Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)

Other Bruch violin concertos?
Did Bruch write another violin concerto? Both the recordings I have of this one say only "Violin Concerto", etc. etc. &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bruch wrote three numbered violin concertos. #1 is Op. 26 in G minor, #2 is Op. 44 in D minor, #3 is Op. 58 in D minor.  The first one is much more popular, but recordings of the other two are not too hard to find.  DavidRF 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bruch also wrote a Scottish Fantasy for violin and orchestra, Op. 46. Violinists who I found had recorded concertos 1 and 2 and the Scottish Fantasy include Salvatore Accardo, Jascha Heifetz, Midori, Itzhak Perlman, and Ruggiero Ricci. Only Accardo had recorded concerto no. 3 according to my source. By the way Bruch had also a much recorded piece for cello and orchestra, Kol Nidrei. Marlindale (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV??
Is it just me or does the article read rather NPOV? It feels almost as if I am being told "this piece is so beautiful" without too many facts/information/history. Not sure if I should edit. 131.191.39.156 (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to edit. But it is recoomended that you first create an account. Addaick (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I would agree that it does seems to have a POV, saying that the parts are "ravishing" and such. It is beautiful, but perhaps this fluff could be toned down a little and little more could be added on the analysis? Minidude09 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Phillip Huscher is the program annotator for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra." This would seem to imply that this is just copied from the CSO, which would make it copyrighted content. 24.46.69.10 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be from, which states "Program notes copyright © 2009 by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. All Rights Reserved. Program notes may be reprinted only in their entirety and with written consent of Chicago Symphony Orchestra." The program notes are definitely no in their entirety, so I deleted the paragraph. 83.199.117.8 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtubes
As these are commercial sources I thought there was a WP rule against citing them? They are easily found by Google without the help of WP. Marlindale (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC) It seems there is no such definite rule. Under "Wikipedia: External links/YouTube" there was a "failed proposal" against YouTube links because of copyvio concerns. Such links are allowed if they provide "a primary source or a reliable and irreplaceable secondary source." But that does not seem to be the usual situation we are dealing with. I would not be comfortable myself linking to a YouTube that contains advertising. I will look at the ones in the article. Marlindale (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I juat looked and did not see any obvious YouTube links in the article. "Video Example[s]" are as close as I came. Marlindale (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, both Video Examples, by Ida Haendel and Ray Chen, are YouTubes, and the one by Ray Chen has advertising in it. These do not seem to provide any source information. Why should the Chen at least not be deleted? Marlindale (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Spam - "not allowed:"
Under the policy "WP:Spam/External link spamming/Videos", "Adding links to online free videos that promote a site or product is not allowed." Accordingly I plan to delete the Ray Chen example. The Ida Haendel example seems more questionable? Marlindale (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. WP is not an advertising site. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

For Ida Haendel the link is to the "IdaHaendelSite". It looks OK to me, not commercial. Marlindale (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)