Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 56

In popular culture sections in guideline
[restored per talk]

Restructuring Schubert's list of compositions pages
A proposal recently emerged that involves restructuring the format and number of pages that relate to Schubert's complete lists of works. As of the moment, we have the following: List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 1 - D 500) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Franz_Schubert_%28D_1%E2%80%93D_500%29 List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 501 - D 998) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Franz_Schubert_%28D_501%E2%80%93D_998%29 List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Franz_Schubert_by_genre

The idea is to combine all three pages into one single page, and convert the current format, a bullet list, into a table. The new page would be titled:

List of compositions by Franz Schubert

(to this moment, the table has been created and edited up to D 46). The proposal can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_compositions_by_Franz_Schubert

In principle, this would appear to be a good idea. However, these three pages have existed for a decade in this format. They were created in 2004, and my guess would be that they were originally divided in such ways because of the extremely large number of works that form Schubert´s output. On July of this year, all three pages underwent a major editing job. For the two pages listing works in ascending Deutsch numbers, this included adding an introduction and a key to reading the article's contents; adding missing entries and providing additional info. of relevance for all existing and new entries; updating Deutsch nos. formatting in accordance to the Deutsch catalogue; and listing references. For the compositions by genre page, in addition to the aforementioned changes, all works now appear organized in the order established by the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe. The previously existing format, that of bullet lists, was not changed in any of these three pages during this major revision. If some of you have had the chance to visit these pages lately, I hope that you can appreciate that implementing these revisions involved a considerable amount of work. Many hours were devoted over several months with the purpose of improving these pages. This is not to say that the information now present there is completely flawless or that these pages are not perfectible, but I do consider the information they provide to be solid, well documented and properly organized. I also think that the current format is the appropriate one. I find that having two pages that list the items in ascending Deutsch order and another one that lists all works by genre is not a problem at all, as the re-directs between all three articles can be easily accessed.

I would propose to leave the format in these three pages unchanged. If anything, perhaps the two pages that combine all compositions by ascending Deutsch numbers could be merged into one. But in essence, I do not support changing the format to a table or reducing the number of pages for the following reasons: The advantage of the table is its sortability, but a table for a list like this would occupy an enormous amount of space. The idea behind the bullet lists is to be able to include a good deal of information while keeping the format at a reasonable length. The information for each entry in the bullet lists, in my opinion, does not look crowded, is concise but at the same time provides ample data for each work. Given the number of works in each list, they are all quite long as it is. A table would probably duplicate the size of the article (and we are talking of over 1,000 entries in this case). In addition, given the complexity and variety of information needed to catalogue Schubert's output, there seems like there would be a lot of wasted space. Many works will not have an AGA number, an opus number, a former Deutsch number, or would require additional information to be specified (in a Notes column). The great advantage of the bullet list is that the format allows the information to be presented without compromising the size. With regard to content, the following is the key for the contents of the bullet list: The main differences between this and the proposed table would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schubert_opus/Deutsch_number_concordance It is true that this article consists of a sortable table, but the main difference here is that the table is much shorter, given the number of works that actually have opus numbers. The table also originated at the same time the article was created, so no major editing job was ever required to convert a previously existing format. In any extent, anybody wishing to see this article could also have access to it through the click of a button, once a re-direct is created. So, to sum all this up... is it really worth restructuring these articles when this implies a major adjustment - deleting and/or reorganizing information that has just recently been updated, and, in my humble opinion, is adequately presented? I would certainly understand that starting from scratch is necessary for a composer of which very little or no information exists on Wikipedia. But I honestly do not believe this applies to Schubert. I would sincerely appreciate any support that could be given to keep the bullet lists and these three pages as they currently are. Solti79 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * D – the catalogue number assigned by Otto Erich Deutsch or NSA authorities
 * Genre – the musical genre to which the piece belongs. This has been omitted when the genre is self-explanatory or unnecessary, i.e. piano dances
 * Title – the title of the work
 * Incipit – the first line(s) of text, as pertaining to vocal works
 * Scoring – the instrumentation and/or vocal forces required for the work
 * Informal Title – any additional names by which the work is known, when applicable
 * Former Deutsch Number – information on Deutsch numbers that have been re-assigned, when applicable
 * Date – the known or assumed date of composition, when available; or date of publication
 * Opus Number – the opus number of the original publication of the work, when applicable
 * Setting – the order of setting as it pertains to vocal works that have numerous settings of the same text
 * Version – the number of version as it pertains to works or vocal settings that have more than one existing version
 * Notes – any additional information concerning the work: alternate titles, completeness, relation to other works, authorship, etc.
 * the inclusion of information on the Alte Gesamt-Ausgabe - this might be of historical interest but given that it predates the Deutsch catalogue, in my opinion it seems somewhat unnecessary to include in a current list of works. Many of Schubert's compositions were not included in the AGA.
 * the volume of the NSA in which the work appears. These are all listed in the "compositions by genre" page, so once again, these are all accessible through the click of a button in what I believe to be a neatly and well-organized list.
 * Publication date - Interestingly enough, there is also an article dealing with this topic, titled "Schubert opus/Deutsch number concordance". This can be found at:
 * Authors of texts for vocal works, listing of movements or tempo markings - I would stipulate that this is certainly interesting to know, but is it really necessary? How much information does each entry need to have? I would imagine that anyone with a real need to check very detailed information for a certain entry would rather check the Deutsch catalogue itself (which is available and downloadable online). While I agree that here in Wikipedia we strive to provide a complete list that includes an extremely reasonable amount of information for each entry, where do we draw the line?
 * Not the by genre page (List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre). The new table often links there, so there's no wish to absorb the by genre page.
 * The two "by D number" pages yes (1-500, and 501-998).
 * Maybe the D/Op. concordance page (Schubert opus/Deutsch number concordance), but even there I'm not sure while the new table doesn't really have enough width for separate columns on opus number and first publication date.
 * The work is considerable, it won't be ready in a few weeks. Who doesn't think it useful - no need to collaborate. Improvement suggestions welcome!
 * No information whatsoever goes lost, see progress at List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 1–D 500)
 * Excess information like the complete listing of all numbers of theatre works is not retained in the table, but referred/linked to List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre, unless where there's already a separate article like Rosamunde --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The confusion may have originated while I posted & started work on the idea at Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert, where List of compositions by Franz Schubert *now* redirects to the by genre page - once the numbered list is on one page there's no need for the "(D 1–D 500)" and "(D 501–D 998)" disambiguators any more, and what rests without such disambiguators is "List of compositions by Franz Schubert", so I suppose the new numbered list would go there. List of compositions by Franz Schubert by D number would equally be possible, but I prefer the shorter name (the table is sortable on much more than only the D number). List of compositions by Franz Schubert by D number would probably better redirect to Schubert Thematic Catalogue where the diverse lists are linked (like BWV redirects to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, not to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, nonetheless organised by BWV number). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly why there was confusion in this regard. In any case, I would argue that there is no need to "absorb" anything. Why is it appropriate to unilaterally and arbitrarily decide that certain pages need to be removed or their format changed? I find this to be just wrong and unacceptable. People have been continually improving these pages for a long time, and in my view it is extremely disrespectful for one individual to just decide that other editors' work needs to be removed because you think the presentation of the information should appear in a different format. I kindly ask you to consider that these other editors, including myself, have invested a lot of time in these pages, and that what you propose to do goes against anything that would be deemed reasonable and civilized. I know for a fact that if you make your table over the next few months and then somebody decides that it is not necessary to have it and removes it, you would most certainly not approve of this. Well, this is exactly what you are doing to the work of others. As such, I do have a suggestion for you: re-consider your actions- be mindful and respectful of other editors, and leave the pages be as they are. Solti79 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended (and a bit surprised by the angle taken by Solti),
 * The basis of the update is the list as it was thusfar, there's no deletion or whatever, the order of the list is maintained, etc. It is an expansion with some data, but mainly links, and adding sortability, but the basis that facilitates the building of the table is the current list that as far as data and order is concerned remains unchanged (i.e. previous work is as well respected, needed for the update, and fully incorporated). For me it's a logical next step.
 * I think it is good to have this list in somewhat the same format (i.e. a table with diverse ways to sort) as the List of compositions by Mozart by chronology, I respect the people who built that one too, the same respect I have for those who built List of compositions by Mozart by genre without a table.
 * I chose to build it in plain sight, step by step, for scrutiny, improvement suggestions, etc. I welcome this discussion here that gives more attention to this update in progress, the sooner the improvement suggestions are given, the easier they can be incorporated.
 * The reasoning "it shows disrespect, so it should be reverted" must however be rejected fully, first while there is no disrespect (at all), secondly while there's not much of an improvement suggestion (yet). For instance the suggestion above not to link to texts of lieder and their translations can hardly be seen as a suggestion to "improve". If you don't want to read the poetry on which Schubert's lieder were based, nor read their translations in English, well, then, don't click the link. Not providing the link, for people who might like to do so, is however not an improvement. Same for links to online free scores: if you dont want to see the sheet music, don't click the link. Giving IMSLP links is encouraged where available (see above ), I can't see any harm in doing so for hundreds of compositions that thus far have no separate article, and so no link to any score of any kind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

TFAR notification for John Barbirolli
I've nominated a WP:FA quality page related to this WikiProject for "Today's Featured Article" consideration, nomination is at Today's featured article/requests/John Barbirolli. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Delicate subject at Talk:String Quartet No. 12 (Dvořák)
Please voice your opinions about the somewhat delicate subject raised on the talk page of the American quartet, about including or not including the quartet's original nickname. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
I've re-done the archiving of this talk page, since no reason was given for its partial and broken reversion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry Andy - I should have given a reason. This large talk topic on the Classical Music Guidelines is still an open and ongoing discussion, which was on hold for a couple of weeks while I was on holiday. I was just in the process of adding an update when you removed it. It is also the subject of an open "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines" WP:RfC. Therefore, please could you reinstate it. Thanks.  Surrey John    (Talk) 11:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - if you check my recent edits to this page and the archives you; see what needed doing. If no-one posts there today it will be archived again. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

When your ears are the source
User TheBawbb (talk) has raised an interesting issue on the talk page of Francis Schonken regarding the article La Diva de l'Empire, a popular song by Satie. Francis added a claim that the theme of the song is reused by Satie in his piece La belle excentrique. The Bawbb asked that Francis provide a source for this claim.

This raises an issue which we have discussed before, and, in light of the discussion on popular culture above, perhaps deserves to be revisited. When are your eyes and ears a reliable enough source for a statement about music? Here is a typical example: in the article Piano Quintet (Schumann), the article claims that the last movement includes a double fugue, using the main theme of the last movement and the opening theme of the first movement. There is even a little sound clip with explanation, showing this to be the case. No source is given; indeed, when I added this, I looked for a source and couldn't find one. Sources do discuss the cyclical nature of the piece, and the reuse of motifs across movements, but this specific example I couldn't find cited. Perhaps because it is so obvious to the musically trained ear. It is certainly significant, and any tyro can immediately verify its truth.

So do we need a source for this specific claim or not? Is not the score itself a reliable enough source?

The case of La belle excentrique certainly goes to the heart of this issue. Because, listening to it and comparing it to La Diva de l-Empire, I am not at all sure that one is quoting the other. Both tunes are cakewalks, both have little snippets of similarity, but to go so far as to say one is quoting the other is something I wouldn't do without an external source. In the case of the Schumann quintet, I would say the reuse is undeniable, and citing it unsourced is acceptable.

Any opinions? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is Orledge 1990. Apparently I mislaid my copy so I wasn't able to provide the page number (yet). Will oblige later today, time permitting. I never heard the "Intermezzo américain" as such, so no, I wasn't trusting my ears. With all due respect to the general point raised here, for the Diva/excentrique topic however it is moot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, Mr. Schonken...

The opening movement of La belle excentrique (the "Grande Ritournelle") is a cakewalk. Satie did in fact draw on his old cabaret material for this piece, but it was not "Diva" but the music for an unpublished 1905 song, Légende californienne. In Steven Moore Whiting's "Satie the Bohemian" (Oxford University Press, 1999) he writes on pages 314-315:
 * ''The next pieces that Satie registered with SACEM were "Imperial-Oxford" and "Légende californienne", two more syncopated march-songs. In terms of musical style, they follow the structural, textural, and rhythmic patterns of "Diva"...Satie returned fifteen years later to the music of the "Légende", making it into the "Grande Ritournelle" of "La belle excentrique".

I tried to include a PDF link to Olof Höjer's booklet for Vol. 6 of his complete recordings of Satie's piano music, which confirms this info (with bibliography), but it was blocked as being on Wiki's blacklist. Neither Whiting nor Höjer mention any other borrowings of older material in "excentrique".

"Intermezzo américain" is just a new subtitle Satie added for H. Ourdine's 1919 piano transcription of "Diva", pointing out (as the song lyrics did not) that the cakewalk was an American invention.

Now, getting back to Ravpapa's topic, my own ears have never told me that "Diva" was quoted in "excentrique", and if they had I still would not have posted this assumption in a Wiki article without a source or two to confirm it. I guess I'm anal that way, a plodding "just the facts" kinda guy. Besides, any lawyer will tell you (if you push them hard enough) that eyewitness testimony isn't always reliable, and the same goes for "earwitness" testimony...

I agree with Ravpapa that "ear-sourcing" is a complex issue and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. But outside sources can't hurt. TheBawbb (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies ... My ears being the cause of the problem is of course a moot topic. I read something in Orledge connecting "légende californienne" with La Diva de l'Empire. Many years later my memory plays a trick on me, incorrectly connecting "Intermezzo américain" with La Diva de l'Empire. I should have looked it up in the source first, my bad. The problem was not the ears but the memory. In that sense is moot for the Diva/excentrique topic, and I apologize again, this shouldn't have happened.
 * I'm not contra discussing the ears topic, only in this case it doesn't apply. What does apply is the danger of inserting content from memory. An interesting topic too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the situation is straightforward. If your ears are the only source, then that's clearly WP:OR and not acceptable under WP standards. Find a source, or omit the comment. E.g. my ears tell me clearly that 'Memory' (from Lloyd-Webber's 'Cats') is a brazen steal from Arthur Tracy's 'Marta', but alas this profound insight will have to remain on the talk pages, not in an article. --Smerus (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And you would say the same for the double fugue in the Schumann quintet? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ravpapa, I have to say that yes, I would (although I agree with the analysis). I am pretty sure that some appropriate source must exist for such a blatant example, and I will look out for one. Best, Smerus (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it at first shot and am putting it in the article.Smerus (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Smerus. The problem with "trusting one's ears" is that everyone's ears--and threshhold for believability--is very different.  This is the main reason why those sections of "cultural references" (I won't call it WP:IPC anymore) must have citations. kosboot (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with one's own ears is that it's original research; other sources such as the piece's score are needed. I have perfect pitch yet would not trust myself with inserting such claims. For example, a deaf reader should still be able to verify such claims.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I agree completely with Jasper. That's why I wrote (in the text) "ears and eyes". There are certainly statements of fact that we can make relying on our reading of the score alone - for example, that the second movement of a piece is in the dominant, or that the the second violin plays in 2/4 time while the first violin plays in 6/8. But where to we draw the line? Smerus suggests there is no line - that you can't say a piece is a waltz without a source. But I find that many sources - especially academic sources that assume a much higher level of musical training in their readers than we assume here - are often elliptical and leave out obvious things (like the second theme is in the dominant) that we would want to include in our articles. Can we cite the score as a reliable source? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ravpapa, careful about setting up a straw man to support your case. I did not claim that "you can't say a piece is a waltz without a source". But as you have raised the issue, I wouldn't need my ears to make such a claim. In many cases, the composer will have called his piece a waltz. or marked the piece 'tempo di valse' or suchlike. Or I could write "the piece, which is in triple time and at a moderate tempo, has the characteristics of a waltz". What I shouldn't write is "the piece sounds like a waltz to me".--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In this case I find myself being more conservative than Smerus. To me, "has the characteristics of a waltz" is way too subjective.  If it doesn't say waltz, or have a tempo marking that indicates "in waltz time" (or something similar) and writers have not considered it a waltz, I don't think it's right to say "has the characteristics of a waltz." Once you introduce subjectivity, anyone can say almost anything. But to answer Ravpapa yes I'd say the score is a reliable source, so long as one doesn't infer information which is not immediately apparent in the score. kosboot (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But almost everything we have to say about a piece is immediately apparent from the score, once it is pointed out. In the Adagio introduction of the Kakadu variations by Beethoven, the cello at one point plays the Kakadu theme in minor, at a quarter of the tempo. Look at the score: it is immediately apparent. But who notices? This is the paradox we are dealing with here. All this information sitting right under our noses, in the most reliable source of all. The very act of pointing it out is a kind of original research, yet there is nothing original about it. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I sympathize. There have been times when I've written things which I think are obvious but others disagree. Non-musical example:  the framing device of the movie Citizen Kane is *not* Rosebud, but the sign "No Trespassing" - it's obvious in the movie, and it's obvious in the script even before the creators thought up Rosebud.  Yet I've not been able to convince the watchers of that article what I think is obvious and correct, so I just wait until the day when I can support that point. With music, I think it has to be a case-by-case matter:  If you write it and no one objects, it's ok, and if someone objects, argue your point, or find another article to work on and check back yearly to see if you can include the information. "Tomorrow is another day..." kosboot (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "If you write it and no one objects, it's ok, and if someone objects, argue your point ..." I would say "... if someone objects, provide a source ...". That's what WP:V calls for, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * that one may not be a problem. Our guideline states: "In general, it is permitted to make factual observations based on examination of the musical score of a work. Such observations should be limited to those agreed upon by virtually anyone with musical training, for instance "the trio section is in F major" or "the finale is in sonata form"." If we're allowed to assert sonata form based on our own inspection of the score, we can surely claim a theme is repeated in minor based on such inspection, can't we? ( The example of sonata form surprises me a lot, really, since cases are sometimes borderline and one sees a lot of very poor-quality OR analysis on WP, but still. ) --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A propos, the article waltz (music) is presently grotesquely inadequate. Smerus (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Smerus is (as usual) right. Let's stop shmoozing and get back to work! --Ravpapa (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * :-) Smerus (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle Giroux
I just noticed Julie Giroux‎, which has style and sourcing issues. I did some minor cleanup, but it could use some more work by someone who edits composer articles more than I do. Also, I removed the information about her Emmy win, because it was sourced to IMDB and made it sound like it was a personal win, instead of as part of a team. That should probably be revisited, because I'm not comfortable dropping it altogether. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * She's on the Texas UIL Prescribed Music List: http://www.utexas.edu/uil/pml/catalog/browse/catalog_id/8/acapella/1/accomp/1/op_composer/inc/composer/Giroux. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Noël Lee
Talk:Noel Lee (executive), discussion about relative merits of the pianist vs the Monster Inc. CEO. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)