Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 6

Requested for comment: Separate heading for instrumentation sections?
I'm requesting comments on whether articles about orchestral pieces of music should have a separate heading for the paragraph listing the instrumentation or not. One example of each: Symphony No. 39 (Haydn) and Symphony No. 39 (Michael Haydn). Jindřichův Smith 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it should labeled "Instrumentation". Justin Tokke 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. In a short article, you shouldn't use section headings, which would be distracting to the reader.  A longer article benefits from being divided into sections.  I think the two cases you cite would do better without the headings.


 * We actually already have a policy on this, which says pretty much what I just said. You can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music#Specifying_the_musical_forces_used_in_a_work Opus33 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See also the lengthy discussion, which just moved to archive. David Brooks 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have AutoWikiBrowser?
I was wondering if anyone had this, because it would be useful if someone in the WikiProject had this tool. Then when a tedious job needs doing - such as correcting template renamings or tedious bits of formatting - we could just ask the guy with AWB to do it instead of a bot.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 10:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Moreschi Talk 14:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I use User:Moreschi(AWB) for AWB work, and not my main account. Moreschi Talk 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chopin études -- use of nicknames
Looks like I got into a minor edit war here. (Reverted change was re-reverted). I thought I would pose the question to the larger group. I thought the presence of nicknames on the template was helpful and helped readers distinguish between them. User:Lividore doesn't like them and says there is evidence that Chopin himself didn't like them either. Any ideas on how to settle this dispute? DavidRF 17:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether I like those nicknames or not. Chopin didn't even know about them as they were given after his death. Furthermore, there is hard evidence that Chopin was against programmatic music, and believed that a certain composition might remind different people of different things. Therefore, I find the ample use of nicknames to describe Chopin's music completely inappropriate. I agree with DavidRF's point that there should be a means to help distinguish between them, and found the replacement of nicknames with keys an effective and harmless solution. --Lividore 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about my phrasing. I didn't mean to imply anything other than an editorial choice when I said you didn't like them.  Anyhow, classical music is filled with lots of nicknames that were popularized after the composer's death.  What do the main Chopin editors ( User:Alton, etc.) think? DavidRF 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Chopin's own opinion shouldn't really matter here. They are appropriate as they are given /everywhere/. Almost everyone calls it the "Revolutionary Etude", so what is Chopin wouldn't have approved? Would you say the same on Template:Beethoven piano sonatas? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lividore, it's a navigational box. Do you know what they're for? To help people navigate. And when most budding pianists know the Black Key etude but stand little chance in being able to name the Opus AND Key, why are we removing the nicknames? We need those nicknames to help people who don't quite understand how the Opus numbering works to find the right etude.


 * The simple fact of the matter is we need those nicknames to help people find the etude they are looking for.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 09:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. You are replacing the nicknames with the key signature. That's even less useful than having just the numbers because some etudes share the key signature eg. the Revolutionary Etude Op. 10, No. 12 and the Ocean Etude Op. 25, No. 12. Now that's just going to confuse people even more when they're looking for Etude No. 12 in C minor.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 09:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A while ago I (unilaterally, as people like that word) removed all the nicknames from the article Études (Chopin) without making waves (diff) due to a request here. While I agree that it is not as accurate or scholarly if we include these names, it is, as Centy says, a navigation box. Is it a compromise to suggest having only the 'famously' named ones (Revolutionary, Ocean, Black Key, Winter Wind, and possible Op. 10/3) and removing the rest? ALTON  .ıl  02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we open the can of worms over what is a 'famous' nickname and what isn't.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 09:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't be too hard to find some sources, and see what they use. For instance, the De Capo Catalog of Classical Music Compositions (a FANTASTIC and quite comprehensive guide to 132 composers' works, albeit a bit skewed on just who at times), lists the following: Tristesse/L'Intimite, Torrent, Black Keys, Toccata, Revolutionary/Fall of Warsaw, Aeolin Harp/Shepherd Boy, Baim, Cartwheel, Butterfly, Winter Wind, and Ocean. No idea if that's all of them, as I know it's missing nicknames in a few places throughout the book, (and on the flip side, lists names for most of the Preludes, which I've never otherwise seen). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those were pretty much what I had in mind, but yeah, it might be questioned by other editors why one nickname is not in there, etc. Given that the études are not a hugely popular traffic area, I would not feel uncomfortable removing all of them, and I wouldn't mind if we kept just a few. I don't really have a useful opinion... ALTON   .ıl  23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Challenge
''The Philharmonic Society of London (later the Royal Philharmonic Society) originally commissioned the symphony in 1817. Beethoven supposedly started work on his last symphony in 1818 and finished it early in 1824. This was roughly twelve years after his eighth symphony. However, Beethoven started working on this piece much earlier. Beethoven wanted to set the Ode an die Freude to music as early as 1793. He did that as a piece, but unfortunately that piece has been lost forever. '' - Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). I think this can and should be expanded into an article - perhaps Ode to Joy (lost work) or something along those lines. Raul654 06:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Raul, this is an interesting challenge but I'm puzzled you're focusing on just this particular aspect of the Ninth Symphony. The existing article Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) cites very few reference sources, has very few in-line references, makes many subjective claims about Romanticism without any supporting citations, quotes the notoriously unreliable Schindler without warning the reader that he's unreliable, and has a totally garbled explanation of "ritmo di tre battute".  In sum, I see this as a troubled article that really needs some TLC.  I applaud your call for some new work on the Ninth Symphony, but we should spend our efforts getting the basic article into acceptable shape before moving on to peripheral matters like Ode to Joy (lost work).  Yours sincerely, Opus33 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

AMG
There's a huge database of classical music at AMG. It has a program notes style text for virtually all the classical music articles we have on Wikipedia and lots we don't have. Given the huge number of stub articles we have which only contain details of the composition year and movements, we can expand these articles using the site. Of course, we'd have to rewrite the text, remove unreferenced subjective commentary etc. but it only taken 10 or so minutes to make a decent article from the information they have.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Centy, I would like to politely disagree with your suggestion, and offer an alternative.


 * I took a look at AMG, and it seems to be just not a serious reference source--it's written by amateurs just like us, not by professional music experts. In fact, in some ways, we're better than AMG.  We at least cite our reference sources some of the time, and it appears that AMG never does.  I looked at the AMG article on Beethoven, and it had a totally bogus picture (based on Jaeger's posthumous, 1831 bogus picture), and at least one serious falsehood (that Beethoven moved the piano sonata into the concert hall).


 * Look, it's not that hard to get genuine, quality sources for classical music. If you have a university internet connection, you can use the online New Grove.  You can also look at User:Antandrus's excellent sources page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/sources.  Further afield, virtually any public library has good books about classical music.  If you find one that is reasonably recent and which cites its own reference sources, you'll have what is almost certainly a better basis for contributing to Wikipedia than any amateur-run website like AMG could be.  Yours truly, Opus33 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pie Jesu
Not my neck of the woods, but I did a sorting-out operation on this article some time ago, for reasons that I can't remember, and a smaller one just now. To me, it's a movement in Fauré's Requiem, but for practically everyone else it seems to be a "song" composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber (or not composed by anyone in particular). What I'd really like to see is much more on the settings by the composers listed at the top - maybe a paragraph on each - and any other general information about it, like how it came to be a separate movement or whatever. I'm not the person to write this, but maybe there's someone here who is (it does have the WP:CM banner on the Talk page). --GuillaumeTell 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 24 September 2007 - expires 29 September
 * List of pieces by composer: D --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * List of pieces by composer: F --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * List of pieces by composer: P --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fully agree, but why not delete the entire category Category:Lists of pieces by composer and merge it with the category Category: Compositions by composer which seems to cover the identical area? --Classickol 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Sung
Hi there. There's a new article about Hugh Sung, who seems to be a notable pianist. There are a number of issues with the article, the main one right now is that it's been written autobiographically. However, a couple of us have discussed those issues with him, and he understands the WP:COI issues, and has agreed not to edit the article but provide information and discussion on the talk page. As you fine people in this project know more about such things than I, and you seem to have some great style guidelines, I would like to invite you to participate in getting this article up to appropriate Wikipedia standards. Thanks &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 19:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All the problems seem to have been resolved, so there's not much more to do than make sure the banner is on the talk page. ALTON   .ıl  07:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More recordings coming (maybe)
Just found out about http://www.musopen.com/ today. Their goal and our goal are the same - to provide free, full length music for others to re-use. They have a fair number of classical music recordings. The site strongly implies those recordings are in the public domain (both the work itself and the performance). I've emailed them to confirm, and I expect them to say yes. If they do, I'll be uploading them. As with my previous message here (See above: Need Help!), I will need some assistance in incorporating these. Raul654 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pity that a four comment (3-1) "discussion" deleted its article. ALTON   .ıl  07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Way back in December 2005, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, but I do remember actually seeing the page; there was a more recent deletion last December (...) ALTON   .ıl  15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion log shows a speedy deletion then. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. Point is "Pity it was deleted." ALTON   .ıl  16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Oh gosh, why do I get so ornery? I apologize for those caustic remarks. You're right, it was a long time ago and irrelevant. I personally like the project, and I simply regret that there's no page on it.  ALTON   .ıl  23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Update
There were some complications but I've got them worked out. The Musopen people are afraid of us taking away visitors from their site. So instead of copying en masse, I'm going to be uploading them in small batches, until they (the Musopen people) are convinced that it won't hurt them. I should be uploading the first batch tonight (Beethoven symphonies) Raul654 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Composition Infoboxes
Having worked considerably at on Napoleonic articles at WP:MILHIST, I have noticed that virtually every battle on Wikipedia has an userbox. As do articles on books, films etc. This made me realise that the stub sized classical music articles I've written which only have the composer, date of composition, title of movements, performance length could also be easily incorporated into an infobox.

Eventually I feel WP:CM will have to acknowledge to support for infoboxes in the other places of Wikipedia, and I don't think it's a bad thing if we at least consider them.

Compare Cello Sonata (Rachmaninoff) (a stub without infobox) with User:CenturionZ 1/Sandbox (a stub with just the infobox).  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You do see the strong opposition to conductor infoboxes above, don't you? Infoboxes permit (encourage?) the reader to skim the article rather than actually read it.  There's going to be a fair amount of disagreement as to whether that is good or bad.  *If* composition-level infoboxes are done, they would have to be extremely flexible with few (if any) required fields.  Nothing looks tackier than an image of a giant shadow head saying "no free image, do you own one".  DavidRF 13:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that we as a WikiProject (we being Composers, Opera and CM) are completely alone in our hatred for infoboxes. Go to an article and any piece of modern music, film, book, (ie. any other work of the arts) and there is an infobox. They don't seem to mind them. It's not like we can't code the infobox so 'image' is not a required field and disappears if none is linked (a la Military History infobox). I do see the strong resentment for conductors, but I wonder if given how many writing for new classical compositions is copy and pasting a set text and the changing the dates/movements/opus number etc., why not just do that in an infobox. Maybe that's just my writing for Napoleonic battles creeping in but I can't see what's so bad about compositional infoboxes on symphonies and concertos at least. I mean look at over 2/3 of our articles. There's hardly anything to skim let alone read.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, we (the three classical music related projects) are not alone. It's recognized that many academic and science groups have problems with bio-boxes (see WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes quote  " scientist [sic] articles can have some heated debates on these" ), and when there have been discussions at the Biography Project a lot of users working in other projects have expressed their oppostion to them. -- Kleinzach 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly it seems that the anti-infobox forces are already rallying to oppose the use of a tool that would make musical works articles infinitely more logical and user friendly. --S.dedalus 01:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I see a lot of sentiment in that statement, i think it doesn't really explain what is so infinitely logical and user-friendly about them. I'm not completely opposed to infoboxes, but i don't really ever use them myself or work on many articles that use them. I think the opening sentence statements work pretty well for the articles I do work on. I've started and worked on many classical music articles, but it wasn't the form letter that CenturionZ described. It's mostly just taken available and pertinent information and stating it concisely.  I suppose if the information is consistently relevant, I wouldn't oppose it. It sounds difficult. --Sketchee 04:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kleinzach: I find the quotation marks around classical amusing. There still seems to be a little bad feeling after that composers incident! I'm not saying we should use infoboxes outright. It's just with most pieces, key, dates and opus/catalog numbers are really clear cut and for other projects, these would all be infoboxed.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Centy: While I am anti biographical boxes, I am pro navigation boxes, also ones for geographical and quantitative data. So I am not against boxes for compositions (key, dates and opus/catalog numbers) if well implemented. (Incidentally - if I had my way - I'd change all the references to 'classical music' to 'mainsteam music' ). Regards. -- Kleinzach 07:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so people are bringing the topic up again, and just as quickly archiving it so it can be done with, but really, wikipedia is not about writing to a select group of readers interests, that is entirely not the point. The point is to get the information out to as many as possible. Being biased against "infoboxes" because they are named that, while liking the other ways to use those ugly boxes to do useful things makes this project look unnecessarily elitist. It is still interesting that months on from the initial debate, with continued references to "i would accept if they were well implemented" noone has actually done anything... Is it possible that saying that is just a delaying tactic so it does not look like this project really is elitist, and only not making the infobox because they don't trust someone who knows about templates to design one that fits what they actually want for their select group of elite classical music listeners. (All written while listening to Gustav Holtz - The Planets - 4 - Jupiter :) ) Ans e ll  06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansell (talk • contribs)

Category:Lists of pieces
Having put up Lists of pieces by composer up for AfD (see discussion above), I gone through this category and realised everything is virtually incomplete or redundant. These all seem to be leftover from the failed WikiProject Compositions. I think we should start putting these up for AfD.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Please nominate these for deletion. The only one I can see that could be saved is Double concerto for violin and cello (needs to be renamed List of double concertos for violin and cello), which is arguably a limited enough subject that the list would not be infinite like the others. I listed a particularly pointless one, List of atonal pieces for deletion some time ago, but the deletion nomination was struck down with the request that it be renamed and rewritten. However, it’s pretty clear that these articles are serving no purpose, are original research, and are all potently infinite. I think that’s reason enough to nominate for mass deletion. --S.dedalus 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that page is horrid. I AFD'd it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Process music is a fine article as well. --S.dedalus 06:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated List of impressionistic pieces, List of modernistic pieces, and List of neoclassical pieces for deletion. Please vote on these. --S.dedalus 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also vote on the AfD of List of nationalistic pieces, List of postminimalistic pieces, List of minimalistic pieces,List of surrealistic pieces, and List of dadaistic pieces. --S.dedalus 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please vote on AfD for List of jazz standards (according to composer). --S.dedalus 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here’s an orderly list of the current AfDs: was keep, no consensus to delete. --S.dedalus 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * List of atonal pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of impressionistic pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of modernistic pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of neoclassical pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of nationalistic pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of postminimalistic pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of minimalistic pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of surrealistic pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of dadaistic pieces closed. Result of discussion was Delete.
 * List of jazz standards (according to composer) Relisted for further comment. Please vote. closed. Result of discussion

IMSLP Closure!
Unfortunately, IMSLP closed recently due to legal threats on whatever (public domain stuff.. yeah?). Let's take a moment of silence, yes?

Also, what should be done about IMSLP2 and IMSLP, and all the pages that use them? ALTON  .ıl  00:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As an IMSLP and Wikipedia contributor (though not much of either, lately), I'd advise waiting; the ashes are stirring, and the phoenix may yet rise again. --Emeraldimp 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As best I gather, what happened is that Universal Edition wrote a C&D letter, accusing the IMSLP is being able to block IP addresses for files that aren't PD in the countries they aren't. Which almost seems akin to trying to get an adult site shut down because people under 18 can lie. Sigh. Yeah, it'll mess up a hell of a lot on WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That rationale doesn't make sense to me at all. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do: not allow people in those countries to get those scores, since they're not PD? Or do I not understand this? ALTON   .ıl  08:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is really a sad turn of events. This was a godsend to me getting scores that I couldn't find elsewere for free. A sad day indeed. :-( Justin Tokke 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, It was wonderful. Are there any sites like it still out there? And why couldn’t IMSLP simply remove everything written after 1850? Sad indeed. --S.dedalus 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Sheet Music Archive is probably the next best thing, but their selection isn't nearly as comprehensive as IMSLP's. But what is the significance of 1850? I'm not sure everything is PD before that date, and even if it is, the project would be limited in its coverage of Romantic and 20th century stuff (the best stuff :) ), and wouldn't be half as useful. ALTON   .ıl  08:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No particular significance. I simply chose a nice round number that is well out of copyright in all countries for all composers. I’m sure someone with more expertise than me could come up with a slightly more modern date. --S.dedalus 20:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't just the composer's death, but also the date of publishing. There are Mozart works in copyright simply because there's no scores old enough to be in the PD (though I gather one could make a virtual copy and use that...not too sure there). Certainly, though, composers dead by 1923 would work, for the most part... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The general rule for public domain is 70 years after the composer's death. In 2007 this would be 1937, any composer had to die by 1937 for they're music to be in PD. However, there are exceptions. This I'm sure is one of them which I don't totally understand. What was UE's problem anyway? Justin Tokke 10:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Disappointing. It was a great project. Perhaps a solution can be found (as suggested above)? -- Kleinzach 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Feldmahler indicated there may be a possibility of continuing the project in some other way. Michael Bednarek 07:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the important quote from the letter:

ALTON  .ıl  19:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish I had something to say about it, but all I can say is: that sucks. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What's relatively new, is that UE not only wants Canada-only public domain files to be removed, but also U.S.-only public domain files: published before 1923 by an author who died after 1937. --Dr. Friendly 18:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope for IMSLP?
There’s lots of talk about ways to restart IMSLP on their forum here. Their main page is also posting a new notice: “Due to demand, I strongly encourage any organization willing to support a continuation of IMSLP to contact me at (email address)." If any of you have ideas about how we could help with this, now is the time for eureka moments. Would it be theoretically possible for the Wikimedia Foundation to host this site? --S.dedalus 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discographies?
I have found only two very brief discussions of this question in the archives of this page, and would please like to reopen it in hopes of reaching something resembling a consensus. I feel strongly that we should not include discographies, as until such a list is truly complete it is by definition POV, misleading, and ultimately useless. Humble opinion, anyway. The articles on The Planets and The Rite of Spring drive me especially buggy in this regard (see the discussion pages in each case for some individual views). What on earth makes Karajan's 1964 Rite performance notable except that Stravinsky/Craft is/are so dismissive of it? Somebody buys or downloads a performance they like for whatever reason and they add it. Can we just scrap the whole category? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned before, I LOVE how it's done for Sibelius's 7th. Its intention is for all published recordings, which makes sense. Otherwise, any list of such should be multi-sourced on why they need to be included (such as how it's done at List of important operas, though no need for THAT much overkill). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reservations. Some pieces are recorded SO many times, it's virtually impossible to keep track of all published recordings. At which case we have the POV nightmare of 'important' recordings.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need discographies. That Sibelius page is huge and that's not even a "core repertoire" piece.  There are 154 versions of the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto available at arkivmusic.com and that's just the ones that are in print.  Including links to amazon, arkivmusic, or record label pages is dicey as well because it amounts to advertising. --DavidRF 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pro-discographies - and accept the implication that they should (ideally) be complete. An online encyclopedia is (potentially) much better for this than a print one. However artist-based discographies can be more practical than work-based ones, especially for popular pieces. -- Kleinzach 00:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I too am pro-discographies, but with the following qualifications: for over-recorded repertoire like The Planets and The Seasons and Beethoven's Ninth, we should limit ourselves to recordings which have special historical significance, e.g., Bernstein conducting Beethoven's Ninth after the fall of the Berlin Wall. For more obscure works, such as Wilhelm Furtwangler's Second Symphony, we could and should have complete discographies; that would be a great help to researchers, or just people looking for something besides Pachelbel's Canon. Jindřichův Smith 23:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So I guess there's no consensus? Oh well... --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Names of foreign orchestras question
I've just created a stub for Deutsche Kammerakademie Neuss. Should I have put it at New German Chamber Academy instead? Obviously we'd put the Wiener Philharmoniker and the Berliner Philharmoniker at their names in English in this Wikipedia, but what about orchestras which might be better known in America by their German names? Jindřichův Smith 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the German name is much more likely to be recognised for orchestras below the first tier. Michael Bednarek 02:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree. On the Opera Project we've always tried to avoid creating new (translated) names. If a translation exists on an official website then it would be a good idea to make it a re-direct, while keeping the article under the German (or whatever name) unless the English name is a familiar one. -- Kleinzach 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that using the German/French/whatever is generally better, because in many cases, the non-English name is the one that is used on CDs and other media. *grabs a random CD from shelf* Les Arts Florissants *another CD* L'Orchestre de la Suisse romande I think that in many cases, the non-English language name is simply better known, even in anglophone countries. Redirects can be used for the translated names. -- Kyok o  23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll go ahead and, as you suggest, redirect the English name of this particular orchestra to the German. Jindřichův Smith 23:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recordings!
A follow up on my above comment - I've worked out at little experiment with the good people at musopen. I've uploaded 4 full Beethoven symphonies: Assuming nothing bad happens to Musopen's traffic, I'll have more coming. But I think it's a great start. Raul654 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Symphony No. 4 (Beethoven)
 * Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)
 * Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)
 * Symphony No. 8 (Beethoven)