Category talk:Classical composers

message: I just discovered something fascinating. I know it's gonna sound silly, but it's a kind of test to distinguish classical composers from composers in general:
:Someone becomes a classical composer when over 50% of the published recordings/albums of this composer mention the birth date (between brackets, behind the name) of this composer on the sleeve/cover.
The "traditional forms" that is now in the category definition of this category is still so intangible: is a song a traditional form? What is the definition of a traditional form?
My new proposed definition above seems to work for all composers of whom I have more than two albums in my posession (I have over a 1000 CD's, and a few 100 33RPM records, some 95% of them classical music), even for the "20th century classical composers" of the last half of that century. But one composer in the traditional sense - sorry  Hyacinth, now it becomes completely silly, I can't help it, but its absolutely, truly genuine - fails the "classical" test in this sense: Erik Satie: I have 5 albums of this composer, by 4 different record companies. Only 2 of these albums mention the birth date of Erik Satie: one on the back of the cover, one only in the booklet.
My tentative conclusion: even if the absolute final definition of classical music is still somewhat out of reach (discussed amongst others also with Opus 33), at least I found a workable way for distinguishing who could go in the classical composers category, and who would not...
--Francis Schonken 20:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense. Amazing, actually. This test isn't so silly, but cuts to the heart of the popular/classical dichotomy. Hyacinth 00:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is a composer a "classical" composer - the ''silly'' test. 

message: I've been categorizing the classical composers by era and nationality and removing this cat -- i.e., following the guidelines on Wikipedia:Categorization for not having an article in both a category and its subcat. 
I started a bit of discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers regarding composer categorization. Objections/thoughts/etc. encouraged -- I'm tempted to do the whole list now but I'd rather not end up reverting myself 200 times amidst public outcry. :-) Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 01:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For lack of public outcry, I'm going to go ahead and start doing this with the rest.  Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: I see there are no entries in the Early Music composers subcat, and it should eliminated. Early music is a catchall phrase for Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque, and composers are better categorized in those slots. --Wahoofive 00:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early music 

message: The following is FYI and was moved from my personal talk page. -- Beland 4 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
----
Greetings! I see you recently used Pearle to merge this category after its CfD listing. While I don't have any problems with its deletion, merging with :Category:Classical composers means that a category intended to be a parent only to other categories is now populated with names. (I didn't notice until things on my watchlist changed; don't know why I wasn't watching the women composers category: oversight on my part!) All of the categorized female composers should already belong to its subcategories by era and nationality. Would there be any problem with using the bot to just remove :Category:Classical composers from these articles entirely? Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Pearle is now working on fixing this now. -- Beland 4 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
----
We should provide a listing by era/time, rather than alphabetically for the subcategories.  I'm not sure how to make that happen.  Could someone more versed in the ways of Categories do so?  Thanks.--Thalia42 08:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Women classical composers]]