Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 5

message: This is my first post to this area, so I hope I am not out of line in asking the following. Another user and I are going back and forth over his/her description of the middle movement of the 5th Sibelius symphony. I am not happy about the state of the article generally...it seems to me an uneasy juxtaposition of A) over-specific theoretical stuff better suited to a scholarly journal, and B) the kind of fluff that turns up in CD liner notes. Specifically regarding the middle movement, I don't see that just two sentences are sufficient, and I especially disagree with what those sentences say. See the talk page for some more. How to proceed? My thanks in advance! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually a good idea to link to the page in question somewhere. Anyway, the whole page needs some work -- not as bad as a lot of pages, granted, but the entire second half is barely linked, it's HUGELY weighted on the first movement, and there seem to be few refs relative to the text. Theres plenty out there written about this work, it's just a matter of finding it and putting it into good article form (alas, not something for me). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have edited in Wspencer11's talk page. We should find(or wait) more Wikipedian to discuss. If your views get more support, you can correct the sentences or simply delete the original and rewrite it. I also see that a Wikipedian also edit the SECOND MOVEMENT section later than me . May be Wspencer11 can ask for his/her opinion. Thanks!(Addaick 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sibelius symphony description? 

message: Last night, I emailed John Mitchel, professor of Music at Central Washington University. He has agreed to release a huge amount of music for use on Wikipedia. All the recordings at:
* http://www.garageband.com/artist/cello
* http://www.garageband.com/artist/cellolive
* http://www.garageband.com/artist/encore and 
* http://www.garageband.com/artist/violinist
I'm still finalizing the arrangements, but I think in the very near future I will be uploading a lot of music files (to Commons). Each of those files needs to be added to my master list at Wikipedia:Sound/list, and added to the composer's article and the song article (if extant). I need a *lot* of help on this one. Raul654 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a couple to upload and I'll help out. Recordings are always an asset, and should be added to the composer's article, if no individual article exists. ALTON .ıl 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm making progress but the going is very slow. Also, a number of these songs should have articles and don't. I created two last night - Piano Sonata No. 10 (Mozart) and Violin Sonata No. 21 (Mozart) - but this is certainly not an area I am well versed in. Raul654 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is that some of the pieces are arrangements for violin and cello which is not encyclopedically the most useful thing (eg. Symphony arranged for cello + orchestra) when trying to illustrate a piece of music to someone new to the piece. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Based on the letter case of the "g"s I'm going to say the first three are BWV 1029 (G minor) and the last four are BWV 1027 (G major). Nice find! –Outriggr § 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: By all means. Raul654 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help!

message: These are clearly two different works, but I cannot tell from the almost-identical file names what they are? Can someone help identify the following: 
* CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in g 1st mvt.ogg- 
* CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in g 2nd mvt .ogg - 
* CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in g 3rd mvt .ogg - 
* CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S BACH GAMBA SONATA in G 1st mvt.ogg -  
* 
* CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in G 2nd mvt .ogg 
* CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in G 3rd mvt .ogg 
* CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in G 4th mvt .ogg 
I need to know how these files are different before I put them into the Bach article. Raul654 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on the letter case of the "g"s I'm going to say the first three are BWV 1029 (G minor) and the last four are BWV 1027 (G major). Nice find! –Outriggr § 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick question

message: Now we have all these new sound files, do you think we should nominate some of them as featured sounds, given some of them are of very high standard? Centy – [reply]• contribs – 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means. Raul654 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FSC|Featured Sounds]] 

message: I've put the following comment on this GA/R
:The classical music section could do with a bit more especially about Hungary's contribution to the establishment of the Austrian/Viennese classical tradition and to operetta. Haydn was someone, born just on the Austrian side of the modern border with Hungary, who worked for the Hungarian House of Esterházy much of his life. Franz Lehár is categorised as a Hungarian composer and is, after the Viennese Strausses, the best known operetta composer. And when mentioning non-Hungarian composers influenced by Hungarian folk traditions, then Brahms's Hungarian Dances are the best known example.
I hope people here agree with these points. But does someone have references to quote and want to patch it up?--Peter cohen 10:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Music of Hungary]] at [[Wikipedia:Good article review]] 

message: Such edits should be discouraged, they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing.
I disagree with this logic. Why is someone wanting to know what music they are hearing any different than hearing it and wanting to know where they heard it before? Now obviously some pieces are everywhere, and I'm not saying that every little reference should be included in the article (though mention of popular use is a must). I do, though, think that the weight this statement implies is wrong -- is Night on Bald Mountain's use in The Wizard of Oz more important in the later's article that it should be mentioned there but not in the piece's article at all (where it currently is, granted a bit out of place)? I'm not so sure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the guideline which I believe is in line with WP policy on discouraging trivia sections. -- Kleinzach 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Melodia is logically correct, but I think she's not taking into account the likely feelings of our readers.  Classical music listeners often have strong emotional attachments to particular works, bordering on veneration. For such listeners, hearing that a favorite work has been trivially adapted for a videogame is uninformative, even irritating.  So, let's not pester the classical fans by including uninformative, irritating stuff in the articles they are most likely to read.  In contrast, videogames etc. are typically a more light-hearted and recreational experience, one which we can enhance by identifying the background music in the pop culture articles.  Cheers, Opus33 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the new section added... 

message: I've been looking at many of the list-of-works templates and I'm seeing a number of "fragmentary" works showing up on the lists.  I don't want to see these fragmentary works getting "top billing" in the templates.  For symphonies, I'm taking about Beethoven's 10th, Sibelius's 8th, Tchaikovsky's E flat symphony, Elgar's 3rd and Schubert's 7th and 10th. I'm not talking about Schubert's 8th where the symphony is famously "Unfinished" and ends after two movements because those two movements are each polished and complete in themselves and the two-movement work has been part of the standard repertoire for years.  I'm talking about works that only exist in fragmentary sketches.  Its just not right looking at a list of Beethoven symphonies and seeing the numbers go up to 10.  And its terribly confusing seeing the Schubert symphonies template and seeing two symphonies on the list that are much less finished than the "Unfinished symphony" with no indication of their "sketch"-iness.
I realize the fragmentary works need articles at least as much as the completed works so that the story of why they were never completed can be told, but is there some way they can be given a less prominent position in the templates?  Like listed on the bottom line in a smaller font or something? DavidRF 19:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wonder what you mean by top billing? Do you mean they have 'unfinished' next to them which makes them stand out? Basically we have to clearly indicate the work is fragmentary, but I don't see how that makes it stand out. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By top billing I meant that they really shouldn't be in the same list.  If Beethoven's 10th gets a link at the bottom in small print, fine, but I don't like it being on the main list.  The main list should go from 1 to 9.  Maybe they could be added list at the very bottom after the list of works (similar to where the 'arrangment' is on the Beethoven String Quartets template).  My opinion is that these fragmentary works might be interesting footnotes, but they shouldn't be in the main section. DavidRF 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Beethoven symphonies - how's that?. Also it appears they've fixed the line break bug with the Navbox template meaning we do not need to put everything in a nowrap template anymore. I'm too lazy to remove all these from all the templates (they do no harm) until I have to. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that looks OK.  I'll see how it looks on some of the others I mentioned. DavidRF 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're way ahead of me as usual.  Thanks.  DavidRF 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little worried about moving Schubert's 7th out of the list though - it upsets the pattern if one just is missing - just like the Michael Haydn 25th still appears in the navbox even though it's not by him. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Schubert case is indeed interesting, but if you buy a Schubert symphony cycle, you'll get 1-6,8-9.  The gap in the sequence is always there and its mentioned in the liner notes.  As for the Michael Haydn, #25 is composed by MHaydn.  Mozart only wrote the slow introduction to the first movement.  It was misclassified as Mozart-37 for many years (also why it is now common to see it omitted in Mozart symphony cyles).  I talked to the main Michael Haydn editor, User:Anton Mravcek, about what that article should be called and he said "Maybe it's my POV talking, but I think it would benefit Michael Haydn's promoters to embrace Mozart's contribution instead of trying too hard to prove Haydn's individuality.".  I'll try to figure out a way to put #37 down on the bottom of the Mozart template as well. DavidRF 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! I've just read that a one of the piano sonatas by Schubert are also incomplete (D. 613). What do we do there? Centy – [reply]• contribs – 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, on Klempf's Box Set of Schubert Sonatas, No. 2 is listed as incomplete, No. 11 is a 'fragment' and Nos. 3, 8, 10, 12 are just missing. However on Stephen Hough's CD, he included No. 10. When do we decide a piece is unfinished like Schubert's 8th symphony or unfinished like his 7th symphony? Centy – [reply]• contribs – 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave the Schubert piano sonatas alone.  It may seem contradictory, but there's no harm there.  His sonatas are much more known by their D-numbers and the famous ones are all at the end.  DavidRF 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragmentary works in Templates 

message: If we start to expand and create articles for the Chopin nocturnes, how should we name the articles. Currently, our guidelines say we should name them eg Nocturne No. 11 (Chopin). But no one really refers to the Nocturnes like that. It's usually key (which is ambiguous ) or opus number. I know we've reached a consensus that the Ballades and Impromptus for example should be numbered, but should we also do that for the Nocturnes? Centy – [reply]• contribs – 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO by opus number, like Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2 (Chopin). You're right as they tend not to be numbered. Guidelines are just that, not set in stone, and a bit of overriding for the sake of general practice common sense can easilhy be used. A shame they aren't all in different keys...though I do doubt the ability of each one to have enough for an article anyway. Hmmm...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest it would be best to do articles only on the entire opus, meaning Nocturnes Op. 9 (Chopin). Usually the information about a piece's history comes as a history of the opus as a whole, and the only thing that differs is the content or performance technique. I don't know though, there might be a lot of material for nocturnes. ALTON .ıl 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made the  which should guide people as how to name the articles. Annoyingly, the two Chopin nocturnes that have no opus number also share their key signatures and U've yet to come up with a satisfactory working article title (the one I've used is VERY cumbersome). Centy – [reply]• contribs – 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions for Chopin Nocturnes