to list for each type, it seems to make more sense to me to do it in specific articles rather than overwhelm the quintet article.  Cheers, Antandrus 04:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right-- A lot of these articles need filling out. I would love to see Chamber music become a real hub for Category:Musical groups; please check out the talk page on chamber music. --bleh fu 04:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Keys, opus numbers, and more
Could someone add the keys and opus numbers to the works listed? It's great that they have years, but the other information is usually more important in identifying and referring to a work.

Also, Mahler wrote a piano quintet (or maybe part of one?) -- I think it may be from his student day's but it's probably worth including... 76.103.30.165 (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Mahler wrote an unfinished piano quartet, not piano quintet. mcoverdale (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Table for list section
The "List" section reads pretty decently well as is, but it might be helpful to have it (maybe additionally to its current form?) in table form - in particular so you could organize across the centuries by alphabetical order of composer's name, and by year - seeing the chronology I think could be particularly useful. Sorry I lack the expertise to execute my own suggestion! 171.66.208.5 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Quintessential"
Without laboring to recall which bewigged character from two or three centuries ago quoted (in a film much newer than he), in beginning an instructively direct seduction, Confucius's doctrine that the beginning of wisdom is "calling things by their right names", I suggest that the use of the aforesaid alchemical term in the section "Schumann and the Romantic piano quintet" is in itself ill-conceived, and that using it in both the opening and closing 'graphs of the section amounts to a pretentiously slapstick blunder. (I also beg colleagues' indulgence for my self-indulgence, and my pretentiously meta use of a pretentious term, on the grounds that we all just wanna have fun. And...) I leave, to those with greater facility than I, the task of working out a better wording. --Jerzy•t 11:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Your comment calls to mind the adage "Physician, heal thyself."mcoverdale (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Definition of quintessential (Entry 1 of 2)
 * perfectly typical or representative of a particular kind of person or thing.

The word stays. mcoverdale (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Taneyev
I am the editor who added Taneyev to the 20th Century section last year. Then the list in this section was of significant piano quintets (which Taneyev's certainly is). But at some point in Mcoverdale's revisions, it has turned into a list of noteable composers who wrote piano quintets, and in that company Taneyev looks a little out-gunned. I suggest that either the original wording is restored, or else that Taneyev is removed. (I will do this myself if nobody else does, but I'd rather the decision was made by Mcoverdale, or someone else involved with the recent revisions.) JBritnell (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather than remove Taneyev, I have removed "notable." Notability is in the eye of the beholder and all that. mcoverdale (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)