Talk:List of Renaissance composers

message: Monteverdi is in this list, but not in the "Renaissance Composers" category. Was it an intentional choice, or might we add him? 
(PS - This is probably the case with several other composers on the list, but Monteverdi was the one I was listening to, tonight.) MIP | Talk 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a definite "oops" -- he's certainly both a Renaissance as well as a Baroque composer.  I'll fix it.  Thanks for pointing it out!  Antandrus  (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing it! :D (*grin* I was actually afraid that there was a very obvious reason for not including him, and that I was asking a really stupid question. :p ) MIP | Talk 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monteverdi 

message: Is anyone else bothered by the ordering by first name?  There are other choices, but it's quite a lot of work to fix, so I'm not going to do it without strong encouragement:
Example ordering possibilities:
*birthdate
*country/geographic region, birthdate
*century, surname
*country/language region, century, surname
I think it could be useful to have the Spanish composers together, the Franco-Flemish together, the Italians together, etc.  Maybe by birthdate within the groups.  When the dates are just "flourished", subtract twenty years from the first of the two dates (admittedly arbitrary, but it usually gets close).  Antandrus  (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordering

message: With some help from Antandrus I've reorganised this page to be split into individual countries to make it more useful and practical. IMO the pictures add a lot to the list to making it look pleasant - I initially included more, but removed some to prevent it from becoming over the top and a menace to 56k users.
The convention is to minus 20 to 30 years (at your discretion) from the date of composers who only have a flourished date to achieve an approximate date of birth.
All the birth/death mentions are uniformly formatted, and I'll fix any new ones which aren't if neccessary to make the page neat. If anyone has a suggestion of an improved way to present the dates (eg. no space after circas and/or between the hyphen seperating the b/d years) feel free - I couldn't find any mention of something this pedantic in any style guide. Lethesl 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganised the page 

message: *Germany, Spain, Poland and Portugal also need an introduction paragraph and I'm not sure how to write them at the moment.
*Also, should anything be done about music codices and annonymous composers who can be distinguished from others? The German article lists a few - I have been entertaining the idea of a list of music codices for a while, but don't know how workable that would be. It would certainly be of at least some use, plus it's an interesting subject. Lethesl 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: Another long-term thing to work on, in fact the only main issue for the list:
As we cannot arbitrarily declare how many works (or surviving works) are required for entry to this list, I am having to add composers even with only one work extant. This is making the list huge (I am hoping not unmanagably so). While it may not be a problem for making this as a reference, it creates a big problem (IMO):
The composers of substance who have dozens of surviving works are being swamped by people who either have not even been recorded or only have one piece recorded or even extant. Initially this may seem like no problem as it's a list, but this should be a list of some use, and I am unsure how listing all these people is of use. I was thinking perhaps the ones who produced more than a handfull of works could be boldened to stand out or something. For example, many many musicians (opposed to career composers) tended to publish study or practice works, or the occasional mature collection. This is adding so many more insignificant entries.
Another problem is that these one-work composers also need their listing to be explained, as they may be difficult or impossible for a second person to research and verify them (due to their total obscurity). This means that the page is going to get many times more text than is needed for just the composer name and date links, looking a) messy and b) (loading time) big. For example compare the England list (which I am working on at the moment) which is full of caveats and notes, versus other sections. Ideally this information could be put into individual articles for each of these obscurities, but a) that would take (possibly) years to do, and b) some don't even have enough information on them to not have an article on them get proposed for speedy deletion.
This seems a bit like between a rock and a hard place... Lethe 21:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensiveness 

message: A user removed a chunk of English composers due to him considering them belonging to the baroque. Isn't it the case that England's composers was a little late to join the renaissance, and equally reluctant to leave it? Lethe 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is legitimate to consider many of those composers "Renaissance", due to stylistic similarities; I don't think they should be removed from here.  Also, a lot of the recently added composers of the trecento are most commonly associated with the medieval, not the Renaissance eras.  The best way to solve problems like this is to put composers on both lists, when classification is not obvious; for example Sigismondo d'India, another the anonymous visitor removed, can be classified as both Baroque and Renaissance.  Antandrus  (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Come on guys, John Ferrabosco, who was born in 1626? He was clearly a Baroque composer. No, though the English Renaissance may have ended late, it didn't end as late as the era between 1650 and 1665. Only if it did, may John Ferrabosco have been a Renaissance composer. Marcus2 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember it's style not date.  For one example, John IV of Portugal (who was a composer, and a good one -- however only two motets survive with a reasonably secure attribution to him, the rest of his work being destroyed in the famous Lisbon earthquake and fire).  John IV is covered in Gustave Reese's enormous Music in the Renaissance; I'd recommend reading his article in the New Grove as well.  The Renaissance style lingered in Portugal, Spain, and England before anything resembling what we usually term the "Baroque" acquired currency.  It's not cut-and-dried.  For a famous example of a composer working in the prima pratica in the 17th century, think of Gregorio Allegri and his setting of the Miserere, which appears on many "Best of the Renaissance" collections.  It's fully reasonable to put 17th-century composers in the more appropriate category, -- which is often both -- and in the corresponding lists.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Good point. Forgive me if ever I sounded rude. Marcus2 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the Allegri Miserere is an excellent example of a piece in a transitional style. It alternates passages of plausibly "Renaissance" polyphonic texture with declamatory sections that have little to do with Renaissance compositional style, and quite a lot to do with the seconda prattica. Monteverdi has already been mentioned as a composer who straddles both styles, and the prima prattica lingers in his liturgical music right up to the end of hi life. The music of Orlando Gibbons is closer to the style of his late-16th-century predecessors, but even here there are evident techniques (motivic development, modulations characteristic more of tonal than of modal practice) more characteristic of the Baroque than the Renaissance. Of course, if you want to push this far enough, we mustn't forget that Purcell composed fantasies and In nomines in a style more than a little reminiscent of the Renaissance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Transitional belongs in both categories.  John IV belongs on this list because Reese covers him -- we can cite it, if you insist -- and Reese is quite specific about the scope of his book:  he cuts off where composers adopt "Baroque" characteristics.  John wrote motets in a clear prima pratica style, based on Palestrina.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: This voice is referencing the wrong person. I think a disambiguation page is needed and since I've never wrote one, i leave this to ppl better than me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wentu (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No DAB page needed, piping the link is enough for the moment. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Cobbold 

message: How does it come Paul Hofhaimer is listed under others and not in the German list? When he lived there was no such thing as an Austrian nation, more importantly Salzburg was an independent state and not connected to Austria back then. There is no reason not to include him into the German composers 188.118.245.215 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems fairly logical to add Paul Hofhaimer to the German section of the list given its current organisationbut trying to classify Renaissance composers by nationality at all is problematic. The Baroque list and Classical list are simply chronological. (RT) (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Hofhaimer 

message: We've got a problem with an editor adding fictitious birthdates, both to this article and to List of Medieval composers.  If all that is known about a composer is that he "flourished" ('floruit') at a certain time -- for example, Jacobus Vide, fl. 1405 -- we cannot infer a birthdate from that.  Someone has put "1385" in the table in a hidden template to make the column sortable, and now another person is pulling that date out as an approximate birthdate, but we can only use what is in reliable sources.  This entire article now needs to be either 1) checked for accurate dates for each entry, or rolled back to the version before the first edit of  / .  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictitious birthdates

message: I am not sure that there is a need to change anything, but I've found that there are duplicates. These:
* Arnold von Bruck
* Ghiselin Danckerts
* Joachim van den Hove
* Diomedes Cato
* Melchior Borchgrevinck
-- Harp (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect this list would do better if solely chronological, but in a sortable table so sorting by nationality is still possible. This would be aligned with the medieval, Baroque, Classical etc. lists and solve this issue, though I concur that the issue isn't a big one, if it all. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this? I've just generated with a script. -- Harp (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! They would just need to be in order by birthdate by default. I do wonder though if the dates should be combined into a "lifetime" so that the flourished dates can go in those same columns. My other reaction is that the Remark column takes up more space than it is useful. Those notes could perhaps be converted into literal notes, then there might be space for images beside the tables. Admittedly, I'm thinking about this from my formatting at List of medieval composers and List of medieval music theorists, but I think that layout could work here too (though I am, of course, biased!). Aza24 (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know abuout literal notes, but there is just Lifetime column now instead of the 3 columns. I created some new columns, Works currently contains the remarks -- Harp (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicates 

message: I've created a table version of the list User:Harp/rene.
I need some help:
* find out how to improve it
* finding errors
* how to handle the original texts in the sections
I've already got some suggestions from Aza24. Thanks for him.
I've created the table using a Python script from a CSV file. If there is a need for a bigger change with the script, let me know, and if we don't plan any global changesthen we can edit the table manually.
Currently one can order it by family name and by birth date. I've come up with some approximate birth date when just flourishing date or the year of death was given. I tried to find out the family name by the program, but there may be some errors in that.
I don't have too much time on workdays unfortunately, so don't be surprised if I don't answer too frequently.
-- Harp (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion this is already a big improvement, particularly in maximizing sorta-ability and organization.  may have some insight on this. Aza24 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is an excellent idea! -- I think (without digging into the article history) that this was halfway done some years ago, and then we backed it out for some reason. If we go ahead we should probably just state somewhere how we derive the sort date. That's a problem I have had in the past elsewhere, since it necessarily involves (gasp of horror) "original research". While it won't be perfect such an approach would at least give some consistency -- maybe for all floruit composers, we use an approximate birthdate of earliest fl year minus 25, or even 20. There will be some oddballs ("first half of 16th century" or some such). Antandrus (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  One big table 

message: I've already used approximate birth date in every rows. Just see the source or the CSV table's last column. I used fourish - 20/25 and death - 30/40/50 If somebody flourished in late 16th century, I thought it is a flourish date 1970, I set 1545 as a birth date. That seemed not too bad. (I wasn't always consequent with this).  I found a not too bad date for all the composers as a first dirty approximation. I think that's all right as the date don't show up in the table directly.
E.g.     So every time we can get a more certain date we can modify it for the given composer.
If somebody goes through the CSV file and checks/modifies the last column (approx. year of death) and sends me back, then I generate the table again. --- Harp (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , this looks great, though if someone lived in a given century, perhaps its best to put them in the middle, e.g. 16th century -> 1550, and then maybe late would be adjusted, e.g. Late 16th century -> 1575? Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to find an estimation for their birth dates. For somebody, who lived in the 16th century 1520 seems to be a better estimation for birth than 1550. The one who was born in 1550 we would categorize as lived in late 16th c., or if the composer lived long he/she can even belong to the turn of the century. An other approach could be to approximate the middle of one's life. Your arguments would be true then. But I would rather not calculate (birth + death)/2 for the composers who has exact dates. Birth date is easier concept for me than the "midlife date".  - Harp (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , admittedly, your logic is certainly more sound than mine! Per this, life expectancy appears to be between 33 and 55 during this time, presumably on the earlier side considering that range covers the growth from 1400 to 1900. I would say your table rationale and info is looking good, though it would be nice to transfer more of the notes over. I can assist with that, if you'd like? Best – Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to insert notes and edit User:Harp/rene as you wish. I am not a native English speaker so I am happy to have help. If you need me to recreate the table with some extra column, just ping me.  Harp (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Harp, completely forgot about this thread so apologies for the delay. I hope its okay, I've finished inserting notes so have transferred the table to the main-space. At some point I'll write a longer lead (akin to the one in the List of medieval composers) but unfortunately, because TOC is in the side now, the white space is the only solution at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Aza24 Looks good. I'm happy that it's in the main article now. Harp (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One big table − sort date