Talk:Symphony

message: I put a cleanup tag on this article. It's really cobbled together and doesn't flow well at all. A good example of the problem is that in both 19th and 20th century sections it mentions the French composers of organ symphonies as if they weren't referenced before. There's some other issues too (including this mess of a talk page...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Hallo,I'm verry intressted in the Changes that happend in the different registers
of the orchestra in the time between Mozart and Strauss.For example: some Instruments
diappeared,others arrived and even others changed pitch and tuning (trumpets)
and I keep thinking about the ideas behind it.Verry grateful for any answer.
85.3.53.193 14:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the Wikipedia article "Orchestra", where there some information on this. Although the present article does mention the informal usage of the word "symphony" as a synonym for "symphony (or symphonic) orchestra", it is primarily about the musical form.--Jerome Kohl 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Thank you,Jerome I did and it answers many questions,but brings up others as well.
Greatings, Michael. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.152.147 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I went ahead and spun off the long list of symphonies into List of symphony composers, as it was overtaking the mainspace of the article. I know it looks kinda bad at the moment, so feel free to help clean things up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New child article for the list 

message: I removed the "characteristics" section from the article.  It was redundant with much of the later discussion.
I removed some of the discussion too.  The article implicitly idealised the development of the symphony in terms of a concerted effort to realise an implicit beautiful, perfect, Platonic symphonic (four-movement) form, which became fully-formed some time in the eighteenth century thanks to Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven.  But "symphonic form" as presented here is an analytical convenience that was abstracted from extant works by later theoreticians.
The article was full of composers implicitly or explicitly "setting new standards".  But when composers wrote symphonies, they didn't enter some form of competition to "develop the form" or "set standards".  Each symphony can be taken on its own terms rather than being measured by its predecessors.
There were other generalisations that didn't stand up to scrutiny.  For instance, "symphonies grew in length" completely ignores a whole swathe of symphonies including those by Sibelius, and this development (if it was a coherent conscious development) didn't "finish with Mahler" (Brian's Gothic?).
I removed much of the etymological discussion: I retained some as helpful background, but most of it was completely off-topic for this article.  Perhaps the word itself is notable enough to warrant an article?  Or does this content have a place at wikt:symphony?  --RobertG ♬ talk 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you, RobertG, particularly your edits regarding symphony-as-form.  I have long believed that this article has overemphasized the reductive narratives concerning the transformation of pieces called symphonies over time, at the expense of genre.  The frustration that arises from reading these generalizations goes without saying.  Furthermore, the glaring absence of discussions about why certain trends in symphonic compositions might have taken place is a real head-scratcher; certainly there is enough secondary literature out there to flesh this out without controversy.  Just some thoughts. Dunkelweizen 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent trim 

message: Maybe there's room to discuss this.  It's not unusual for symphonies to include a set of variations for one of the movements - although not usually the 1st or last movements.  Exceptions would include Karl Goldmark's Rustic Wedding Symphony (1st movement) and Brahms's 4th symphony (last movement).  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The role of variations in symphonies

message: I notice that editor Redheylin has removed the category "Musical forms" from this article (as well as a number of others). May I ask the reasoning here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it not a form?

message: Hi. The ABC Classic FM radio station is currently running a Classic 100 Symphony poll (closes end of June 2009). I thought it might be of interest to those visiting this page (both to vote, and to perhaps incorporate the results into the article). Note that ABC Classic FM is a government-run, non-commercial, not-for-profit organisation. I have no affiliation with the radio station or poll in any way. Enjoy.  HWV258  01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However much "of interest" and whether or not they constitute spam, this is the wrong place for your remarks above. This page is to discuss article content. TheScotch (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The implication of my original post is that the information returned by the survey may get incorporated into the article. Oh wait, I did say that: "...and to perhaps incorporate the results into the article.".  HWV258  22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Will you go and remove everything on WP that is unscientific, or shall I? Let's wait and see what happens at the end of the poll (there will probably be over 100,000 votes from around the world—which is a fair sample size). Perhaps an entry in the "See also" section wouldn't be out of place? Cheers.  HWV258  22:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC Classic 100 Symphony poll 

message: Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article largely lacks inline citations, which should be added to aid verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I count nineteen inline citations in this article. How many should it have, and where should they be added?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no set number required. Everything "challenged or likely to be challenged", quotes, statistics, opinionss should all be cited - basically anything that the average reader would not know. Examples: stuff with , "a relatively little-explored form", "a work famous for its exceptional orchestration", etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, three items marked "citation needed" versus nineteen inline citations requires a separate flag at the top of the article? Fair enough. I'm not going to campaign for its removal, though it does seem excessively silly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I more-or-less boldly removed it.  If someone wants to put back the five-year-old tag they can, but it's more helpful tagging individual statements, which are more easily actionable.  (I tried some digging on the 'cn' items on the list at the end of the page, but to no avail.) Antandrus  (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I found only two statements tagged 'cn', and the one about the sinfonietta was easily dealt with. I removed the "little-explored" characterization of the ripieno concerto, which was vague (does this mean very few composers wrote them, or that musicologists have largely ignored the form?) and of little use to the reader of this aricle. The item about the German composer Winbeck, also marked 'cn', appears like it may be much more difficult to document. His name also looks extremely out-of-place with its companions, and immediately suggests that about a thousand more names should be added to balance his presence (surely there are many other equally notable German 20th-century composers of symphonies, not to mention the glaring omission of countries like Albania, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, etc.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll take that one out.  (Do you have MGG by any chance?  Does he have an article?  I can't tell online.  None in NG.)  I did a little digging but I'm not finding a huge amount on him in "big" sources. Antandrus  (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As a bigger project for anyone with the time and inclination, maybe we should de-"listify" the 20th-century section and write it up in prose, perhaps by nation, or half-century and then by nation/region (e.g. put Scandinavia together). Antandrus  (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I do not own a copy of MGG, but I can always consult it in the library. I have not succeeded in discovering any recordings of this composer's music, either, which does not speak well of his notability. So, I am not optimistic about finding an entry for him in MGG.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Follow-up report: I have checked MGG and there is no article on Winbeck. For a composer noted for five large symphonies, he has managed to maintain a remarkably low profile. Still, it does appear that his First Symphony was once released on a WERGO disc, which is more impressive than can be said of more than a few others in the List of symphony composers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for checking that.  I also noticed he's published by Bärenreiter-Verlag, who has a biography of him on their website (of course, for they want to sell his scores).  Getting published by Bärenreiter is significant.  Still -- since it isn't a list of all symphonies by notable composers, I think it's ok to leave him off the list.  (Anyone feel free to disagree, especially if there's another good source we're missing.) Antandrus  (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The unjustified tag is gone again, in favor of a request for specific tagging of any remaining claims that might possibly require verification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Support adding the  tag. The tag is not an attack; rather it is an attempt to enlist help to improve the article. You certainly don't have to look far to find sentences and even entire paragraphs with no sourcing, and that should be addressed (or would you rather see a large number of [Citation needed] templates added?). There are also many notes that don't supply a page number (which is part of the "Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations" that  is requesting). I would also prefer to see the standard <ref> syntax used (accompanied by various Cite templates) to standardise the referencing, and to hide the minutiae from the average reader. Is this article unique in having a large number of sources, but not a single <ref>? GFHandel ♬  03:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh, I thought I was very clear but, since you ask, yes, I would like to see "[Citation needed] templates added". I find it hard to believe that these would be "a large number", but I am much better prepared to respond to specific requests than to a blanket "I don't understand this stuff" complaint. Please tell me exactly what you think is not true (or, in Wikipedia terms, what is not verified), and I will do my best to supply a source, or delete the preposterous claim. (I love deleting preposterous claims!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: There are several Greek words used in the article, presented in Greek letters with no western alphabet equivalent offered even parenthetically.  Is that really appropriate style in an English encyclopedia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.74.143 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, though I was able to find only two such Greek words (Romanization now added). The is one other (siphon), given only in Romanized form. It probably should have the correct Greek spelling added, particularly because the transliteration has one ambiguous letter in it. If I have missed any, do please call my attention to them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanize the Greek 

message: That the first movement (allegro) of the classical symphony is most often in sonata form is mentioned but not in the right place. Nothing is said of the musical form of the other movements (e.g. second movement (andante) is most often in binary form) at all. In my opinion this should be dealt with in an article called "Symphony". Contact Basemetal here 06:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Are second movements (when slow, and not scherzos) really most often in binary form? My instincts tell me this is not correct, but if you have a reliable source that says so, then of course I have no objection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not my point. Contact Basemetal here 07:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Form of the various movements
 

message: Starting this section from scratch in order to keep to a little more focus and better explain what I think would be desirable. If you happen to have access to good sources, for exmple New Grove, I'd be surprised if they had nothing regarding this. If I had access to such sources I'd improve the article myself but I can only make these suggestions and hope that people with access to good sources will take them into account.
To repeat myself: this is an article which purports to describe the classical symphony yet nothing, or close to nothing is said of the musical forms of the various movements.
Saying something of the musical forms of the various movements could be saying (things like) mvt 1 usually fast in sonata form, mvt 2 often slow often in ternary form or in variation form or in sonata form, mvt 3 usually a minuet or scherzo in their own peculiar forms, mvt 4 finale is usually fast in rondo or sonata rondo form or whatever. But of course with more details and with examples of the practice found in a number of important examples both interesting in themselves and showing what variability can be expected. It doesn't matter if the examples above are incorrect or incomplete. They're just meant as examples. I'm not writing the article. This is a talk page. I'm just trying to give an idea of what I mean.
Finally regarding the potential expected argument that the forms are just too varied to give a "typical" description. Of course any competent treatment would deal with broad tendencies, not attempt absolute dogmatic statements. Just because you can't be comprehensive doesn't mean you can't contribute more than what we've got at the moment. As of now the reader can learn nothing about this question. Anything at all would be better than what is there at the moment.
Contact Basemetal here 10:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you better now, thanks. I have just reviewed the article and, as a matter of fact, some of this information is already there, although in rather "telegraphic" form. The chief omission has to do with slow movements, whose usual formal layouts (through-composed, binary, ternary, variations) are not mentioned. I do have access to New Grove, and will see what I can find there specific to this problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Layout! I've been looking for an equivalent to the French term "coupe" in "coupe à l'italienne" and "coupe à la française". Would the word "layout" adequately translate "ooupe" in those phrases, e.g. "Italian layout" and "French layout"? Contact Basemetal here 19:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. My French is far from native fluency, but I would think that "coupe à l'italienne", for example, might mean something more like "Italian style" (that is, "cut in the Italian manner", like a jacket). I think the English "layout" corresponds most closely to the French "disposition", though it can also refer to "mise en page".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking specifically of the phrases "coupe à l'italienne" and "coupe à la française" in musical terminology. In French "coupe à l'italienne" means fast - slow - fast and "coupe à la française" means slow - fast - slow. What would be the appropriate English word to translate "coupe" in those phrases? Contact Basemetal here 20:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an idiom  I had not encountered before. Yes, you could translate this as "layout" or (perhaps a little more formally) "disposition of movements".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction. Sorry. I was just told the idioms are "coupe française" (lent - vif - lent) and "coupe italienne" (vif - lent - vif). So no "à la". I had some trouble finding an example on the the net. I did end up finding this one (and only for "coupe italienne") Patrick Taïeb, L'ouverture d'opéra en France: de Monsigny à Méhul, Société française de musicologie, 2007, p. 290, so they don't seem to be that common, but, I promise you, I've seen both. I personally must have picked up both of them from a small book by André Hodeir called "Les Formes de la musique". Contact Basemetal here 05:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form of the various movements 

message: Bananasoldier (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAFI setup 

message: :Can people stop demanding citations of dates for each symphony if the article linked to begins with a date and footnote? The "improvement" is adding many "citation needed" tags where a relevant citation is easily found in an accompanying article, but isn't itself necessary for a history of the symphony. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are and have been no such demands, though placing "citation needed" tags with precision is difficult in these cases. In fact, I put editorial notes on each of them reading "Source verifying notability needed", since there is doubt in my mind that the items in question are symphonies of sufficient importance to mention in the article at all. There is an extended discussion further up this talk page about this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely quite a few are unnotable (in the context of a broad, but brief, history of the symphony) and should be removed from this article. Thanks. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And, as I cautioned, the lede statement you removed has now been restored.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I like the article formatted with inline citations (linked to a Notes section), because this lists the works cited in the article directly above the Sources section, making for much easier reference compared to having to scroll up and down, back and forth, from the article's body to the sources section. I had performed this before, but it was reverted per WP:CITEVAR. Since the citations have been reinstated (by other editor(s)), placing this notice here per WP:CITEVAR to establish consensus for the change. Pinging involved editors: , , , , . NORTH AMERICA1000 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have clarified my nomination by adding "(linked to a Notes section)" to it above, and added "linked to notes section" in the section header. NORTH AMERICA1000 22:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

text: *Pinging , overlooked previously, who was a major participant in the previous consensus discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

text: One other bit:  WP authors are supposed to cite quite a bit more frequently in the text than scholarly authors; we get no benefit of the doubt and have to provide a citation for everything we say.  This makes for quite a bit of clutter (visible in the Symphony article right now) if you use the Harvard system. Opus33 (talk)
*If a consensus is emerging for footnotes versus the Harvard method, I will not oppose it.  In general I don't like swapping out an existing style for another (ENGVAR, CITEVAR, etc.) just because of someone's preferences - but Opus makes a good point about the density of references and visual clutter.  JK also makes a good point about the three-point clicks.  However there does seem to be a trend on Wikipedia to increase the frequency of citations, so yes the footnote method does seem to be more reader-friendly.  I'm open to persuasion either way. Antandrus  (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It has now been seven months since that discussion, and I have not seen one substantive improvement to this article. I hope that all those enthusiastic editors who felt their contributions were being inhibited by the citation format will now come forth and make the much-needed improvements. To start with, I would like to see an expansion of the discussion of the place and fucntion of the symphony in the pre-Beethoven era.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations linked to notes section

message: The following external links, I propose changing to be easier to navigate:
===Before===
*  A fairly detailed list of symphonists, mostly active after 1800 - Part 1
*  A fairly detailed list of symphonists, mostly active after 1800 - Part 2
*  A fairly detailed list of symphonists, mostly active after 1800 - Part 3
*  A fairly detailed list of symphonists, mostly active after 1800 - Part 4
===After===
:Version A
*  "List of symphonists, mostly active after 1800", compiled by Thanh-Tâm Lê:    
:Version B
*  "List of symphonists, mostly active after 1800", compiled by Thanh-Tâm Lê (French/English):
** Part 1 
** Part 2 
** Part 3 
** Part 4 
With two different variations: (A) terse and (B) verbose.  Comments welcome! DutchTreat (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this.  My own preference is for A. Opus33 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well, I'll put in version A. - DutchTreat (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links  "List of symphonists' Alter Format 

message: :Version A
*  "List of symphonists, mostly active after 1800", compiled by Thanh-Tâm Lê:    
:Version B
*  "List of symphonists, mostly active after 1800", compiled by Thanh-Tâm Lê (French/English):
** Part 1 
** Part 2 
** Part 3 
** Part 4 
With two different variations: (A) terse and (B) verbose.  Comments welcome! DutchTreat (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this.  My own preference is for A. Opus33 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well, I'll put in version A. - DutchTreat (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: After

message: Somehow we ended up saying that the four-movement symphony was actually introduced into classical music by Haydn and Mozart.  Reference sources I consulted indicate this is just plain not true.  Ebenezer Prout is cited in support of the claim, but looking at the relevant page it seems that he says no such thing.  Another error the article had was that Haydn wrote only three-movement symphonies in the earlier period of his career (Prout doesn't say this either.) I've found new reference sources, hoping to improve things. The picture seems to be that the shift to four movements was gradual, and was not initiated by either Haydn or Mozart.  Sorry I'm no good at reference-formatting, please feel free to fix what I did.  Opus33 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice research!  I'll clean up the reference-format. Cheers DutchTreat (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of four-movement symphonies

message: Right now the article says:
:His Symphony No. 9 takes the step unprecedented since the early baroque era of including parts for vocal soloists and choir in the last movement, making it a choral symphony.
This seems bizarre to me:  "since the early baroque era" implies there actually were symphonies in the early baroque era!  I propose that the sentence should simply begin "His Symphony No. 9 takes the unprecedented step of including parts for vocal soloists ...", unless someone objects.  Opus33 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there were symphonies in the early Baroque era, though of course they were not quite the same thing that symphonies became later on. The truly ridiculous thing about that claim is that, in the early Baroque, symphonies by composers such as Gabrieli a d Schütz were more likely to be vocal or vocal-instrumental than purely instrumental. Or perhaps that was the point after all, meaning that vocal soloists were commonly found in the early Baroque, but had not been since then? The rather melodramatic claim sounds a bit like a Beethoven enthusiast going over the top, but it is (almost) certainly true that the Ninth was the first symphony for at least fifty years to involve vocal parts. A reliable source saying so, of course, is what is really necessary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right; it turns out that the New Grove mentions a choral symphony by Peter Winter from 10 years earlier, so the claim wasn't even true.  Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

text: That's what I meant by "almost". Of course, Peter Winter is not exactly a household name these days, so Beethoven gets all the credit. The phrasing that you found was the product of this edit by User:Mscuthbert on 27 January 2015, dealing with an "internal conflict" tag I had placed some time earlier on the claim that Beethoven's Ninth "takes the unprecedented step for a symphony of including parts for vocal soloists and choir in the last movement", despite the statement made just a few paragraphs earlier that the symphonies of Gabrieli, Banchieri, and Schütz are choral works, some with instrumental accompaniment. Even in the context of the Classical-era symphony, it is well to be wary about such claims, since it usually turns out that, indeed, nihil sub sole novum nec valet quisquam dicere ecce hoc recens est.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like, "Highly unusually for the symphony of his time, Beethoven's Ninth includes parts for vocal soloists and choir in the last movement. Despite the existence of (mainly Baroque) choral-orchestral works called symphonies and even some precedents from around Beethoven's time, the Ninth is sometimes [often?] regarded as the first symphony with voices and was regarded by later musicians as the path-breaking work in this new genre."  -- specific examples of the Winter symphony, the regard for it by others, etc., seem to me better placed in the Beethoven 9 article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the two consecutive -ly adverbs at the beginning, this would work—provided of course that a reliable source can be found to support the claim, especially the last two clauses (perfectly true, of course, but "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia ...", especially in light of the history of this troublesome sentence).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Query re. Beethoven Ninth

message: From my research the musicologist, NYU professor, Jan LaRue (1918-2004) spelled his name using mixed case. Using the US LOC Authority Control file, mixed case is the preferred spelling of his family name: . It is fair to say that a few international libraries use the lowercase spelling, but not the majority.  This claim is supported by several other sources including his obituary from the New York Sun and NYU (which oddly used lowercase 'r' only in the title of their article):
* 
* 
Comments welcome before I make the changes for consistency. - DutchTreat (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I had always thought that the name was "LaRue", but I changed it in this article when I was checking the New Grove and found it was spelled there with a lowercase R. I am not entirely clear what the Wikipedia protocol is in such cases, but I would imagine a single, standard spelling would be used regardless of the way it happens to appear in a particular source. If this is the case, by all means change it back.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you JK for helping me understand the background on your choice of spelling.  The Help:Authority control files from many national libraries (see VIAF link above) form  a compelling case to use the rather unexpected choice of the capital 'R' in the middle of his name. These records represent the interests of reference librarians around the world and the composite view of many published sources beyond any single published work like the New Grove.  There are a few national libraries with the lower 'r' (e. g. Spain), but most libraries including France, Germany, Sweden and the United States all decided on upper 'R'.  I will make the change to upper 'R' based on this evidence.  - DutchTreat (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for checking the authority controls. I can only assume that the Wikipedia Manual of Style follows one or the other of these for author names in citations and bibliographies. I cannot find the relevant page, and not all publishers take the same position. That is what I meant about not being clear about the Wikipedia protocol. Obviously, if there are multiple items in a bibliography by the same author, the name should be spelled consistently, but when, as in this case, there is only one (or if there are two or three, all of which disagree with the chosen authority control), some style sheets may choose to use the form found in the source(s).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point better now. It may be best to keep all of the New Grove references with the lower 'r'. Appreciate the dialog. -- DutchTreat (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have his doctoral dissertation and the "LaRue, (Adrian) Jan (Pieters)" New Grove article (2001 edition, downloaded 2005), and they're both spelled with a capital R there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I hadn't thought to check his biography article on Grove Online. Now that I have done so, I see that the name is spelled with the capital R. I find this also in the bibliographies to the section "Theories of form" in the "Theory" article, and section IV, "Organum and discant" in the "Sources" article, as well as the bibliographies for the biographical articles on Bartók, Monteverdi, Schubert, and in the text of the article on Ruth Steiner, who studied with him. It looks like the lowercase R in the "Symphony" article must be a simple mistake.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for helping me bring this item to closure.  I will update the article to use the uppercase 'R' for 'LaRue' - DutchTreat (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to have caused this whole problem. I should have trusted my memory and cross-checked. Had I done so, I would have seen that the NG had made an error.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, my friend.  Together we make the WP the best it can be.  Our dialog has helped me to learn more about an interesting person in a field that is foreign to me.  I am thinking about starting a stub article for Jan LaRue to further explain his contributions. Alas, how to find the time to explore so many great things?  Cheers DutchTreat (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Family Name for Musicologist Jan LaRue (Larue) 

message: Does anyone have a copy of The Nine Symphonies of Beethoven by Antony Hopkins (1981) ?  I am trying to decode this statement in the article: "the scoring used in Beethoven's symphonies numbered 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 (instrumentation of Beethoven symphonies taken from the chapter headings for each symphony in Hopkins (1981)"  From looking at an on-line snippets, I believe Symphony No. 1 is Chapter 2; Symphony No. 2 is Chapter 4 on page 36; and Symphony No. 4, Chapter 7.  I would some help finding the page numbers and possibly a better way of expressing the source for the instrumentation.  Thank you! - DutchTreat (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a copy of that book, but the conventional source for such information is the published score, rather than a book which merely reports at second hand what is in that score (and because they are in the public domain, the scores are much easier to access that a copyrighted book).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the public domain sources are a much better way to reference the instrumentation. I'll start to update that section to remove the reference to Hopkins (1981) since that is the only reason for including that source. Thanks - DutchTreat (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter Headings from ''The Nine Symphonies of Beethoven'' by Hopkins (1981)