User talk:Iadmc/Classical composers time-line

New timeline
Now we have the new timeline, I think it might be an idea to write a lead explaining about it. I also think it would also be good if we could equalize the height of the columns of names - and there is an inconsistency between modern and post-modernist. -- Klein zach  14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of other things: we still have Stockhausen as the sole 'Avantgarde' — I thought we'd made him 'post-modern'? Also I think it's odd having Debussy, Ravel and Sibelius as modern and Mahler, Strauss, Granados and Rachmaninoff as Romantic. I think that has to be sorted out. -- Klein zach  14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have re-labelled Stockhausen. I'm not sure what to do about the other composers you queried. What do you suggest? Maybe post-romantic? Soler97 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) It is better here than on the main page (though it isn't technically a "subpage"). However, there are several glaring ommissions. Before we get to them, though, we should really have "Schumann" as "R Schumann" since there were actually two. And who is "Des Prez"? Sounds like a character from Neighbours! He needs to be given his full name, or perhaps "Josquin DP", since he is invariably called simply "Josquin". Also, does Handel really have to be "Händel"? He surely dropped the umlaut when he moved to England? His article does not use it for its title. The missing characters: a) at least one representive from the Tudor period (Byrd and Gibbons would do); b) Monteverdi (writer of first extant opera and indeed the first major opera composer); c) Rimsky-Korsakoff (major influence on Stravinsky, Ravel, Impressionism, indeed you name it...); d) Cage (one of the most important figures in the C20th). One last question: what does "Modern" actually mean? Given that all of the composers so styled died over 15 years ago, they're hardly "modern". Presumeably "Modernist" is intended? If so how is Sibelius Modernist? Or "Le Tombeau de Couperin"? Or "Pulcinella"? Personally I would give up on the colour coding: Beethoven could be either Classical or Romantic, or indeed both. Others are also on the cusp of periods: Gluck for one. I would also question Soler's designation - and indeed his inclusion since he was really writing music that represented the last breath of the Baroque style. (His link takes us to a DAB page, anyway, BTW.) Thanks for making a firm and sensible decision, finally, though! --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)  PS, no offence to the kind editor of the same name who has taken the lead in moving this page and editing it! --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * JC is 96% right! Rather than my adding comments at this stage, can we act on his suggestions? After that I might add a few minor comments. Is that OK? Best. -- Klein zach  00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. The flip side of the 'modernist' label problem is the 'Romantic' label problem. -- Klein  zach  00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no ambiguity with regard to Schumann. I presume you are referring to William Schumann, who is hardly a household name. I think we should not worry about every possible name conflict, eg there was another Schubert, but he is so obscure as not to confuse anyone. As for the spelling of Handel and des Prez, I have no opinion, so let someone else decide. As for Byrd and Gibbons, let people take a vote. As for Cage, I strongly feel he does not belong here, but if the consensus over-rules me then so be it. Soler is one of my favourites but I can understand that not every-one will agree to his presence. I agree that some of the classifications are questionable. Nor do I think there can be a "perfect fit". However, the classifications are useful, at least until the time of Strauss or thereabouts. Let's not get too deeply into technical quibbles about Pulcinella or Prokofiev's Classical Symphony. The idea is to give a broad sweep without doing too much violence to the music. I have added Monteverdi (having accidentally deleted him!) and Rimsky-Korsakov. I should add that I appreciate the amicable nature of this discussion and that I think we will end up with a chart that no-one is too unhappy with. Soler97 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Soler97: Only 2 other users here AFAIK. On Cage you are overruled. He should be in. I agree with the following name forms: Schumann (no R), Handel and Josquin Des Prez. Byrd and Gibbons in. Soler out. More later. -- Klein  zach  02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re graphic: IMO Gluck to Mozart needs to go down. -- Klein zach  02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that just three of us are making these decisions. Surely this is not really enough for a consensus? If two of us happened to be great fans of Clementi he would be in... Soler97 (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm not suggesting composers in which I have a personal interest. But you can place a notice at WP:CM if you like. Of course they may just ask for it to be deleted, I don't know. -- Klein zach  03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think none of us can avoid personal bias. If that were not the case then this entire discussion would be unnecessary - ie if there were some really objective method of selection. That's why I think we should have criteria, eg popularity, frequency of performance and broadcast, influence. Thus Cage would only score on influence. Influence over whom? Over composers even less of note than he is. Anyway, that's my 3 cent's worth. No offence intended to those who admire Cage. Soler97 (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Soler97: I assume you mean William Schuman? (One "n") Actually, I meant Clara Schumann! Anyway, I guess there is little ambiguity, even there... It is getting better, actually, so we might have something here after all. --Jubilee♫ clipman 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clara probably had more influence on music history than a dozen of our present names, but maybe we shouldn't go down the route of including her and similar figures. Reducing down to essential names is a better method, better for the graphic. More meaningful. -- Klein zach  03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just had a thought: instead of the colours for individuals, why not add a line for each period at the top? They will overlap so they will cover two lines, actually, but this is better than trying to force say Beethoven and Sibelius into categories... The periods defined are fine as they stand, BTW. The articles explain the dates (See 20th-century classical music and contemporary classical music for the last two.) The graphic does not have to be precise and you can avoid putting the actual dates in - it's highly advisable not to, infact! BTW, I too am concerned about the lack of participation here: we need to get others interested. Where did all the others go? Unless they are all caught up in the Union/Museprof thing...? Soler97: "eg popularity, frequency of performance and broadcast" - that would make this a discussion of POP music... Influence, historical importance, and overall acclaim by critics are far more important. And Cage influenced Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, Reich, Glass, and many other you could name... --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)  PS does anyone actually listen to Stockhausen, BTW?! --Jubilee♫ clipman 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, let's try the ' line for each period at the top' idea instead of colours.


 * If we are going to consider (as we should) "influence, historical importance, and overall acclaim by critics" then I would send the following to the reserve team: Domenico Scarlatti (not to be confused with AS, DS is only keyboard), Soler (a redirect), Johann Christian Bach, Enrique Granados (piano only, operas very minor), Manuel de Falla (not in the same league as Ravel and Debussy).


 * BTW one really big figure who should go in: Anton Bruckner. And yes, again to Cage. -- Klein zach  05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that giving popularity its due does not constitute a pop approach. The purpose of music is to be heard. If all it does is influence other music then that is a secondary effect. If the main effect is that of influence then we are talking about a theoretician rather than a composer important in his own right. A composer should primarily stand his ground as a creator of music, not as a mover in the world of music. I think we should steer a middle path between populism (top 40 of the classics) and elitism ("composers' composers"). The list as it is now more or less does that. There are other popular composers I would be happy to add, such as Boccherini and Rodrigo, but I can imagine that they would not find favour. In the case of Cage, the people he influenced, Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, Reich, Glass are not of such great importance in themselves. Only Glass gets much of a hearing.


 * I would argue strongly in favour of Scarlatti. If you think he is too narrow then you should also cut out Chopin, Verdi, Wagner. As for Bruckner, I see him as a decidedly minor figure, but that is just my view. Soler97 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, then Furtwängler, Celibidache, Jochum and Karajan etc were all wrong about Bruckner. . . . BTW Cage is still missing from the graphic. -- Klein  zach  08:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's one major structural problem : Camille Saint-Saëns and Benjamin Britten are fused together (they overlap by about 8 years). How can we fix this, I wonder? -- Klein zach  10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(after server problems) Anton Bruckner in. Domenico Scarlatti should stay for the same reason that Chopin stays: they were each important in the development of his own instument's musical language, which itself was important in the development of music as a whole. Johann Christian Bach should stay put since he was hugely important in the early development of the "Classical" style (in the narrow sense). I would add Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach too, personally, but he might find less favour. I note Cage has now been added. Good! But: "...Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, Reich, Glass are not of such great importance in themselves..." What?! I could add Boulez, Lutoslavsky, Feldman, La Monte Young, Tōru Takemitsu, and even Sonic Youth, as having been influenced by—or as having reacted against—Cage, but that is enough to go on with for now... If popularity is taken too far we should remove most of the names prior to Corelli (since they are not as often heard by the public at large as JS Bach or Tchaikovsky etc); we should also remove Schoenberg and Stockhausen (no one actually listens to their music, they only comment on it); and then we should add in John Williams, Ludovico Einaudi and Howard Goodall. Probably not... Given that Arnold Schoenberg is staying, his name should reflect his own preference: again no umlaut. Also, perhaps Pierre Schaeffer should be there? He has influenced perhaps more music than anyone else in the last hundred years, including both classical and pop/rock/club/etc... --Jubilee♫ clipman 15:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I remain unconvinced about Berio, Nono et al. Obviously, neither of us can change the other's opinion. Hopefully, our divergent biases give wikipedia some depth or breadth. Thanks for voting for Scarlatti - that's one name worth fighting for IMHO. I too would not object to CPE Bach being included. You are right that popularity would rule out the pre-baroque composers and I agree they should stay. It would be absurd to pretend that Western music sprang out of nowhere in 1650. I haven't even heard of Einaudi or Goodall, so I presume you mention these names not quite seriously. Schaeffer is another blank for me. I think if you want to add people like that then you are effectively doing "original research" since they would not appear in any mainstream text related to classical music, except perhaps as a footnote. It's not wikipedia's job to discover obscure but "important" composers that no-one but a few specialists has ever heard of. As I see it, our job is to put forward musical history as it is generally known and understood by people interested in the subject. Soler97 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to buy The rest is noise by Alex Ross. You would reassess Cage, for one.  Schaeffer invented musique concrete which went on to develop into electroacoustic music.  Maybe his part was rather small actually, since Ross only gives him about 6 pages in his 543-page book.  Einaudi writes popular minimalistic music you'll find on Classic FM; Goodall writes light classical music as title music for British sitcoms and TV dramas (among other things, to be fair...)  I take your point made at the end: we need to present the readers with a list reflecting the true "players", as it were.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a lead and sorted out the DAB redirect (Soler), the link to family name only (Couperin) and the redirect (Schönberg->Schoenberg). Any I missed? Interesting to see the old names festering away in the edit, having been remarked out with a hash... --Jubilee♫ clipman 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the "modernist" label is something of a catch-all and not to be taken too seriously? Soler97 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To be truthful, all the "labels" are catch-alls and not to be taken too seriously, IMO... Personally I call it all "Music" whether it's by Mozart, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Miles Davis, The Pussycat Dolls, or John Cage... But maybe that's just me!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All the labels are generalisations and of limited usefulness. However, the modernist one is the least convincing of all. Perhaps we could add something like: "The term 'modernist' is a grouping used to identify composers of different kinds who don't really conform to a single style or school of music." Soler97 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a bit about the labels. Any good?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. Soler97 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design?
I've stood back from this for a couple of days to see where the editing was going, to see whether it's possible to make something of the material. Candidly — that is to say frankly — I'm underwhelmed! Leaving aside the selection (and selection criteria) for composers (still obviously problematic), we need to look at the (big) picture itself — not just the little name captions — and think about what it is all supposed to mean, and whether that meaning is being clearly conveyed. Anyone have any answers? (PS Is it worth getting Edward Tufte's Visual Explanations:Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative out of the library?) -- Klein  zach  03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're back to my "why?" then... Yes: we actually still need to answer that question.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed: "why?", but also "how?". -- Klein zach  07:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my naivete, but I honestly don't know what you two are talking about. The time-line is a visual summary of 500 years of music composition. It points out the periods and the big names in each. Perhaps this looks trivial or facile to the two of you, but let's not forget that our target audience is mainly people who know little or only a moderate amount about classical music. It is not meant for the likes of you two. I think that every encyclopedia article should assume ignorance on the part of the reader and allow them to fill in any gaps in their knowledge. I don't mean this in a supercilious way. When I look up a topic I know nothing about (such as concrete music) then I want to be told the basics about it. I want it to be summarised intelligibly in one or two paragraphs. Of course, our time-line cannot stand on its own. It is like a map showing the major cities of Europe and it is up to the traveller to click on the names to find out about the places being named. Am I making sense or just rambling at random? Soler97 (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Soler97: The time-line is a visual summary of 500 years of music composition. It points out the periods and the big names in each." That's fine as an aim, but I don't think it succeeds. (You yourself have written "All the labels are generalisations and of limited usefulness.")


 * Please let's be specific. In what sense do you think it fails? Soler97 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Our target audience is mainly people who know little or only a moderate amount about classical music." Exactly, that's why a clear graphic is essential. They won't make sense of a bad design. (Have you read Tufte on visual explanations yet? That may help to explain the problem here.) -- Klein zach  08:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at Tufte but am not much the wiser. In what sense is the graphic unclear? Soler97 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The graphic doesn't provide "a visual summary of 500 years of music composition", assuming that is what it is supposed to do (see above). -- Klein zach  09:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree. Let's be realistic, however. Music is an abstract art and it would take a stroke of genius to summarise 500 years of music in one image, or even in 1,000 images. If we were doing this for painting then a mosaic of small images might act as a visual summary. Music cannot be pictured - images of composers, musicians, instruments and manuscripts do not capture music, except indirectly and inadequately. So maybe it is better to phrase the intent of the graphic as something like: to place in temporal context the most important figures of classical music. This is more specific and also more achievable. If the current graphic fails to do this then let's think about how to improve it. Do you think it fulfills this less ambitious aim? Soler97 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having been busy for a few days, I have just taken a look at where we are on this. I'm still undecided about its usefulness (and I'm not sure that reading Tufte would help me). Looking at the graphic, it shows up some interesting things that I probably wouldn't have recognised without it...For instance: Josquin's masses predate Byrd's by about a century; Bach was alive during most of Mozart's life; Debussy comes before Rachmaninoff; and so on. However, I don't really think it summarises 500 years of music. Maybe that would be better achieved with some sort of graphic that concentrated more on the timeline of prevalent movements (classicism, romanticism, etc) and only put in a few composers to illustrate those that typified the movement and those who drove the transitions to new movements. However, I think this suggestion might be fraught with just as many (if not more) problems. Certainly, I think the whole debate is important enough that it needs wider discussion than the very small number currently engaged. Bluewave (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If I were going to attempt a visual summary of 500 years of subject X I would first put that summary into words — one paragraph would probably be enough - and then turn those words into an image. In the case of music, that summary would necessarily include not only movements and schools of music, but also places and (importantly) genres. -- Klein zach  23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's pull back a bit here. 1) Tufte seems to be more concerned with displaying general trends in graphic form than with relating individuals chronologically in graphic form, unless the article is massively incomplete – though the stuff about avoiding excess and prettiness for its own sake etc is on the mark; 2) The time-line is an attempt at a visual summary of 500 years of major composers of (so-called) [Western] Classical music, not a summary of the actual music nor even of the history; 3) Bluewave has touched upon the beginnings of an answer to the why by pointing out that we often fail to appreciate the chronology of classical music; 4) a further part to that answer is supplied by the fact that some people are happier with graphics than with words or actions; 5) adding movements and schools of music ... places and ... genres would be too much since this graphic is about individuals not those other things  – that's another reason I would drop the colours; 6) our target audience is brilliantly defined by Soler97, as Klienzach has pointed out; 7) futhermore, that every encyclopedia article should assume ignorance on the part of the reader is a fundamental principle I have seen being kicked into touch all too often on WP  – hence my concerns regarding the overuse of music scores, unexplained technical language that isn't even blue-linked, etc; 8) at the very least, this graphic is a damn useful collection of Wiki links to major composers, all in one place.  I am with Bluewave: we need to move this debate over to WP:CM and open it up.  As food for thought in the meantime, I will tell you this: when I was about 10, I made a giant line incorporating as many composers as I could find in dictionaries, on recordings etc and the experience helped me place the composers in relation to one another even before I had heard a note of their music.  The relationships are not merely chronological as it turns out, since the effects of cross-influence by contemporaries, the influence of young on old, the influence of contemporaneous figures working in the other arts, and the influence of contemporaneous events—major and minor—cannot be underestimated. The graphic does not display "influence", true, but one will start to hear that as one listens and studies: then the line will start to help correct any misconceptions (eg Rachmaninoff was a 19th century composer).  Also, though the graphic does not display the latter two factors (other arts and historical events), it can be a useful tool to place a composer in the midst of a specific event, movement etc that one has already dated.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, BTW... List of classical music composers... See also Category:Classical composers timeline templates for some even more horrendous ones.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of those on the List of classical music composers are better than this one here because there are white spaces between the coloured name tabs.


 * There are a lot of good graphics on WP: especially in scalable vector graphics. See for example Image:Sub Arturo (In omnem terram) isorhythmic tenor.svg and Image:Nuper Rosarum Flores tenor.svg with their intelligent use of colour.


 * Re Tufte and timelines: there is a famous graphic (not by Tufte himself, but described in his books) of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, see here which shows how multivariate data can be handled. (BTW you can buy it and put it on your wall.) Frankly if you are not going to use multivariate data, there isn't a lot of point in doing graphics. Best. -- Klein  zach  04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. We've go something to work with now and several ideas floating around as to how to tidy it up and make it more helpful.  I've reworked it a little (and added Bruckner back in).  Not sure I like the colour of the background but I don't understand HTML enough to change it.  A very light yellow or silver would be better, I feel: the somewhat retro lightGrey reminds me of the old Atari or BBC system colours (or even ZX81...)  The graphics for those motets are pretty good, though you have to read to text to make sense of them.  I feel the timeline should explain itself, more or less.  I found the Napoleon thing hard to follow and the explanation is not much use, as it is wrong (compare the number of variables claimed and the number actually cited).  Anyway, "Timeline" and "Composer" is as much info as we need on our graphic, IMO; any thing else is just prettificaion and possibly misleading...  We can retain the periods, I guess, since most people will expect them to be there, but I am beginning to think we need to give certain composers a multi-coloured line: Beethoven, at the very least (id:Cla and id:Rom at the same time, if possible, or else create a special two-tone "id" thingy).  More food for thought!--Jubilee♫ clipman  00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I forgot: I pointed people to the List of classical music composers in order to question the very need for ours: redundancy? --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Graphical timeline for classical composers and Graphical Timelines for Classical Composers both redirect to the other page, as do Classical composer, Classical composers and List of classical composers: that article seems to have the monopoly of potential names! Then again I still think ours is more user friendly, given that it reduces the number to an essential few; though we are still quibbling about one or two, we have identified the true greats - or will soon, at least.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How about adding in Boccherini? The table is not in HTML but a special format. I tried yellow for the background but it looked garsh. You can change it in the line "BackgroundColors = canvas:lightGray" Soler97 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More to the point, how about adding John Taverner and Thomas Tallis given the rather misleading huge gap at the beginning... I've added CPE Bach as he seems to be more important even than JC. (Luigi Boccherini is not really that important, IMO but Gaetano Donizetti and Vincenzo Bellini probably are.)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum: As to the colours, I tried all sorts, but they all come out as rather horrible primaries.  I just noticed the definition for the colours above the id bit: how does changing that effect things? --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some documentation on how to use the time-line here http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax Soler97 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll have a look. Now then, I've added several Renaissance figures into the hidden text: Dufay, Agricola, Compère, Isaac, da la Rue, Obrecht, Taverner, Willaert, Gombert, Tallis, Lassus, Victoria, Giovanni Gabrieli, Gesualdo.  All of these need serious consideration, especially Dufay, Obrecht, Gombert, Tallis and Gabrielli. --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)  PS EasyTimeline?!  Much of the info appears to be wrong: eg it claims you can make the legends clickable links, but this fails... Also you only get 32 garish preset colours (or else spend 10 hours playing around with endless numbers for either rgb or hsv).  Tan2 is marginally better then lightGray (raising the "gray" number makes some of the other colours fade).  Anyway, Mendelssohn falls off his line whatever you try and that desparately needs resolving...  Going to bed now: someone else's turn!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to add one or two Renaissance composers that's fine, but please don't go overboard. I preferred grey. Soler97 (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. I've had another look. I think the graphic fails for one basic reason: the vertical axis is meaningless. The horizontal (time) axis is fine. -- Klein zach  06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The vertical axis is just the sequence of composers' births. I don't see any problem. Soler97 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Beethoven should be moved to the top of the next column, as this would show the periods more neatly. Soler97 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just experimenting with colours and the tan is only marginally "better", anyway IMO: I'll put it back to grey. I'll add the five Rens I highlighted at the end and then see what needs to be done to tidy up the rest of the columns. The columns are there to avoid a banana shaped line that would look even worse, as I understand it. --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not bad but still a few issues with the names
Some of the Romantics could be purged, in particular: Bizet (assuming other equally less important opera composers remain out), Mussorgsky (assuming Borodin and Balakirev remain out), Granados (assuming Albeniz and Villa-Lobos remain out). Actually, even Mendelssohn is not really all that "important, he just happens to have written several famous works. Rossini,too, should technically be replaced with Bellini who was far more influential (eg Chopin, Liszt, Verdi, Puccini etc) and far more important to the development of opera; Rossini's operas just happen to be far more popular at the moment. There are also a clutch of C20ths to add: Edward Elgar, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Alexander Scriabin (developed harmony in important and lasting ways), Charles Ives, Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Paul Hindemith, George Gershwin (assuming Porgy and Bess, Rhapsody in Blue etc are actually "classical"), Aaron Copeland, Leonard Bernstein (assuming West Side Story etc are "classical"), Pierre Boulez, and Thomas Adès.  However, the latter is still being assesed, really, as is Adams so both should probably be excluded for now and no others should be added who were born after about 1950 until there is unequivocal historical acclaim for their work and widespread agreement on their actual contribution to the art. The alternative here is to purge the other sections (Gibbons, Corelli, Scarlatti, Telemann, Soler, and the Romantics I highlighed, and possibly others) and add only the really big C20ths, once we can agree on who they are. --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with any of your suggestions. I was particularly surprised that you even think of purging Mendelssohn. It's not a matter of who prefers which composer, but rather it comes back to our lack of agreement regarding selection criteria. It appears to me that your primary criterion is influence on other composers. I agree that this is important but I don't think it should be primary. Ultimately, it's the music that a composer has written that matters, not what secondary effects it may have had. As I see it, people who look at this time-line will want to know who the "greatest" composers were. I know that sounds crude but we are making value judgements, based not just on our personal taste but on what music gets performed, what reputable musicians think etc. I understand your anti-populist position but to purge people like Mendelssohn and Rossini because their music is popular and good, rather than historically influential seems absurd. BTW I have not even heard of Obrecht, and neither will 96% of people who see this. We are not in the business of "discovering" little-known composers. That constitutes original research. Our list should only contain names familiar to nearly everyone with a keen interest in the subject.Soler97 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, once we have hammered out the list of names, should we remove the hidden ones? Surely the fact that they remain will only encourage IPs to add their favourites from the list of "reserves"... --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Britten? I don't think we can consider him influential. What's the argument behind that one? Gingermint (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Content selection, weasel words and 'original thought'
Leaving aside the graphics (where regrettably we haven't seen any progress), there are issues to be confronted on the selection of composers.

At the moment the lead says: "This Classical composers time-line presents in graphic form those people who are generally held to be the most important composers . . ." This is an example of 'weasel words'. Wikipedia has a guideline about this, see here: "Avoid using phrases such as "some people say," or any variations of the sort, except in direct quotation."

Moreover, If the selection is a personal one (of User X or Y's favourite composers), this is original thought, as discouraged on WP: "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."

However it is possible to make a list on neutral criteria, a good example being the List of major opera composers, which is based on selections made in previous publications. -- Klein zach  01:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, I see your point: "generally held to be the most important" needs to be clearly referenced from primary sources. There must be a few lists in important overviews of the subject, in parallel with those Klienzach has pointed to in regard to the opera list: we'll need to dig around.  However: we also still need to to decide if this present article is warranted given the existance of the far more extensive list of classical music composers.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose it depends how much time you want to sink into this. Days? Weeks? Months? -- Klein zach  02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Me personally: I'm fed up with it already... I suggest a formal WP:AfD proposal (or maybe even just WP:PROD) pointing out the existance of the other list(s) and the POV and OR nature of the present list.  Maybe someone independant will help sort out the mess and help salvage an article worthy of WP.  As it stands, this article needs enormous amounts of work and sourcing I really can't be bothered with.  That assumes we don't want to re-introduce it to the old place... and/or that Soler97 doesn't want it as a pet project - I know you certainly don't!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind putting more time and effort into this but to justify that I think we need to have a much clearer sense of direction. As far as I'm concerned, the list as it is now is pretty much OK. I think it is better than the other list, which contains many very minor figures so that the major names get lost in the soup. By all means let's open up the discussion. Is nomination for deletion the only way to do this? Soler97 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you can ask the Composers project for their input. -- Klein zach  04:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Soler97: You don't agree that Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Copeland are great composers? They are far better known than Soler or Scarlatti. BTW, the lead says that we are including important composers: Obrecht was hugely important in his day though he may be unknown now. Mendelssohn is not really important as a composer, per se, though he is important as an academic and conductor who reassessed JS Bach, among others. His concertos, overtures and symphonies are rather derivative though extremely interesting; I really like his music, actually. Anyway, this whole debate is moot as it needs a rethink: we need to include both important and famous composers since most of the big names, in either sense, are both. See the deletion discussion linked below. We also need to source our choices: as I point out on that discussion, that will be next to impossible given the hugely divergant views of the "experts"... Good luck! --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, which is probably very little, I don't consider Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Copeland to be "great". They are, to me, minor figures compared to Brahms, Debussy et al. I'm not sure that Copeland is better known than Scarlatti, but there is little point in arguing the toss (Aussie term for pointless debates). I am still amazed that you say Mendelssohn was unimportant as a composer. You mean that the millions of people who buy and listen to his music are unimportant? I quite enjoy discussing these things with you, as agreement is boring, isn't it? However, I doubt that we are advancing wikipedia much... I think it is possible to find a fairly objective set of criteria, eg number of pages devoted to the composer in a representative batch of books on music, hours of play time on radio, number of times he is featured in concerts, a poll of the general public, a poll of musicians, and so forth. We could devise a mix of such criteria and decide to abide by its results, some of which might dismay us (eg Rodrigo could become "important"). For instance, a classical radio station in Sydney publishes an index of composers that specifies how many times each is played per month. If you like I can give you the results for last month, though I suppose they would be skewed towards composers of short pieces that act as fillers. Even so, it would be a good starting point. Soler97 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad idea to use a radio station as a "source": if we did that for Classic FM we would get Ludovico Einaudi, Howard Shore, John Williams, Tan Dun, Howard Goodall, Johann Strauss II, Jacques Offenbach, Johann Pachelbel (for one piece only) etc but not Stravinsky, Josquin, Bruckner, or Scarlatti and possibly not even Brahms or Schumann. Furthermore, polls are irrelevent to establish facts as is "air-time" and "concert-time" (as it were).  The only acceptable sources are those published by reputable music historians.  However, a page count would not nessecarily help as it might be a complex subject and anyway how to you cite a page count?  "20 pages devoted in book X (full work 99 pages), 43 in book Y (full work 134 pages)...[etc]".  Mendelssohn was no where near as important as Chopin (pre-empted progressive tonality in F major/A minor Ballad, ingenious usage of ambiguous harmony in the early A minor Mazurka and that finale to the Bb minor sonata), Schumann (harmony and structure, and furthered Beethoven's usage of motivic development) or Liszt (programme music, cyclic form, motifs and thematic transformation).  By contrast, Mendelssohn was a work-a-day composer throwing out fantastic tunes and lovely harmonies wrapped up in excellent orchestration but little more - rather like J. Strauss II, in fact.  I guess we'll agree to disagree?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of a head-count ie number of days per month that a composer is played on 2MBS-FM, so max possible is 31. They are not playing any of the ones you cited as less desirable, except Strauss II (4), Offenbach (4) and Pachelbel (1). On the other hand: Stravinsky (4), Josquin (0), Bruckner (2), D. Scarlatti (2), Brahms (13), Schumann (5). Other stats: Bach (25), Clara Schumann (1), Zelenka (1). I also had a look at the Larousse Encyclopedia of Music (554 pages). Page counts: Dufay (3), Ockeghem (3), des Prez (3), Vivaldi (1), Bach (5), Handel (4), Mozart (4), Stravinsky (6), Prokofiev (7), Cage (1/2). If we use a percentage page count then we avoid the problem of fatter books having a weightier influence. I think that if we use five or six reputable texts then the bias of each should with luck cancel out and we could come up with a reasonable list. Soler97 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mutliple sources would be necessary — as for the List of major opera composers — but there is another problem. Where do you put the inline citations? On the graphic? P.S. In general I agree with Jubilee♫ on composers, but I think he's being a bit tough with Mendelssohn (after all "fantastic tunes and lovely harmonies wrapped up in excellent orchestration" is no' bad . . .). Also Offenbach is major, and not just for the brilliance of Hoffmann, but also great social/historical importance. -- Klein zach  01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess an Australian radio station specializing in serious classical and jazz is better than a British one specializing in light accessible classical. Our BBC Radio 3 is probably similar to your station, in which case we would need to draw on their play lists, too, plus those of other similar station throughout the world, to avoid cultural bias. (Though, Josquin (0) tells its own story...) The "populist" stations would help temper our choices, because "serious" stations often have agendas 1) to avoid the popular stuff that is already played on other stations, thus lowering the count for many of the greats and 2) to give airtime to more obscure stuff lest it be forgotten, thus raising lesser composers' counts. Given that at least one person must have done this research already, all we really need to do is find their list(s) and use it/them as a starting point. If we can find lists by authoritataive historians, so much the better. All we would need to do then is add a footnote pointing to those lists - no need for inlines. As for my Mendelssohn bashing - I am not an authoritative music historian... --Jubilee♫ clipman 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not rely on a single station - say 4 or 5 would avoid bias. It may be easier to do the research or to ask the stations directly than to find an "authoritative" source, such as a book. What about the Larousse and similar tomes as a measure of historical significance? Also, what about the LSO concert statistics and such like? I have access to the complete Grove Encyclopedia. This would be a pretty good input to the mix. However, I would like to avoid Anglo-Saxon bias, ie over-valuing of Elgar, Walton, Vaughan Williams etc, which I see both at 2MBS and in ABC-FM. So we should use some non-anglo sources, such as the Larousse. At the same time, a part of me thinks, this will be a lot of effort to establish what is (mostly) obvious - which composers are played often and feature prominently in history books. Soler97 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious doesn't hold much weight here at Wiki, unless it is so blindingly obvious that no-one would ever even think of questioning it. In our own case, we three have wildly divergent views on several of the inclusions, so "obviousness" is not established.  BTW, I was bashing Mendelssohn to make that very point.  In fact, his religious works are highly significant even though they are not often played: Mendelssohn is an important composer.  His contribution to the oratorio is immense. I also wasn't entirely fair to his orchestration: the colours he creates by combining instruments in near-unique ways are incredible and probably highly influencial.  My point really was that anyone can say anything if it is unsubstantiated or, worse, placed in a biased context.  If you and Klein had happened to agree with me, he would have been chopped!!!  Sorry Felix...!  We seme to be making progress on ideas for sourcing, anyway.  Stats are better than nothing, though they will be biased towards the operatic, orchestral and instrumental repertoire: what about anthems, motets, partsongs, masses, cantatas, oratorios, electroacoustic music, etc?  All of those are often represented by significant composers who often wrote little else.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your point about "obvious". In these days of citation-mania we look for reputable sources to confirm that water is wet. It's probably a happy accident that your views and mine are so different, as it makes a more objective method seem necessary. Due to other engagements, Felix is unable to accept your apology, so I am happy to do so on his behalf. ((Isn't his octet a marvel?)) So what about if I compile some statistics from Larousse and Grove, plus the 2MBS most-performed list? People could still challenge the results, but at least they will have a hint of authority behind them. Soler97 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it. I'll see if the BBC publish any such list, too, when I get time.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge
As I wrote at Talk:List of classical music composers, I strongly recommend you merge this page into Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous, which is what makes up the first subsection at List of classical music composers. That list doesn't get enough work either, so merging efforts would be beneficial all around. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think merging two problems will result in a solution. On the contrary it will merely compound the problem. -- Klein zach  05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, I've gone ahead and recommended Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous for deletion, see here. -- Klein zach  05:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A few clarifications and examples. (I should have been more specific initially, sorry about that).
 * I meant more that we should merge 100% of this new time-line's content into that template, replacing the template's current content entirely. Talkpage content could simply be page-moved to the empty Template talk:Timeline Classical Composers Famous to keep your excellent work-thus-far together with the discussions above. The main reasons to merge are that the List of classical music composers is simply an old (started in 2003) and slightly-oddly-built-out-of-templates article - because the other templates, such as Template:Timeline Classical Composers Medieval, are being used in their specific articles; Medieval music in this case. (This is a common technique for timelines due to their reusability). Also, they're likely to already have a few interested people watchlisting them. Lastly, there are many incoming links/redirects pointing to that main List.
 * If we were to delete that template, we'll simply have to replace it in that List with a main link pointing to this time-line, and end up with two separate composer-timeline articles (which somebody would then suggest get merged).


 * I'm thinking of it more as - using your good work here as an overhaul of that template, with technical benefits.


 * Tangentially, I found exactly what you are looking for regarding a way to distinguish when a composer was musically active vs just alive. See the UK Prime Ministers timeline for an added-level-of-detail example. Then see Template:Canadian Prime Ministers timeline for an example of specific years/events being denoted.
 * (Lastly, I do agree that all the timelines need a lot of work, but so does most of Wikipedia ;) I've long-admired Tufte, dimly recall the W3C specs/precepts, and would be happy to help out over the next few months, if wanted. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I imagined you meant some kind of fusing together of the two timelines, not a replacement of one by the other, but then you voted here to keep the other one, so I was a bit confused. Note that I put the template up for deletion, not the article itself. (BTW I think the Template:Canadian Prime Ministers timeline works OK, but UK_Prime_Ministers_timeline has a lot of problems.) -- Klein zach  08:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"...merge 100%... replacing..." are both mutually exclusive. One can merge part (n%) or all (100%) of the contents of one article into another or one can replace one article with another entirely (or with userspace material as I did recently). In the former, elements of both articles are preserved; in the latter, the text of one is entirely lost. Disambiguation needed... Regarding the extra info for active years: not a bad idea, though when does someone actually become active? Eg do Mozart's 3-year-old efforts count? When did Josquin start (or end)? What about those who were on-off? Anyway, only Sibelius, that I can think of, has a slight oddity that need explaining (last 20 years). Possible extra element to explore, though. More important, however, is to give (at least) Monteverdi, CPE Bach and Beethoven two colours to avoid people pointing out that they were stylistically across two periods. --Jubilee♫ clipman 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy C***, there's still that another one... Template:Classical composers timeline. AfD that one? Or just WP:PROD? --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Classical music - at a glance, that's where this page initiated. Kleinzach pulled it out of the article into a template in 2008, and then removed it entirely from the article in 2009. As that template isn't currently being used in articlespace, I'd say TfD it (or just redirect it) after we figure out what to do with this time-line and Template:Timeline_Classical_Composers_Famous. (We should end up with only 1 instance, but there's no rush). Understand where everything came from first, then act. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge 100%. - Copy all of this article's content, and paste it over that template's content, thereby replacing it all - but also, thereby not eradicating it from anyone's watchlist, nor deleting the template's history. And then page-move this talkpage to that talkpage, to preserve these discussions.
 * Then this content could potentially be used, in template form, at List of classical music composers and at Classical music (and elsewhere. portals etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As you have checked all this, can you give us (1) a list of all the timeline templates, and (2) let us know if there are any remaining instances of timelines that are 'raw coded', in other words, not templated? That will help us get a grip on this. Perhaps we can then agree on which ones are superfluous and get them deleted before we debate the virtues or otherwise of the relevant ones? -- Klein zach  23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't really checked all of anything, I'm just investigating as I go. I'm happy to help organize a list of what-needs-to-be-dealt-with, though.
 * I'll assume you mean just the classical music timeline templates (the rest are here). They should all be listed at Category:Classical composers timeline templates (or its parent category), and used in Category:Timelines of music amongst other places.
 * I don't know how one would search for timelines that are embedded vs templated (transcluded). ... Hmmm, Aha! search for "plotarea" and other keywords to find embedded timelines. I tried a few keyword variations, and the only classical music result I could find was Early_music_of_the_British_Isles, but there might be more. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. I've also done some tidying up of the cats, so now I think all the relevant templates are in Category:Classical composers timeline templates. Some real horrors out there, interesting that the pop templates all seem much better than the classical ones. It may be because their time periods are so much shorter. -- Klein zach  03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed: Early_music_of_the_British_Isles is horrendous and badly maintained... --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of progress? Time to prod this?
This page hasn't progressed. It's still basically original research. Can we prod it? -- Klein zach  00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. No point thrashing a dead horse... --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the other have gone, too, so this is it... It was always going to be OR anyway.  "I want X in cos he's good" "yeah but no one listens to him" "but he is reviewed" "how's that make him important... what is 'important' anyway?"  etc etc  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we preserve the discussion though? It gets quite erudite at times!  And there is quite alot in there that is pertinent to recent discussions...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe on a user page? I suppose it could be made into a project subpage, but that would be very unusual. -- Klein zach  04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good (both the prod, and preserving the discussion). I suggest copy/pasting all three pages (the 2 archives, plus this) to a single page, with an edit summary that states where the content came from (in order to satisfy the legal-license requirements). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like to do this, i.e. copy it to one of your user pages? I will then do the prod after that. -- Klein zach  23:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind saving it all: it's not particularly massive. I thought about userfying it all to my page ie moving the whole lot to a subpage of my userpage.  We then simply speedy delete the redirects.  This way, we also preserve the history and the timeline itself.  It'll never go back into mainspace (obviously) but we could use it in future to warn people of the futility of "list of important/significant/major/bestknown etc composer" type lists.  Any thoughts on that possibility?  The essay on that process raises a few issues but they can be overcome, I think, quite easily.  For example, I think we have to PROD or AfD first then userfy if consensus is reached on that as being the way forward.  Anyway let me know what you think.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum we should ask Soler97 to comment as well thoug (on both PROD and copy/paste vs userfication), given that he was the one who created the page. He may be the one who should userfy it, anyway—if we decide on that?  The essay seems to suggest that.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We could also potentially move it to a subpage of Talk:List of classical music composers, in the future. (I still suggest combining the 3 pages into a single page, so that it is easier to read/search).
 * I do still disagree with the idea that it is at all "futile" to create this type of list. It simply needs more work/referencing than a purely objective list (eg "Grammy Award Winners"). I would compare the scope/concept to Featured lists such as List of major opera composers and List of important operas. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I unarchived the pages: I take your point with that. I am not convinced that this general list of composers will be as easy to unPOV/unOR as those other lists (and they weren't easy...) but now that I have saved everything to my pages we still have it all to work from in the future.  I think this is probably the best we can do for now given the other pressing duties we all have to attend to (unreferenced BLPS being the major bugbear at the moment: see here, here and—take a strong cup of coffee and sit down—here).  Klein and I (among several others) are also going through List of 21st-century classical composers by hand at present, a task also somewhat pertinent to our task here.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Userfied
I just went ahead, as per the general consensus above. Hope that's fine? Perhaps someone else can Speedy the redirects (so it doesn't look as though I'm merely pinching an article)? --Jubilee♫ clipman 03:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Took an age to work out how to move the critical archives... Why on earth don't they move anyway?!  Anyway, I'm of to bed...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)