Talk:List of Anglican church composers

message: *I don't know if this is standard, but dates b. and d. might enrich the list somewhat; in fact, given the evolution of music over time, it may make sense to divide them chronologically. I know it is not standard to list them chronologically, but we can have subheadings for different eras.
Cheers,
Kai 04:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested article improvement

message: :I have Elgar at List of Roman Catholic Church musicians because he was raised Catholic and did works by Newman. However Newman was an Anglican turned Catholic so maybe I misread. Should I take him off?--T. Anthony 10:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm he apparently did The Dream of Gerontius when Newman was a Cardinal. Although maybe he is like William Byrd and justly fits in both. What say you?--T. Anthony 10:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a Catholic, but wrote for the Anglican church as well, as did Byrd and Tallis, so he and they probably belong on both lists. The title of this page is maybe a bit ambiguous, but when I started the list I meant composers who composed Anglican church music, rather than composers who were members of the Anglican church. Wilus 15:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elgar

message: Cyril Alington has recently been added to the list, he is described as a hymn write, but the article seems to suggest that he was responsbile for words rather than music.  anyone know any different?if not I'm inclined to remove him.  David Underdown 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alington 

message: Who was Osbert Parsley? Surely someone made him up?
Alington. Words or music, I don't think hymn-writers really have a place here.
Fiddleback 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not made up, Google has quite a few hits http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Osbert+Parsley&meta= a contemporary of Tallis reportedly sang int eh Cathedral choir at Norwich for 50 years (pretty good going for the 16th century) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osbert Parsley 

message: I don't think it's a good idea to split the list in that way at all.  There's no objective way to draw the line, why exclude Tye, Tallis and Byrd from the list of Mass composers (just as a first cut).  It could easily be argued that Stanford and Howells are better (or at least as well) known for their morning and evening services as their Masses.  Looking at the list it probably does now make sense to split by initial letter of surname.  David Underdown 08:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea.  One list is good. -- SECisek 09:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into composers of masses and "other" 

message: I intend to divide this first by century (of year of birth) and then alphabetically. I feel this would be more useful. Any objections/suggestions?----Pontificalibus 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Time periods

message: 1st reason it is too difficult to find it with the surname . It would be easy if it in according to name of the person. 2nd reason is that we have to Work according to rest of the list of the Wiki. So that's why edited according to the name of person instead of surname. I ame Shears (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that’s the convention for alphabetical lists of names, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Also, these composers are more commonly referred to by their surname than by the first name, so anyone using the list is most likely to know the surname and may not know the first name.—--Pontificalibus 04:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it is according to surname of the person ???