Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 39

Gloria (Handel)
I started Gloria (Handel). The most sensible writing is quoted by Amazon, could that Keates review be found elsewhere? Some newspapers with partly nonsense claims are part of gfhandel.org. Most of these mention seven movements, but a recordings has eight?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom
The recent Mfd closed with no consensus, (likewise a Requested move to WikiProject British Music). This is now a Proposal to Merge to WP:UK. It would be appreciated if people can participate so this can finally be resolved one way or another. -- Klein zach  04:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation guideline
A user has proposed a 'Disambiguation guideline' see here. -- Klein zach  05:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Foreign accents (Diacritics) Rfc
Some of us may have missed an important Rfc which has been going on: Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Please take part! -- Klein zach  11:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah FA
As you probably know, Messiah (Handel) is for FA now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Time signatures?
I've noticed there doesn't seem to be any mention of time signatures in both WP:MOSMUSIC and WP:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines. Is there any consensus on whether Template:Music should be used (such as ) or to simply type it out as 4/4?  Bramble  claw  x   22:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also the template, only it shows very large. Or is there also a smaller version (in normal font size) that I didn't find yet? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think 4/4, 3/4, 7/8, etc. is suitable.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy
Hello, I have found some articles about orchestras which are copied from the official websites of the orchestras :
 * Singapore Symphony Orchestra (http://www.sso.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5)
 * Orkestra Melayu Singapura (http://www.orkestramelayusingapura.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=6)
 * Beijing Symphony Orchestra (http://www.bjso.cn/en/index.php/introduction/)
 * Hong Kong Chinese Orchestra (http://www.hkco.org/HKCO_Friends.aspx?channel=1&pagenumber=12&lang=E)
 * Singapore Chinese Orchestra (http://sco.com.sg/english/orchestra/3012.html)

Some parts of these articles may be copied from other pages of official websites. One may check the content of the other articles about orchestras in Asia... I am not used to rules on Wp:en, so I just indicate the copy here.

Zandr4&#91;Kupopo ?&#93; 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Yes, they are copyvios and dreadful promotional ones at that. I've stubbed and re-written the first one and will gradually work my way through the rest. If anyone else wants to help with this, make sure you add Template:Cclean to the article talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Finished. All reduced to stubs. Singapore Chinese Orchestra remains a real mess, though. Voceditenore (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Project clarification
Hello, apologies if this is a daft question, but with regard to classifying articles in the WikiProject Classical music, am I right in thinking that if an article is already covered by the Composers or Opera projects, there is no need to be in the Classical music project as well? Thanks in advance. Nick Watts (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New article: Sinfonia Concertante for Oboe, Clarinet, Horn, Bassoon and Orchestra K. 297b, Mozart
Hello WikiProject Classical music people. An editor I am familiar with (from his hundreds of plant articles) wrote his first musical article today. Would someone please have a look at it and see if it is OK by project standards? It's a bit tricky to write about as there are so many conflicting opinions on the authenticity of this piece. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be prudent to mention a post I made last year. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Melodia's post last year didn't seem to generate much discussion. Perhaps that means nobody has particularly strong feelings about it...?  I've moved the article to Sinfonia Concertante for Oboe, Clarinet, Horn, Bassoon and Orchestra (Mozart) as this seems consistent with other articles on Mozart concertos.  With regards the instrumentation, I would think it best to stick with what we have, even if this isn't what Mozart originally wrote for, since this is the form in which the work is known today.  --Deskford (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much guys. Does anyone mind if I copy this discussion onto the article's talk page? Invertzoo (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Scope?
Actually, now that I've finished "cleansing" the above articles, I wonder whether some of them should be in this project at all. Does it cover "classical" music outside the tradition of western classical music? If not, then Orkestra Melayu Singapura, Hong Kong Chinese Orchestra, and Singapore Chinese Orchestra should probably be debannered and replaced with banners for the Projects dealing with those countries (if they aren't already there). Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. There are a number of "classical" repertories apart from the European/Western one. I notice, for example, that Andalusian classical music and Honkyoku have escaped bannering by this project, though both are solidly within the usual understanding of "classical"—they just don't happen to be of European origin. Is the current project name actually the problem?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In my mind, the issue is not one of definition but of realm of interest. If there are members of the project who are intensely interested in Chinese classical music - or if there are editors in this area who want to make this project their home - we should include them. If not, we should unbanner them.


 * I see no reason of principle that members cannot use this project to discuss issues regarding articles on Andalusian music. They might, however, feel that some other project (is there a project:Andalusia) might be more appropriate. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in the particular project you mention (Andalusian music), there are currently three projects listed: WikiProject Spain, WikiProject Morocco, and WikiProject Arab world. In my perambulations around Wikipedia, I find it is not uncommon for articles to fall under multiple projects, sometimes with conflicting agendas. If we banner projects according to whether or not there is a project member with an interest in that subject, surely this will involve keeping track of the coming and going of the individual members of the project. For that matter, I am not at all sure whether I am a member of this project myself—I think I may have gotten drawn into it when WikiProject Contemporary music was absorbed into WikiProject Classical music. However, if it makes any difference, I am intensely interested in Andalusian classical music (though not a member of any of the three projects mentioned), but not especially interested in Chinese classical music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * By member, I meant participant in the discussions here. If, for example, I were to raise a question here about the article on Jo Amar, the founder of the Israeli Andalusian Orchestra, and other participants joined in the discussion, would you feel that it was inappropriate to conduct the discussion here? I can imagine some discussions like this that would be fine, and others that would be out of place.


 * Nor, when we talk about other classical musics, is the dividing line between classical and popular so clearcut as it is in Western European music. Are Fayruz and Umm Kalthoum classical or popular Arabic music singers?


 * My point being that we should play it by ear - not a very classical music approach, but right in this case. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I have no problems with that, but Voceditenore's question had to do with the bannering of articles, rather than with subjects appropriate for discussion on this page. Surely you are not suggesting that there should be no coordination or guidelines about this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get carried away sometimes. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are problems applying the word 'classical' to non-European traditions. This was discussed in relation to the List of classical and art music traditions — an article which had a history of being a title football. My understanding is that in past discussions here we agreed to follow the definition of the article Classical music which explains "Classical music is the art music produced in, or rooted in, the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 11th century to present times." Personally I wish we only used the term for the music of the Classical era, but that goes against the practice of the (now decaying) recording industry, shops and magazines. -- Klein  zach  23:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

'Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians'
This title is incorrect. It should be either 'Grove's. . .' or 'The New Grove' Any opinions? Please see here. -- Klein zach  08:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Instrumentation changes
An IP editor recently made unexplained changes to the "Instrumentation" sections of three articles. I have reverted the changes as suspicious, but it would be good if someone could check them against suitable sources. The changes made by the IP were: --Deskford (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Symphony No. 2 (Shostakovich): siren replaced by tam-tam and tambourine
 * Symphony No. 11 (Shostakovich): piano removed
 * Stabat Mater (Szymanowski): tubular bells replaced by Glockenspiel (sic)

Gottfried/Gerhard van Swieten
If anyone is interested in trying to identify whether a picture is really of Gottfried van Swieten, I invite him/her to visit the Talk page for this article. As a visitor to the page pointed out, the picture looks very much like Gottfried's father Gerhard. Normally, I follow published sources steadfastly, but this looks like perhaps it should be an exception. Opus33 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

corno da caccia
Which instrument is the corno da caccia (Cc) in Was willst du dich betrüben, BWV 107? Zugtrompete , Jagdhorn? in English? Link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Grove gives, "(It.: ‘hunting horn’). The name by which the orchestral horn was known in 18th-century Italy, where mounted hunts were not usual". So, assuming Bach was following Italian usage, he simply meant the normal horn (i.e. normal for his day, as in Natural horn. I think he also used this term in the First Brandenburg Concerto.  Opus33 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have linked Natural horn. de-WP has an article Corno da caccia, several instruments are mentioned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Improving the markup of lists of works in navboxes
In a, I converted Bach cantatas to use Flatlist, and thereby emit proper and accessible HTML list markup. The changes have no visual effect. Please bear this in mind when editing or creating other such navboxes, and use Flatlist in the same way. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this to do with microformats? There is at least four years of back history to this issue as searching the archives of WP:Composers will show . -- Klein  zach  23:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to be able to find discussion of accessible HTML list markup or Flatlist in those archives; please can you provide explicit links? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure you remember all this. There were so many explicit links — all the way up to ArbCom. -- Klein zach  07:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide an explicit link to discussion of accessible HTML list markup or Flatlist in those archives - if you can. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Iván Erőd
or what? I found (and expanded from de and referenced a bit) Iván Erőd with a redirect Iván Eröd. I wonder where that strange ő comes from, Hungarian? his son has a normal ö, most of the sources have that also, I wonder if "he" should be moved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Double acute accent is used in Hungarian to form a long o-umlaut: . I found one occurrence in the Hungarian Wikipedia (hu:Erkel Ferenc-díj) which spells his name, which means "fort" or "fortress", with the hungarumlaut, and another (hu:20. századi klasszikus zenei zeneszerzők listája), which spells it with the ordinary German umlaut "ö". Which one is correct for Iván, I don't know. Until there's reliable proof for the standard "ö", the article should probably stay where it is and let REDIRECTs do their job. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my Hungarian dictionary, the current spelling of both names is correct (i.e. Iván Erőd). --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, redirect was in place, just looks funny to have father and son spelled differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Incipits on lists of compositions
If I was able to provide incipits for the lists of compositions (I am especially thinking of the long lists of Mozart and Haydn Symphonies and String Quartets at the moment although I would start with something smaller as a "proof of concept"), would that be something that would be welcomed or is it liable to be thrown out straight away? I initially asked in the wrong place and was directed here. The responses I have had so far are reproduced for convenience, I trust that is ok.


 * In the works themselves, I would think they might be useful, but in the list of works it'd be a bit much, I think. But thinking about it, I wonder if the fact that incipits are often reductions of some manner, that some of them might be considered copyrighted (for those published in still-in-copyright thematic catalogs, that is). I don't know the answer to that, but it's a consideration as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Musical incipits? This is not really a guidelines issue. How about asking the CM project? -- Klein zach  00:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kleinzach that is is hardly a style issue. On the substance of the question: I think incipits are enourmously helpful on lists of musical works (see Inventions and Sinfonias and Fantasiestücke), and I don't see how copyright restrictions apply to the works in question. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see incipits in article lists and hope Op47 has the time to do it. Incipits are also useful for embedding in articles about the works.  Opus33 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have completed incipits for Schumann so that you can see what I am intending to do. Comments would be appreciated. I tried to link to this page from the category schumann symphonies, but could not work out how to do it. I trust that this is satisfactory. Op47 (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They look nice. A small comment:  I don't personally know if incipits normally end in a double bar; perhaps check on this if you're not sure. Thanks for creating them. Opus33 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding another thank you; I think they are useful and look good. Regarding the double bar, I grabbed one edition that had incipits (an old Schirmer ed. of the Beethoven piano sonatas) and those end in a single bar.  Minor issue though. Antandrus  (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I like them. They look cleaner when its a single staff with just the melody (some of the links above include the full score).  You could make the tempo marking a little smaller and less bold and remove the bracket on the left of staff -- just the make the actual notes stick out more.  I like how the http://www.haydn107.com website does it.DavidRF (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. The bad news is that the music notation software has the behaviours commented on built in. The good news is that I wrote the software myself and as soon as I have time, I will incorporate your comments. Op47 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Op47 (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably incipits would be acceptable under fair use. -- Klein zach  23:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sviatoslav Richter
Can somebody roll back the series of vandalistic edits made by User:75.142.59.48? I would, but I have been denied rollback privileges.THD3 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You could still do that sort of thing manually by simply going to the earlier edit and saving, even if undo doesn't work. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Symphonies of Michael Haydn
hi. from France. According to the french musicologist Marc Vignal, charles Sherman asserts that Michael Haydn has composed 43 symphonies not 41 and numbered in his catalog 1 to 43. So i'm surprised that in en:wiki it ends at 41 and no 43. Where are symphonies No. 42 and 43 ? moreover Marc Vignal says that Sherman omitted a symphony composed by M.Haydn with the date: 1760 november 20, with Partita written on autograph Number 1 in Perger (P.1) catalog. Thanks for your notes and analysis. kind regards.Littlejazzman (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See the list here. List_of_compositions_by_Michael_Haydn  The Sherman numbers go to 41, but there are is also a "1A" and "1B" as well as "1C" which is the Perger-1 "Partita".  So that explains how there can be more than 41 without the numbers going higher than 41.  The entry at Michael_Haydn lists the count as 43.DavidRF (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Classical music - external link
Someone raised a complaint about this link in the External links section:


 * Historical classical recordings from the British Library Sound Archive

They wrote on the talk page: "For full disclosure, it must be stated that link contents for EU use only, together with the link. Ideally frustrated links must be avoided"

Not sure what they mean. If they're saying that countries outside the European Union can't access the recordings, could someone from outside the EU, check and see if that's the case? I'm in the UK and can't tell Voceditenore (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Due to copyright restrictions this recording is only available to users in member states of the European Union."-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a note to the link re the geographical restriction. It's a rich resource, but per WP:ELNO, should this link stay? Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, it shouldn't, but it's available throughout the whole EU, so I'm hesitant to pull it out. :-( -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking too. I'm inclined to leave it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One might consider the fact that the WP servers are in the US, and they ARE under copyright there. The issue of copyright is a toughie -- obviously the site does more than the IMSLP even does to prevent breech of copyright, but on the flip side the site is basically dedicated to, as it were, recordings that infringe in the US. The other issue is that since the site seems to prevent those outside the EU from listening, it is very much "a substantial number of users" that WP:ELNO warns against. I wonder if this shouldn't be taken to WT:EL to get more opinions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would probably be a good thing. Are you volunteering? :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just brought it up over at External_links/Noticeboard.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia day at NYPLPA
As part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries program, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts will be having a Wikipedia editathon on Saturday, Oct. 22, as part of New York City's Meetup group. Though the day is billed as The Musical (i.e. with focus on musical theatre), that in no way excludes topics that would be well-covered by that library, including classical music and opera. Here's NYPL's blurb: Wikipedia: The Musical!

You can sign up at Meetup/NYC's page, which has been renamed The Musical for the event. -- kosboot (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncited critiques in music articles
Hello all- I have a very general question, and would welcome any and all responses. As I cruise around various articles on classical composers, and their specific compositions, I keep running across discussions and critiques that provide no citation references, but are almost surely de novo analyses written specifically for posting to Wikipedia.

I'm not a musician - I'm simply trying to catalog a large collection of recordings - but my naïve impression has been that many, probably most, of these discussions that I've found are interesting and helpful, and generally tend to be well-written.

Most recently I was trying to decipher the two different opus numbers for Violin Concerto No. 1 (Shostakovich), and found there several sections that had all been added 19 May 2011 by anonymous editor 132.162.84.82, including what seemed to me an excellent "Analysis" section. This analysis is unreferenced, and certainly appears to be original criticism.

It's my understanding that regardless of the usefulness of such discussion, this material is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Personally I would hate to see this section simply deleted, but I assume it ought to be flagged. Or perhaps I'm misapprehending how WP policy should apply in situations like this? Milkunderwood (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed these contravene the policy on original research. There may be an appropriate place for these, but it isn't here.  Symphony No. 15 (Shostakovich) is just one of many examples I have noticed recently.  As you say, they often make interesting reading, but strictly we should remove them.  --Deskford (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We have discussed this issue before, and if I were really conscientious, I would look it up in the archives. As I remember, we more or less agreed that analysis which would be apparent to a trained musician would be acceptable, while discussion of affective or programatic content would require attribution. For example, from the article on the Shostakovich violin concerto, saying that the scherzo movement is "featuring uneven metric stresses set against a steady rhythmic pulse" is a statement that any trained musician could confirm simply by listening to the music; but that the movement "suggests the Russian peasant" might be overstepping it (although that, too, is arguable - Russian peasant motifs are readily recognizable to people familiar to them). --Ravpapa (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond what Ravpapa said, one also has to consider that it MIGHT not be OR, but rather simply the source wasn't stated. If they are all by the same editor, IP or not, leaving a note on their talk page asking them to add citations to where they got it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely it would be preferable to flag such content with the This section does not cite any references or sources warning notice, as is posted at the article on Symphony No. 15 (Shostakovich), rather than deleting it unless the discussion is clearly incompetent or foolish. As it happens, editor 132.162.84.82 does not have a talk page. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a talk page. You can still goto the page that it should be at an leave a message. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Who here at WP has editorial rights/authority to flag this sort of unreferenced material, or to insert the superscript citation needed that is frequently found throughout various articles? To whose attention should they be brought? By the standard stated by Deskford, I could just do it myself as I happen to find these problems, except that I doubt I have the appropriate authority. (Nor do I have any idea of the actual mechanics of inserting either kind.) However, going by Ravpapa's comments, I certainly do not have any expertise for judging the specific content. In any case I strongly feel that simply deleting discussion that is not obvious vandalism is entirely inappropriate. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone has the 'authority'. That's what "anyone can edit" means. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The mechanics is to add citation needed (or more briefly fact) after the material you want to challenge. This will result in the [citation needed] you see elsewhere (and also categorize the article as needing citation).  Magic ♪piano 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for both explanations - I have now [citation needed] several statements at Violin Concerto No. 1 (Shostakovich). This still leaves the question of how to insert the warning box "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Milkunderwood (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As with the fact tags, those are added by transcluding a template. Wikipedia has many such templates; the one you are looking for in this case is Template:Unreferenced section.  Magic ♪piano 01:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please consider the possibility of not adding yet another maintenance template to the article, since it is now redundant with the "citation needed" tags you have added. By the way, do you intend to help find cites? Please see this section for some useful advice. Antandrus  (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Antandrus, I appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. In response I have now deleted the "citation needed" tags from the Analysis section and replaced them with a single "unreferenced section" tag (which I found how to do), since the entire section appears to be uncited original research, and this type of tag is much more obvious both to the author and to passers-by. I've also now posted a new explanatory section on that article's talk page. I certainly share the concern about "drive-by tagging" - which is why I originally posted my questions here. About helping with finding cites, I have no source whatever other than Wikipedia itself and whatever recording I happen to have in hand. For instance, my very first posts here were to the article on Dylan Thomas's Under Milk Wood (hence my name), where I had the original LP with full cast and extensive liner notes; and referenced my additions as such. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Magicpiano, thank you also. I'm afraid when I first returned to this page my eye shuddered to a full stop at the word "transcluding", and dropped down to the next paragraph. So yes, I did find the format, after it occurred to me to "edit" a page that included an "unreferenced section" tag. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Before this discussion disappears into the black hole of archives, I'm still not sure why it seems that WikiProject Classical music appears to hold itself immune to standard WP guidelines on the requirement of cited and referenced sources as opposed to original research in analyses of compositions or specific performances. I tend to lean toward Deskford's view - or rather, not that such critiques mustn't be there, but that some authority be cited to make them encyclopedia-worthy. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've stayed out of this discussion but I feel Milkunderwood is totally correct. So many classical music articles have the superlatives that one finds typically in record reviews. It's against WP to use such descriptions rules unless these sources are cited.  It's not the place of any editor to offer opinions on a work, merely to cite published work discussing it. -- kosboot (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What kosboot is talking about is especially egregious. But I have to come back to my original question, as illustrated by the apparently knowledgeable and erudite, but anonymously written, and entirely unreferenced Violin Concerto No. 1 (Shostakovich). (Also see the discussions on that article's Talk page.) Much of this section will be, as argued above, obvious to any trained musician; but a number of assertions probably will not. That editor's other new sections preceding the Analysis are more factual, but also unsupported. I have to admit that I have also posted an unsupported assertion, at Cello Sonatas Nos. 4 and 5 (Beethoven), as"Pablo Casals, who became especially interested in chamber music and concertos for cello by the end of the 19th century, and performed many works that had by then become long neglected, recorded at least two complete studio sets of the five Beethoven cello sonatas in addition to a number of recordings of individual sonatas, all highly influential in respect to subsequent interpretations." Now I do have at hand various Casals Beethoven recordings, and did reference the two sets mentioned, but the other assertions made in that sentence come from my having read liner notes (both CD and LP) as well other sources over a period of years, and at present I have no idea where specifically I might have found them. So technically these are illegal here. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel that the quote above is not a really good example - careless, perhaps, not to include citations for the assertions that Casals revived many long neglected works, and that his interpretations were highly influential, but indisputably correct and verifiable. A much worse case is the original version of String Quartet No. 12 (Dvořák), which claimed that the American quartet quotes Negro spirituals, Native American Indian ritual chants, and train sounds - all of which is common knowledge and is also wrong. So the key issue is not so much one of following policy as of getting it right. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Chopin: capitalization in names of works
I've just noticed that the heading for Trois Nouvelles Études uses upper case, while Andante spianato et grande polonaise brillante uses lower case (and also uses the French et rather than the English and, which is the way I'm accustomed to seeing it).

EDIT: The Polonaise isn't listed as such in Oxford 5th; Schwann Opus Winter 1997-98 gives "Andante Spianato in G & Grande Polonaise in Eb for Piano, Op. 22 (1834). Actually, I'm not sure I've ever seen the "brillante" noted at all.

Any recommendations for a preferred format, of either? I haven't yet looked for other such titles. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia follows the capitalization rules of the languages in which titles are written. French has two conflicting standards, but my understanding is that Wikipedia pefers the simpler of these, which is "sentence case". There is no ambiguity about Italian titles, which are always sentence case. Therefore, Trois nouvelles études. The other title is problematic only because the title mixes Italian (Andante spianato) and French (et grande polonaise brillante). This may account for the fact that you have often seen the English conjunction joining the two movement titles. FWIW, I have always seen/heard the word "brillante" as part of the title.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jerome, this answers my question. (May I request that someone else please correct the Trois Nouvelles Études when they get a chance? - I did figure out how and made one article move about a year ago, but have long since forgotten the procedure. Right now I'm just trying to link to it in a large discography project. Sorry to impose.) Milkunderwood (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, what about this situation: "Quejas, ó la maja y el ruiseñor"? (Spanish, and Granados, not Chopin. I'm finding it with the "la" sometimes lowercase and sometimes as "La" to follow the "ó". It gets trickier.) Milkunderwood (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Trois nouvelles études does not use uppercase since it was moved to its current spelling on 18 January 2010. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I was just now trying to figure out - I didn't see any recent change (and I don't think I'm losing my mind yet), but I had gone to the article "Trois Nouvelles Études", and copied and pasted it, and linked, as that, with the uppercase. ??? One of life's little mysteries. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy-and-paste into the discography I'm constructing is my usual procedure, but here I guess I must have typed it with caps, following the CD's format, and then been redirected without noticing. Sorry for the confusion. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)