Talk:Classical guitar repertoire

message: This article needs clarification of the distinction between the sections, especially the two "Romantic" sections and the "Viheula" section which needs to be more explicitly indicated as being part of the Renaissance era.  Also, the difference between the modern/contemporary/21st century composers is unclear.  This possibly needs an expert who can differentiate the music of these eras. --Ray thejake 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing section layout

message: With the sole exception of Wikipedian Ray thejake's, all of the other posts in this discussion are ANONYMOUS. They should, therefore, be discarded or erased. (No use answering to someone who is hiding). --AVM 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you afraid to sign your posts?

message: I've just ready this article and am shocked at its lack of quality and factual data. Please consider obtaining serious primary sources or even better: articles published or written during the actual musical period you are interested in.
I've just deleted the most ridiculous descriptions of the romantic period, that I've ever come across. For example:
*"Composers such as Chopin, Schubert, and others composed [...] because the composer simply "felt like it" at the time."
Apparently the original author did not know that improvisation and improvisery composition was an INTEGRAL part of the baroque and CLASSICAL era!
*"Works were far more expressive, and music was thought to be intrinsically tied to other art forms."
I cannot believe how it is possible that people can think that music of the classical era, or the baroque era was not expressive or not tied to other arts. (Actually I can: Those people are the owners of recordings by the legions of boring modern classical guitarists - the worst and most ignorant musicians I know.)
Bloodguitarist (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A word of warning to readers! 

message: I'm sorry for not editing it all by myself now, but I have to say that there is something very wrong with this article: it has a great number of music that was not originally written for guitar, but only transcribed at some other moment. It means that this article is absolutelly useless, considering that I can create an article called "Ocarina repertoire" and include a lot of works as if it was of domain of the ocarina, when it simply doesn't mean anything than that another person made a transcription for it, absolutelly arbitrarily. Things get really worse here in the Romantic Period section: Beethoven is listed (and it is doubtful if he was a Romantic composer) with the "Moonlight Sonata", that is an unclear title for the Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor Op. 27 No. 2, and, as I said, is just the reference to the existence of some transcription to the work, thas was never intended to be played at the guitar in its origin (nothing against the transcriptions, of course). But while it points to these works of the common-place that weren't even composed for guitar, it doesn't mention, for exemple, some works that Beethoven wrote (and that was not publicated during his life) for mandolin and that can be adapted for guitar. It would be an interesting reference, but this one, pertinent, is missing, while other ones, absolutely impertinent, are here.
Somebody with knowledge of cause should adopt this article, maybe consulting even the repertoire of labels such as Naxos with some series dedicated to the classical guitar, and remake it, deleting all these sparse references to common-place works that don't have anything with the guitar.
--Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Guitar repertoire?

message: The topic of the information on this page appears to be covered by List of composers for the classical guitar and List of compositions for guitar. Therefore, I propose a merge. Brambleclawx 15:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would do neither.  Given that it is merely a set of lists plus the odd bit of commentary, the article needs expansion (the lists having first been removed)  Or it should be deleted if it proves to be non-viable (though I strongly suspect it isn't).  Merging all the lists would be somewhat counterproductive...  However, any names and works missing from the two lists should be moved to those lists, obviously (I would not bother with redlinks, though unless the proposed subjects really are people/works in need of an article).  --Jubilee♫clipman 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Addendum - or the most useful bits of this article could just be merged into Classical guitar (and the lists expanded with missing names/works) and the article PRODed (AFDed if there is any reason not to prod)...  --Jubilee♫clipman 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Comment I took another look, and I think that if a merge were to occur, I think it would just be more viable to merge this entire page into List of compositions for guitar, which basically has similar content; the only difference is that this page has a few paragraphs discussing the different periods: perhps those paragraphs could be combined at the top of that page? I agree that this page could do with expansion, but I feel it would be easier to merge them because of similar topics. Brambleclawx 19:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that makes more sense.  Maybe the paragraphs (or some of them) could fit into Classical guitar somewhere, though?  Probably into the Repertoire section?  If not, just go ahead and merge as you suggest.  Unless you feel like stubbing this present article and letting others restart it (with a hidden reminder that lists already exist)?  --Jubilee♫clipman 03:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Note the comments above about irrelevent music being listed, however: maybe not all of this music should be in that other list at all?  Eg, Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827): Moonlight Sonata...  Perhaps AfD would be better, on second thoughts.  After copying the good stuff, of course, into the relevent articles.  On the other hand, Organ repertoire gives a good model for starting the article after stubification, so I'm not sure about that, yet (though that article has multiple issues: not least the horrible graphic and the lack of sourcing).  --Jubilee♫clipman 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Just do what you think is right: obviously with no one else commenting it is hardly going to be controversial and we both more or less agree on the basics if not on the specifics.  Ask me to review it all after you've finished, if you wish.  (I would remove the more obvious non-guitar compositions, like the Beethoven, first, however.  I would also remove all the redlinks like D.R. Auten.  That way you have far less to worry about when you split it all up into other articles or what ever.)  --Jubilee♫clipman 01:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Classical guitar repertoire. 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/20100812090931/http://www.muslib.se/ebibliotek/boije/indexeng.htm to http://www.muslib.se/ebibliotek/boije/indexeng.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104082811/http://www.kb.dk/en/nb/samling/ma/hs.html to http://www.kb.dk/en/nb/samling/ma/hs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702004110/http://www.guitarfoundation.org/gfaa/ to http://www.guitarfoundation.org/gfaa/
*Added  tag to http://bibliotecadigitalhispanica.bne.es/R/?func=change-language-go&LANG=ENG
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) 00:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not sure what the standards of notability for inclusion here are, but I was intrigued by this addition - mainly because he was at the top of the list.
It seems like the majority of his online presence is publications on his own youtube channel and on his website, migueldelaguila.com.  His works seem to be primarily self published, and his own biography is padded with relationships with orchestras and arts organizations of what seem like secondary and tertiary cities, and honors and awards for which he was nominated or was a runner up.  It does not read like the biography of someone whose works students would be expected to learn and professionals would be expected to know.  the piece of his included - "Tennessee" does not seem to have a wide range of interpretations or performances available online.  In fact I could only find his own performance on youtube.
I think the criteria for inclusion should, as a lower bound, involve multiple guitar compositions that have been performed and published by multiple guitarists and labels, and on his website i see only one CD with his guitar music.  Taking action to remove, let me know what you think
romnempire (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miguel Aguila