Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 7

message: Hello! 
I have a problem naming a particular article on a work by Anton Reicha, and since the composer is not very well known (to say the least), and classical music isn't exactly a very popular topic, I decided to ask for help here, rather that at the Help Desk - but if you feel that my question belongs there, feel free to tell me that.
The problem is this: I've been working on Anton Reicha for a while, and I would like to create an article about his work 36 Fugues for piano, Op. 36. Its one of his major works and I have found have some printed sources discussing it briefly. But I have no idea how to name the article. I've read the guidelines here and in the MoS, and accodring to the "make sure its easy to find" rule, I should name it "36 Fugues (Reicha)". But Reicha's cycle seems to be the only one to have 36 fugues, even searching for "36 Fugues" in Google yields only results about Reicha's work. So maybe the title should be simply 36 Fugues? It doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me, I have to say.
Looking at the Beethoven worklist, there are some other options, like Fugues, Op. 36 as in Bagatelles, Opus 126 (Beethoven). Or should I spell out the number: Thirty-Six Fugues, Opus 36 (Reicha), as in Twenty-Five Scottish Songs, Opus 108 (Beethoven)? Again, mentioning Reicha in the title looks good, but probably isn't right since there's just one cycle of 36 fugues. I honestly tried browsing through other articles on works by Beethoven, Chopin, Shostakovich, etc., but failed to understand how I should name my article.
Most of this also applies to another article I wanted to create about a Reicha work, his "24 Trios for three horns", Op. 82 - 24 Horn Trios (Reicha), perhaps? Or should I mention the opus number? By the way, just to add to the complexity, "Op. 36" for the fugues is not a standard: Reicha's work hasn't been extensively studied, so some catalogues list it as Op. 36 and some don't give it an opus number at all. 
Anyway, I'd be very grateful for any help. I know I probably talk too much and make a problem out of nothing, but I just can't help being pedantic in a case like this, and I wouldn't want to disrupt Wikipedia by naming the article wrongly. I'm sorry if I'm not brief enough and/or if this message really belongs to the Help Desk - just tell me if it is so, and I'll move it. Jashiin 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an opinion, but I like 36 Fugues (Reicha).  The parenthetical Reicha helps because not many people are going to be familiar with either the work or the composer.  An Opus number in the title is usually only helpful if there are more than one articles of that type (e.g. Bagatelles, Opus 119 (Beethoven).  Don't sweat the title too much, it can be renamed and redirects can be added. DavidRF 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply! I guess I'll go ahead with 36 Fugues (Reicha) indeed, I like it the best too, and there weren't any other comments here.. if anyone objects, we'll just rename it. Thanks!  Jashiin 09:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, it probably should be 36 Fugues...standard practice is to NOT have a title like that redirect to a title with disambig-ness, as it were. On the other hand, since it's such a GENERIC piece title, by a lesser known composer (as opposed to something like The Love for Three Oranges, which used to have (Prokofiev) after it), then bending the rules is ok. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Well, I went ahead and created 36 Fugues (Reicha); in any case it won't be a problem to fix the redirects, since not many articles are going to link there. Thank you for your reply :) Jashiin 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A particular naming issue 

message: Hello. On usenet today someone noticed that wikipedia stated that Symphony No. 5 (Mendelssohn) could be "a clever forgery that has fooled musicologists to this very day".  The statement was uncited and initially placed there by an anon back in May.  I removed the embarrassing sentence and put a note on the talk page stating such claims are going to require citations.  I noticed the whole article is littered with fact-tags in spite of the fact there are some decent references listed.  I don't have any of those references and none of my other books have any information on this work.  Is anyone out there knowledgeable enough to add footnotes?  Thanks.  DavidRF 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. It's stuff like that which causes people to bash WP for no good reason...I'm sorry I can't help though, all I have is linar notes for my one recording of it, which I doubt is anything much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendelssohn 5 needs clean-up 

message: Hello, 
I've been writing articles about Cage's works during the past week or so, and while I know that contemporary classical music isn't for everyone, I thought that perhaps someone with a knowledge of theory could help me out. While working on Sonatas and Interludes I had to explain Cage's technique of rhythmic proportions, which is kind of simple when you know what it is but very difficult to explain briefly (and without illustrations. I'd gladly make one, except that to explain the technique one needs to see the entire piece, and we can't allow that, especially because the music is just 60 years old). I did my best, though, and thought that someone might be interested to read my explanation and tell me whether I succeeded or not. I'll probably submit the article to Peer review later, but I think that it'd be better if someone who knows something about music theory checked it first. 
The passage in question is in the Analysis - Structure section, right below the table ("The main technique Cage used..") Any questions, corrections and suggestions are welcome on the article's talk page (or on my talk page), and if you're interested in helping out with other articles on Cage's works, see :Category:Compositions by John Cage or my user page. Thanks! Jashiin 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Cage's "Sonatas and Interludes" 

message: I thought for the longest time the standard was to use hyphens in key signatures, like so: C-sharp minor. All the pages, though, are without, as in C sharp minor, even though the "important" pieces like Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) and Symphony No. 7 (Prokofiev) use hyphens. What's the deal? ALTON .ıl 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hackneyed hyphen question in key signature 

message: I thought for the longest time the standard was to use hyphens in key signatures, like so: C-sharp minor. All the pages, though, are without, as in C sharp minor, even though the "important" pieces like Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) and Symphony No. 7 (Prokofiev) use hyphens. What's the deal? ALTON .ıl 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our Article Guidelines, "Key should be capitalized, but "major" and "minor" should be in lower case.  For example, C sharp major; D minor." There is no mention of using a hyphen. Thomprod (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the keys were changed last week to include hyphens.  To tell you the truth, I thought the standard was no hyphens.  I just checked a couple of dozen of my CD's from many labels. Naxos, EMI, Decca, Phillips, Virgin and Hyperion do NOT use hyphens while Sony and Vox do use hyphens.  Seems like the hyphen crowd was more vocal here at wikipedia.  Not really worth an edit war, but just a heads up that although a few labels do use the hyphens, there isn't really a standard. DavidRF (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hackneyed hyphen question in key signature 

message: Are you folks aware of this?  It's a list of free classical music that can can be played with a click of the mouse.  The list is woefully incomplete, so volunteers are wanted.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's biggest free jukebox 

message: I've created a new wikiproject, Wikipedia:Wikiproject free music. I think members of this wikiproject, in particular, will be interested. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Wikproject

message: I want to make sure, first of all, that there isn't already a list and I am making a duplicate. I thought it very strange that there wasn't a list for this composer already.
The problem I am having with this list is that, in the current format, it is going to be huge. I'm taking the data from this site, which lists every piece he ever wrote, even if it is just a fragment, in the main lists. Was there an "official" catalogue for Ives' works? The site shows some "work lists" here, but they aren't that helpful and don't seem to be any more official than the comprehensive list. It suggests that there were only a few pieces that were really part of his "opus", and that's what I want to get at. Any ideas? ALTON .ıl 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of compositions by Charles Ives]] 

message: German violia player. Expert evaluation would help.DGG (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunter Teuffel]]

message: Some rather strange Telemann articles have appeared: Passions (Telemann), Admiralitätsmusik and Cantata Cycle. An adminstrator has at least renamed them, e.g.  and removed the duplicate (and not terribly relevant or informative) text e.g.  which originally 'introduced' all of them. I've expanded Passions (Telemann) to provide context, background information, recordings, references, etc. But opera is more my field of expertise, so I'm leaving Admiralitätsmusik and Cantata Cycle alone. However, I've tagged them as requiring context and references. Hopefully, someone else will come along and fix them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Telemann articles

message: And while I'm at it...I recently came across this article on the Spanish conductor Ataúlfo Argenta, which is definitely not in compliance with verifiability. It is full of original research, conjecture, and the repetition of rumours some of which verge on slander. They may be true, and in a way the 'Biography' (40KB long!!!) would make an interesting magazine article, but...
It has apparently been the subject of persistent attempts by the single purpose account Tilleadh to revert the removal by other editors of the unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially biased information . I added a lead paragraph with inline citations so that readers could at least get some basic verifiable information about the man and chopped the incredibly long remainder of the screed into sections and tagged them as unreferenced and potential original research. However, I've left them as they were written. (no energy to get into an editing tussle). The subject died 50 years ago, although his children are still alive. I've left a notice asking for expert help from the Wikipedia Spain Project. But so far, no one there seems to have taken an interest. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with [[Ataúlfo Argenta]]

message: A sub-stub article was just added on Leopold's father. Is anything of substance actually known about him? If so, please add it to keep the article from otherwise very likely deletion. If not, please change to a redirect.  DGG (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Johann Georg Mozart]]

message: Articles considered for deletion that may benefit from a review by one or more members of this WikiProject.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent
(I am placing this request on the talk page, unsure where to list within the project.)  Thank you.  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for deletion

message: Hi there. I'm trying to get a list of all FA-class articles covered by this and similar WikiProjects. I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Featured articles/Featured lists (I removed Porgy and Bess, which got demoted a week or so ago) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Featured articles (but nothing for Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music), so I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Featured articles, but I'm not sure if those lists are up-to-date. For example, Beijing opera is not on that list. I'm trying to pick out the classical music and opera articles (and more 'high brow' articles) from the popular culture music articles at Wikipedia:FA#Music. I normally use the relevant subcategories of :Category:FA-Class articles, but I don't think the Opera, Composers, or Classical Music wikiprojects use an assessment scheme. So I'm asking here if this list complete? Beijing opera (missing from the opera list), Concerto delle donne, Rebecca Helferich Clarke, Guqin, Blues, Himno Nacional Mexicano, My Belarusy, National Anthem of Russia, Josquin des Prez, Witold Lutosławski, Olivier Messiaen, Mor lam, Leo Ornstein (missing from the composers list), Dmitri Shostakovich, Sonatas and Interludes, Sylvia (ballet), Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), Joseph Szigeti, Thespis (opera) (missing from the opera list), Tōru Takemitsu. I've updated the lists where I can, and made a new section for the Classical Music wikiproject, but I may have missed some - if others could help make sure this is all up-to-date, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that we don't have that "assessment department" of most other projects; the template WP:CM uses has the "class=??" parameter, but it doesn't automatically categorize anything (:Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)). Should we do that, or is it a lot of needless effort? ALTON .ıl 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it does have the class feature, there was a lot of opposition in the past to rating articles, mainly because virtually everything would end up as Start Class. I think the discussion was more heated for classical music biographies, the classical music WikiProjects objected to a WP:BIO bot coming along and sticking a rating on the talk page. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so the FA people don't get stressed trying to find our project's featured articles, I created two categories (:Category:WikiProject Classical music featured articles, :Category:WikiProject Classical music good articles) that lists our featured and good articles. I have however edited the banner to remove the standard class parameter for now. This is just a temporary measure - we should definitely decide whether we want to assess all articles across WP:CM as per other WikiProjects. I personally am against it, as it's a waste of time and achieves little. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow Centy, you rock. It looks great. ALTON .ıl 07:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: On the lines of assessment, I've now installed three levels of assessment into the project banner: FA, GA, stub. Basically these are clean cut assessments unlike the difference between a Start and B class. So use as you please. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA lists up-to-date? 

message: Regarding Leck mich im Arsch, articles meeting the featured article criteria and passing WP:FAC in time can be considered for the April Fools' mainpage, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For consideration 

message: It has been proposed by Pixelface (talk) that all the articles in :Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn be merged into that list since he argues all of the symphony articles fail WP:MUSIC, with the exception that symphonies 82 through 87 be merged into Paris symphonies and symphonies 93 through 104 be merged into London symphonies. I suggest that we create a centralised discussion for this since it will have ramifications for individual works by numerous other composers. Any thoughts as to the best venue for this? Current discussion is at Talk:List_of_symphonies_by_Joseph_Haydn#Merge_proposal. Eusebeus (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal