Talk:List of concert band literature

message: I don't know any of the three works listed by Howard Cable and have never performed them; however, perhaps they are significant works in Canada and not in the U.S.?  Could someone give a more international perspective there?  Thanks.  --Myke Cuthbert 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Howard Cable works as cornerstone

message: I'm a bit skeptical of the works on the "recent works" list dated just in the last two or three years.  It strikes me as fanboyism at best, and possible self-promotion at worst.  I think five years should probably be about the minimum age to appear on the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.194.5 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent works a bit TOO recent? 

message: Shouldn't Rolling Thunder be listed as a cornerstone work by Fillmore, if not his most performed work?  Also, shouldn't Kenneth Alford get some mention as being an important contributor to band literature?  I suggest dividing this wiki into two sections: concert band works and marches, because some very important marches are left out of this list that should be here (Valdres and Inglesina are but a few that come to mind)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.75.161 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Thunder, Colonel Bogey? 

message: Is it really important to exclude transcriptions made by the composer?  I could see it for something like the William Schuman "New England Tryptich," where the two versions are pretty much equally important.  But the Holst "Mars" and "Jupiter", which have been repeatedly removed and put back in, are a different case.  Although the transcriptions were made by the composer, there is no doubt that the orchestral version has primacy, and that these are the secondary versions.  Can we come to a consensus on works in that category? - PianoDan (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the source to back that up? Justin Tokke (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcriptions by the composer 

message: I re-did the formating because the current bullet points with itallics look positively ugly. The columns also make the article much more managable. I will re-instate it if there is no appropriate dissent.Justin Tokke (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scholarly"?! This list is anything but. It's a purely subjective opinion of the editors on Wikipedia of which works to include. And in case you didn't notice, I did much more than just add columns and loose the bullet points. I made a lot of the lists MUCH more succinct. Some of the works listed under cornerstone are clearly not. I re-evaluated the list and made proper adjustments. The page with the columns is still a list (duh!) just broken up and made easier to read. If you don't agree, then say so and wait for concensus before reverting it again. But don't get into an edit war simply because you're trying to hold up some fake notion of being "scholarly." Justin Tokke (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formating 

message: It is paramount that we keep the transcriber names in this section. Anyone can create a transcription of a piece of music, but only certain ones have gained notoriety. Justin, by constantly deleting this information you are erasing important facts and clouding the truth. That is NOT how Wikipedia works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomas83 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm  not removing them at all. If you want to add them, then do so, but not at the behest of the entire article. "Concert Band Literature" implys the major works written for the concert band. Yes, this includes transcriptions, but not every one made ever. That doesn't mean that only transcriptions my Erik Leidizn (sp?) or Lucian Calliet are important. The majority of what I edited were the original works, mostly paring them down to standard works and removing the incredibly informal language in the section titles and section introductions. Is that unreasonable? I hope not. As a compromise (one that I agree with), I'm gonna take your added contributions with transcriptions and add them to my work with original works. Sound good to you? Justin Tokke (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I'm confused. After looking at the two different edits, I noticed that my version DOES have the transcriptions in it. (I thought I had forgot to put it in there for something.) What's the problem? The name of the transcriber? How is that important especially when it is the composer that is paramount? Justin Tokke (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You WERE deleting the transcriber/arranger names. Without that information ANY hack composer, perhaps yourself, could write a transcription and sell it as “important to the literature”. Go back to writing bad symphonies and save everyone the time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.88.88 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've flagged this article for a Third Opinion so we can get some concensus instead of the lame Revert-Edit War that's going on here. BTW, do I know you? Justin Tokke (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcriptions 

message: I'm not sure how we can not be considering Music for Prague as a cornerstone of the band repertoire while touting Jerry Bilik's "American Civil War Fantasy." Seriously, this is laughable. Music for Prague is one of the most important works written for winds, composer by a Pulitzer Prize winner, and is performed much more frequently than -say- the Persichetti Psalm or the Bennett "Symphonic Songs." If you want to make this a serious endeavour, it might be worth it to compile several "Best of" lists (there are plenty around) and then flag the works that appear on several lists...surely, those would be somewhat of a consensus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.91.48 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Give some links of some of those top ten lists then. Justin Tokke (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted.  Bilik's American Civil War Fantasy has been moved. 99.159.28.228 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also second the movement of Music for Prague to the Cornerstone Works column.  Work moved. 99.159.28.228 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Music for Prague

message: Could I get a consensus on who thinks this work is a Cornerstone or a Respected Work?  It's been around for 35 years or so, and is incredibly often performed, especially for being as daringly avant-garde as it is.  I would vote to keep it as a Cornerstone Work, but I'd like other opinions.  Thanks! 99.159.28.228 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwantner's "...and the mountains rising nowhere" 

message: I thought maybe I missed out on some hugely important work when seeing this listed under the cornerstone category (there's always cracks in what we know, right?), but from what I'm seeing relative to the other listed cornerstone works, there are very few notable performances of this work. It's also a chamber work for 10 instruments. If the list were to include chamber works, surely it would feature more prominent works like Beethoven's Octet and Mozart's/Strauss's Serenades. Am I missing something?
Kevin James Carpenter (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Bird's Suite in D, Op. 29 as a cornerstone work of concert band? 

message: Regardless of this work's relevance or importance in the western cannon, I think labeling this chamber piece as "concert band literature" is not particularly accurate. Kevin James Carpenter (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dvořák Serenade in D minor, op. 44 as "concert band" literature? 

message: Maslanka's Give Us This Day is currently listed both under "Cornerstone Works" and "Recent Works". While the piece has definitely gained some popularity, it is far too recent (2006) to be listed as a cornerstone work, which is described as standing the test of time over multiple decades. Seeing as it has been performed by multiple big name ensembles I can certainly see it belonging on this list under either recent or maybe respected works, but it doesn't have the age to be a cornerstone work. With that note, the world premiere of Maslanka's Hymn for World Peace (2014) was only six years ago. That's not even a single decade away, and it is listed as a cornerstone work. The same is true for Maslanka's Traveler (2003), which has almost made it to two decades.
It is a known issue for this page that there is currently no objective measurement of what is and isn't a cornerstone work. My idea of a more objective measurement would be looking at how many big name ensembles (known music universities, military bands, well-known state/country ensembles) have performed the work as well as how many smaller ensembles (non-music universities, high school concert bands) have performed the work. Time should also be a factor- are many ensembles still playing the piece decades after initial publishing? There is still a lot of subjectivity in this measurement, but at least it is a start.
If I were to apply this metric to the works of David Maslanka, it would be something along these lines. To start out with, I'll arbitrarily decide that the "test of time" is four decades. Immediately, four out of his five "Cornerstone Works" are ruled out. They have not existed long enough to verify they pass that metric. Finally, his work A Child's Garden of Dreams. This passes my arbitrary four decade test, and in the past 3 years it has been performed many times by various universities and high schools, so perhaps it would pass for respected or cornerstone. For now, I will leave it where it is, and move the rest of his works on this page to the "Recent Works" category.
The final issue with all of this was that in order to determine this, I had to perform original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. In order to determine the categories of these works, I had to research what ensembles have played these works. The Wind Repertory Project could be somewhat of a source for this, however it does not appear exhaustive enough to be completely useful for this goal. A resource such as this page would be incredibly helpful to have on the internet, but in my opinion, it doesn't appear Wikipedia is the correct place for this. Cjkellner (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Maslanka and the Issues with this Article