Talk:Chamber music

message: I'm not going to edit the page at the moment, but I'm not sure of the worth of listing chamber repertoire in this page. The repertoire varies according to group - a string quartet shares no repertoire at all with a piano trio, for instance. So wouldn't repertoire lists be better on those individial pages (string quartet, piano trio, string trio, piano quintet and so on)? --Camembert
:I agree with Camembert--the list could get so huge that readers would have trouble finding what they're looking for.  Better to use the existing structure of the Wikipedia to keep things organized.  --Opus33 19:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Repertoire lists

message: Is 'plentious' a word? Did the author mean 'plenteous'? I haven't changed it, because even if it's a mistake, it's a good word. Plus there is a very, very old wiki custom of leaving little imperfections like this around - wabi-sabi, we called it.
-- Tom Anderson 2008-03-21 some time in the evening  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.86.107 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plentious? 

message: Quite a bit of stuff, actually.  This is a work in progress.  I have left the section on 20th century music blank, hoping someone more knowledgeable than I on the topic would complete it.  I am gradually adding pictures and music samples, but I thought I ought to go public with it now rather than wait. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind about 20th century - I wrote it myself.  --Ravpapa (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is completely Eurocentric. Nothing wrong with that, except that a huge amount of the classical music of non-Western cultures, esp. in Asia, consists of some form of chamber music (Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, North African/Saharan, etc.) Perhaps a small additional section could be added to the article that refers to this fact and links to various other Wikipedia articles on the classical musics of the world outside the Westernized parts of it? A student looking for information on chamber music should be offered a window onto these OTHER, well-established, types of chamber music. 2601:84:8A00:2860:48AB:4607:1FA7:AA22 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard of small ensemble music of non-European music cultures as being referred to as "chamber music". There is an article called Musical ensemble which would be the appropriate place to include that material. IMHO. Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some stuff 

message: The image :Image:Bartók - Sonata for two pianos and percussion - Assai lento - Allegro molto (clip).ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the Fair Use justification to the image. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bartók - Sonata for two pianos and percussion - Assai lento - Allegro molto (clip).ogg

message: I posted the following on User:Nixeagle's talk page about his deletion of the YouTube link to the Debussy quartet:
I disagree with your decision to remove this musical example, for the following reasons:
1. The musical examples in the article - and especially this one - are not mere decoration, but they are there to illustrate important milestones in the history of chamber music.  And the Debussy quartet (as the article points out) is perhaps the most pivotal work of chamber music written in the last 120 years, as it heralds the end of tonality as we know it.  Removing this example is a substantive deletion of relevant material.
2. As you could see if you read the article carefully, I have made every effort to use free material when it was available.  I even enlisted free material - I convinced the Carmel Quartet to release their recordings of key works under a CC license (it wasn't too hard - they are good friends of mine).  I used nonfree material only when I couldn't find free material.  
3.  Whenever I used nonfree material (by linking to YouTube), I linked only to videos that were posted by the performers themselves.  There are plenty of recordings on YouTube that people taped from other sources and posted. I never used those, as the actual copyright owners might not agree to the use of their materials on YouTube.  However, when a person posts a video of himself performing, it is fair to assume that that person wants other people to view the video.  However, just to be sure, in every case where I used a YouTube video, I contacted the poster and received permission.
4.  As you know, the subject of linking from Wikipedia to YouTube articles has been discussed often at the village pump, and it is not only not forbidden, but explicitly allowed.
As one who plays and performs myself, I am as sensitive as anyone to the issues of copyright infringement and would never do anything to impinge on the rights of others - certainly not in the Wikipedia.  Moreover, I laud Wikipedia's objective of being a repository of free content. I will certainly replace any nonfree example used in any of my articles with a free one if I can find one.  In the meantime, however, I believe the links to YouTube are justified and necessary.
If I do not receive a response from you within a couple of days, I will restore the example. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Next day: My long harangue on this matter wore down poor User:Nixeagle, who responded, "Blah, go for it."  Thank you, Nixeagle. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment that I agree with keeping the YouTube link in the article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with linking to websites containing free music that doesn't violate copyright. Graham87 13:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of links to nonfree content  

message: Is a chamber orchestra (less than 40 members) considered a kind of chamber music ensemble? Should it be in the table? — Gwalla | Talk 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamber orchestra 

message: Graham has pointed out that the Creative Commons license used by the Gardner Museum is not a free use license, but excludes commercial and derivative use.  For this reason, the recordings cannot be included in the Wikipedia Commons (which requires a free use license) though they can be linked to, as they are in the public domain.  For a discussion of this problem, see User_talk:Ravpapa#The_ISG_museum_license.
Therefore, I am going through the article, and replacing the recordings with links to the Gardner archive, and tagging the copies of the recordings in the Commons for deletion.  This is just so everyone knows why this odd change in the article is taking place. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just remembered about this problem. I've tagged all the recordings for deletion, but I'm not sure how to remove them properly from this article because it uses templates in an unusual way. Graham87 08:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry.  All the references to the Gardner Museum archive have been changed from pointing to the Commons to pointing to the original archive.  So deleting the recordings will not affect the article.  --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of nonfree content redux 

message: Just a quick note to say how much I enjoyed this article. Congratulations to everyone involved - an example of Wikipedia at its finest! Bedesboy (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great stuff 

message: These tags are outstanding and will result in a GAN quickfail if not immediately addressed. [Articles needing cleanup (May 2012), Articles needing link rot cleanup (May 2012), Articles with unsourced statements (February 2011, March 2009)] Jezhotwells (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Add external links to that. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Fixed link rot, bare urls and citation needed. Where is "Articles needing cleanup (May 2012)"? Couldn't find it in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otstanding cleanup issues 

message: The text says that the Op. 1 trios were published when Beethoven was 22. Actually they were *written* when he was 22, and published in 1795, when he was 24. I'll fix it. Opus131 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Beethoven section 

message: : Thank you for your edits, which added a lot to the article. While I agree with most of them, I have some issues about a few. I didn't feel right to change them without discussion, so here is my opinion:
* The lead: While it is true that the string quartet is a key type of chamber music, I don't think it merits inclusion in the lead. In the Baroque period there were no string quartets, and, in terms of mass, I am not sure that there are more string quartets than, for example, piano trios or music for piano four hands, which was an immensely popular form in the 19th century. Also, you exclude from the definition of chamber music music for a single instrument with piano; but many do consider this to be chamber music. It is, in my mind, incorrect to exclude Brahms violin or cello sonatas from the chamber music repertoire.
* Changing "today" to "2010s": this is very odd syntax, and also problematical. Do you promise to edit the article to update it on January 1, 2020?
* "... still play chamber music at home... " How do you know they are playing at home? maybe they are playing at someone else's home? or at a workshop in a conservatory? The addition of "at home" adds nothing, and could be misleading.
* "... or even by a string orchestra": Is composition for a string orchestra something extreme? What does "even by" add? I would understand it if it was "even by a gamelon orchestra" or "even by a bagpipe orchestra" But a string orchestra?
* "A bass note with no numeric code above it was deemed to be the ..." The article is about chamber music. Explanations of how to write figured bass seem irrelevant to the article, and would be incomprehensible to most readers.
* "and the chamber music he or she composed was for the pleasure of aristocratic listeners and amateur aristocratic performers." There are two things problematic about this edit. First of all, "he or she" - I don't know any female composers from the Baroque and early classical periods (which is what this sentence is talking about). Do you? Secondly, are you sure that the aristocratic players of this music played to aristocratic listeners? As far as I know, these players played for their own pleasure and did not necessarily perform. Prince Esterhazy, for example, played the baryton (badly), and is never known to perform in public. So your edit is probably incorrect.
* "for professional musicians playing for a paying audience of the general public." Subscription concerts were not for the general public. They were invitation-only affairs, and often cost a good deal of money; so the audience was generally aristocratic.
* "By leading, this means that the violinist indicates the start of each movement and their tempos by a gesture with her head or bowing hand." This is a very rudimentary and misleading explanation of what leading means in a chamber ensemble. Setting the tempo at the outset of the movement is one of the lesser acts of the leader, and it is not necessarily done by gesturing with head or bow hand. So this explanation more misleads that adds. I would remove it.
Any other opinions?
Regards,
--Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of the points Ravpapa mentioned. These edits need to be modified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a handful of women composers back then. Isabella Leonarda, for example, wrote some sonatas da chiesa. But certainly they were a tiny minority. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OnBeyondZebrax's edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chamber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/brahms_bahnen.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509091132/http://www.yca.org/modigliani.html to http://www.yca.org/modigliani.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515224149/http://dram.nyu.edu:80/dram/Objid/28894 to http://dram.nyu.edu/dram/Objid/28894
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chamber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515224149/http://dram.nyu.edu/dram/Objid/28894 to http://dram.nyu.edu/dram/Objid/28894
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I'm Gwen and I will be revising this article as part of my class on chamber music literature this spring! I will be working on the "chamber music and society in the 19th century" section and I look forward to your feedback on my revisions! Kaitze Chua(Gwen) (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Great to have you on board. What sources are you reading? Always glad to help out and make recommendations. Ravpapa (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision as part of Wiki Edu project

message: It can be found in Franz Xaver Richter's quartets from 1757 https://s9.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usimg/6/6a/IMSLP661672-PMLP450653-partitur.pdf --Wikiwickedness (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Haydn really invent the "conversational style" of the string quartet?

message: Hi peeps. Overall I find the work great but I find the tone of the article a bit off. In many places it reads, to me, rather like a book chapter or a magazine article.
It's clear the authors have had quite strong views about what's "good" or "bad" and who are "the greats". Nothing wrong having those views but I wonder whether they need to be expressed on Wikipedia. Here are couple of examples:
:Mozart's string quartets are considered the pinnacle of the classical art.
:Ludwig van Beethoven straddled this period of change as a giant of Western music. Beethoven transformed chamber music, raising it to a new plane, both in terms of content and in terms of the technical demands on performers and audiences.
In addition to these opinionated views the article is rather sprawling. I feel like the whole thing could be much improved by streamlining it, cutting out some clutter, using simpler sentences, and so on. If this was an academic or non-fiction book/article on the subject, presenting the views of writer/scholar(s) X, then both the strong views as well as the sprawling language would be fine. But on Wikipedia I would change the tone.
I don't know that much about classical music myself and so I'm not going to touch this. Nor am I going to debate the issue -- you active editors do as you see best. But I thought I'd give you my two cents as a reader. Gemena (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone down the tone and cut clutter?