Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

This AfD could be interesting for the CM project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public domain musical works. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Danish composer Carl Nielsen was born on 9 June 1865, so 2015 will be his 150th anniversary. I would like to create a task force to prepare for this, with the following aims (a shopping list, one of the first things to do would be to decide on feasibility, any additions):

• improve the Nielsen article to FA quality
  • arrange translation of the FA article to other Wikipedias (of course merging and backporting any already-existing usable [referenced] content)
• improve all the other symphony articles to GA quality to match Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)
• make the symphonies a Good Topic
• identify other Nielsen-related articles which should be improved or created and set quality targets, particularly further articles for GA or FA quality

I will also post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Denmark. I think the taskforce involves both projects but should be located here because of the substantial focus on music. Mirokado (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Bach cantata recordings link a soprano Midori Suzuki and get to a Japanese media educator, feminist and media researcher. I doubt that it is the same person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You should unlink the name in those cantatas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 241 articles to be referenced. A list of all projects that are being tracked can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A while back, I did a thorough rewrite of Bizet's Symphony in C, with the intention of sending it off to FAC. Before I nominate it, however, I was wondering if anyone might wish to give the article a quick peer review . Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a few minor points. Various details I like to see in a classical composition article are missing: typical performance length, the orchestration – "standard orchestra (without trombones)" isn't very informative to anyone who is unfamiliar with what is a standard classical orchestra in Bizet's time. For example, number of trumpets, horns, whether there are any wind doubling a second instrument. Also I would put the History section after the Form section, since the History section is less of a historical background discussing the composition of the piece and more of a discussion of its form – and its suppression after its composition. Finally, a stylistic point, instead of using bold and line break as a heading, why don't you use four equal signs for the sub-sub-heading? Centy – reply • contribs – 21:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, yeah. Full instrumentation details should be absolutely required for any composition article. Composer-made arrangements if any should be noted too (In this case, I'm pretty sure there aren't any though). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many tags could be applied to this article (a biography of a living person), but it must be a handful. It reads like a promotional leaflet, replete with peacock terms and unreferenced claims to fame.--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD is the only tag we really need at the moment -- if that one's satisfied, we can worry about the others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to link to an instrument in the line "An unusual flauto piccolo, comparable to a sopranino recorder, is used to illustrate the sparkling of the morning star." in BWV 96, I need help. flauto piccolo is a redirect to Zuffolo (?), sopranino recorder is red, sopranino is a disambigation page, that leaves recorder#Types of recorders, for the moment, ideas welcome --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Piccolo? -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

This is what de-WP does, but I'm afraid it's too easy. The piccolo is a small traverso, the instrument in the cantata is a small recorder. I don't know if the two terms flauto piccolo and sopranino recorder mean the same instrument, so changed the wording to flauto piccolo or sopranino recorder. Everyone describes it as impressive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't read the article before I suggested piccolo. After reading Recorder and de:Blockflöte, it seems clear that a flauto piccolo is probably the same as a flautino which is almost the same as a sopranino recorder. I think the current text and link in the BWV 96 for the instrument to Recorder#Types of recorders is fine. Sorry for adding to the confusion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, that the Bach cantata is Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140, Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme should be the article name of the chorale, instead of a redirect to Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (chorale). I tried to move (the page to it's redirect), but was told that it takes an administrator. What do I do? The same applies to other chorales which were formerly cantatas, such as Christ lag in Todesbanden (chorale) and Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland (chorale). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just post at Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done the page move. Graham87 14:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

After a concert of Bach cantatas we are turning to Requiem (Verdi), an article calling for improvement. The same is true for Chorale, both to my surprise, Please help Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One more question: what is a Corno de tirarsi, BWV 162? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean a corno da tirarsi. See [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, but how would I link or describe that (without a pdf load) to the general reader? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about: "a baroque wind instrument mentioned only in Bach's music and thought to have been similar to the slide trumpet or tromba da tirarsi" Voceditenore (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, taken! - Verdi is improving, but what makes the ext link provided "official"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The website in question has billed itself as his official website (it's actually one of the sources in the article), and is maintained by Provincia di Parma, so there is some air of officialism to it. Blehfu (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Though on second thought, it would go on Verdi's page. Removing it. Blehfu (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gerda, it would help for future reference if you did not ask questions about "Corno de tirarsi, BWV 162" in a thread headed "Verdi Requiem". Best. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right. What can we do about the section on the music, tagged "original research"? Most of what I read there is supported by the score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The subject line says it all. This seems like a fantastic source: A listener and student guide to Bach's church cantatas. Graham87 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Was quoted in BWV 161. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the author (Julian Mincham) is a respected authority in this field. I can't find any significant scholar studies on Bach's works. I searched on G-Books, G-Scholar, JSTOR and WorldCat. The information on individual cantatas contains no references or citations other than a link to the well-known www.bach-cantatas.com. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it as external link to Bach cantatas. It's easy reading in English, the grouping of the cantatas makes sense, but I find mistakes already in the cantata titles. Good for support, but not as a source, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

... is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Bay Symphony Orchestra for members who may wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Voce. I noticed, while quarreling with the proposer of this deletion, that he referred to "notability guidelines" for Music. These guidelines are located here. Taking a peek, I found they are entirely directed to popular music (in fact, they seem to be ok as guidelines for popular music, helping to exclude garage bands from WP). But it might be helpful if a classical editor familiar with the WP article deletion process worked on a subsection for classical works. It seems that we're always fending off unpleasant article deletion proposals from classical music haters/ignorami. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Professional symphony orchestras. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if many editors are aware of the many musical works whose titles end in –ana or –iana. Mozartiana, Chopiniana, Rossiniana and Paganiniana are well known, but there are many others, as I discovered to my surprise when I went looking. Most of them pay tribute to another composer or performer, but some honour extra-musical people (Vincentiana, Freudiana).

I’ve listed as many as I can find at -ana#Use in music. If anyone knows of any others, please add them on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a redirect to Fantasia (music), I think it should be an article, but am not the expert to write it, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Edouard Grikurov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Edouard Grikurov – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, look at the Russian article: Грикуров, Эдуард Петрович. People's Artist of Russia (1957), winner of the Stalin Prize (1951), etc. I suggest you to search for the Russian version of his name. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, did you Google him before proposing? I typed in "Grikurov conductor" and got [2], [3], [4], [5]. all of which are in English and identify him as a serious figure. Opus33 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to rescue this one from speedy deletion?4meter4 (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read the "article": no need to rescue in my opinion. Removing all the promotional and unreferenced stuff leaves ... well ... nothing? Best. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having given it more thought after a night of rest, it seems this orchestra probably wouldn't pass WP:N. No need for saving. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who slapped on the speedy delete.;) Blatant copy vio and not remotely rescue-able. It would never have survived an AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

An article has appeared on conductor Marzio Conti, but it is written entirely in Italian. Can anyone translate and assess for notability? He seems to have recorded for Naxos Records so may be notable. --Deskford (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This has now been translated by its author, but needs considerable cleanup. --Deskford (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just taken an axe to it. It was a machine translation which was basically gibberish. It's shorter now but at least comprehensible. Interestingly the article's creator, User:Passioet, also claims that "he owns" the material which had originally been copied from Conti's website. But his website has an English version with fairly decent English and I can't understand why he didn't copy that. The same editor created Sergio Rendine (with the same modus operandi) to which I had to take a similar axe [6]. Nevermind, both are notable people, and we've long needed an article on Rendine, but that method of "creating" articles makes an awful lot of work for other editors. Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion/straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Straw poll concerning removal of full birth and death dates from the parentheses in the lede. Basically the proposed recommendation is that

Gioachino Antonio Rossini (February 29, 1792 – November 13, 1868) ...

would become

Gioachino Antonio Rossini (1792 – 1868) ...

– Voceditenore (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, but. Positive: it would make them all look equal. Something like 29 February 1792 and 13 November 1868 could appear later, mentioning birth and death. How about (1792–1868) then? Where should the places of birth and death go? How about living people? What should be included in Persondata? - I have been filling many Persondata these days, and I would find it convenient to have all the data needed there together in the lede, rather than collecting them in various sections of an article. That's my "but". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my intention wasn't to start a discussion here. It was merely to inform members where the discussion/strawpoll is taking place if they care to participate. Changes to Wikipedia Manual of Style with far-reaching consequences are often determined on obscure talk pages by a very limited number of people without notifying the projects who deal with large numbers of the articles potentially affected and thereby excluding the input from of editors active in the area. I found the MOS discussion purely by accident. Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, didn't know what straw poll means, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered that last July Milan Conservatory was moved to Music Conservatoire "Giuseppe Verdi", Milan on the basis that this is the closest English equivalent to its official title, "Conservatorio di Musica "Giuseppe Verdi"". However, "conservatory" not "conservatoire" is the more widely used English word. The French word "conservatoire" is used only in British English, and even there, far less frequently than "conservatory". It's certainly not the way most people would go about searching for it. Besides, on its page headers and logo, the official site actually calls itself "Conservatorio di Milano", i.e. Milan Conservatory. Any thoughts on whether it should be moved back and on the appropriate naming for articles on "foreign" conservatories in general?

I've just created a long-needed article on the Conservatorio Statale di Musica "Gioachino Rossini" with redirects from Pesaro Conservatory, Rossini Conservatory, and Liceo Musicale Rossini (its name until the mid-20th century). Was that sensible? Or should I have used a different primary title? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. In general I think a short English name is a good article name, especially if it is understood. No reason to translated something official that is not really used, then rather the original official name with redirects, as you did. Same question for orchestras and theaters. We recently installed Theater Regensburg, Theater Dortmund and Theater Aachen, all these German, but understood in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

On Vivaldi's works I find (RV 443) a link to flautino, leading to a disambiguation I can't resolve. Which instrument did he write for? I know that piccolo players love it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Today the concert is performed on sopranino recorder (in F). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that link. Today it is also performed on piccolo, but where should the link go for the instrument Vivaldi had in mind? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this link. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! But where should flautino link then within Wikipedia. Certainly not to a disamb. A new article, smile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You can ask User:Jerome Kohl, he seems to be a specialist in this area :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You rang? ;-) The book by Sardelli cited by Vejvančický is as thorough a discussion as I have come across, and his conclusion, here, is that it is "clear as daylight" the instrument in question has to be the sopranino recorder. As a recorder player myself, I have never been able to understand how anyone could imagine a different size of recorder for these three concertos, the word "flauto" in 18th-century Italy never refers to the transverse flute (which in any case was rare and little-regarded in Italy in the first half of the century, as we know from Quantz's anecdote about Alessandro Scarlatti's patronizing remarks), and Sardelli demolishes the idea that it could be a flageolet. The thing about the disambiguation page is that it must deal with the term in all periods of history, not just from Vivaldi's time. The trouble with linking the term from the Vivaldi list to sopranino recorder is that the notion has been controversial in the recent past, so that an explanation may be necessary—and embedding such an explanation in a link is at least awkward, if not impossible.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my call in the expected thorough way. Leaving the link as it is, turns the innocent reader to Zuffolo first, well ... - What do you think of expanding Flautino a bit (to an article) with the facts you stated above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to place Piccolo Quintet in a list of quintets, I find the best list not in Quintet, but in Chamber music, rather cluttered there. I suggest to at least copy the quintets to Quintet - probably similar for the other combinations. Comments welcome. Quintet could take some improvement anyway, saying "Quintet is a group", and only much later mentioning pieces also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this person really of interest to the WikiProject Classical music, as the talk-page suggests? --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No. It appears to have been was added by a not very btight bot in 2008. [7] I've removed the classical banner. Voceditenore (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This keeps popping up on my "classical music" radar. Can someone pls explain why this is of interest to the WikiProject Classical music? --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. It was probably added either by a bot or pasted in en masse with the other project banners. I've removed it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New on St. Martin's day: St. Martin, Idstein. The section on the Mebold organ is more specific in the de-WP, but I'm lacking the terms in English, so left the German words Hauptwerk and Schwellwerk. Please improve, if you can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This term struck me, as an article and a heading in Overture, as a contradiction, because the French word is Ouverture, both terms are used in the text. Could that be changed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, and here's my opinion. "Overture" is a loan word in English, used as the English-language rendering of the French word "ouverture". (Similarly, writers in English use "symphony" for "symphonie", "dog" for "chien", and so on.) As far as I can tell, "overture" and not "ouverture" is the more normal usage when scholars write in English about classical music. (To check this up, I looked at the New Grove on line, and it uses "French overture" as their article title.) I think the instances of "ouverture" in Overture are a bit idiosyncratic and recommend that they be replaced by "overture". Opus33 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, but. I think in the quote "he elaborated from a similar, two-section form called ‘overture’, found in the French ballets de cour as early as 1640" it should be ouverture unless you find overture in the French ballets de cour. Strange quotation marks also. And I wonder why the two passages French overture and Overture#French overture are so different? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. the quotation: I agree. Re. the discrepancy -- perhaps this has something to do with the fact that neither article is properly sourced! Maybe you could make some progress on this. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the quote and BWV 61, where it appears. As for refs: sorry, I wouldn't know where to look, hope for an expert here, smile. Also for the organ question above, DYK on Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed: nothing on James Kent (1700–1776) English composer. Where he was mentioned, he was linked to the wrong person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I started a stub, would like help of someone who has access to the Oxford biography, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note about the material on the talk page from Grove and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. As the copies of the articles were from copyright texts, they shouldn't be posted anywhere in WP (even talk pages). I've truncated them to the first line, but the full articles are still in the history [8]. On the whole, it's better to email texts like these to the editor if they have email enabled. Voceditenore (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Wood (conductor). – Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for James Kent, next red link in my pet project, now with the Verdi Requiem on the Main page: Stefano Bernardi, Salzburg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Created a stub here as well, Stefano Bernardi, to be improved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reformatted the refs - can't do much more than that. Actually I'm a bit puzzled. Why do you think we need a page on Bernardi? My own policy is not to start a page unless there is enough substance to create a 'start' level article. Other people may approach things differently, but IMO starting an article with two or three sentences and asking for help is a bit like having a baby and immediately starting negotiations with the adoption agencies. Does anyone have access to the Grove Music? That might be the best source for this. (Oxford has minimal info.) --Kleinzach 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach/Gerda, the Grove has about a page on this composer. Right now I yearn to get my Esterhazy princes and Mozart scatology into better shape, so I'm not really that eager to adopt Bernardi, about whom I know nothing. But the Grove article on Bernardi does show that it's not pointless for WP to have an article. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found a great article in Italian (even better than the Grove) from the journal of the Accademia Filarmonica di Verona for whom he wrote his Concerti academici. They also produced the world premiere recording of the Concerti in 2007. Over the next few days, I'll expand the article a bit. Bernardi has entries in multiple major music encyclopedias and reference works. I likewise think it's appropriate to have an article, even a short one with basic information. That's how WP grows, and that's what WikiProjects are for, to foster collaboration. Incidentally, this source makes a bit of whopper. He was associated with Accademia Filarmonica in Verona, not the... er... one in Bologna, which makes think the former could use an article too. ;-). ^[who?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 November 2010

Actually, ^[which?], Kleinzach. I was referring (rather unclearly) to the Accademia Filarmonica di Verona. By the way, the one in Bologna, Philharmonic Academy of Bologna, has one of those awful cod translations for a title, which English reference works never use. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Unsigned}} produces a lot of extra code. 'Who?' avoids this. --Kleinzach 08:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally, after giving birth to two "babies" within a week (to pick up an image used above), I finally thank you, Voceditenore, for giving us Bernardi ("outfit" of baby #1). I am very impressed! (+ relieved that I kicked off someone worth mentioning.) I nominated him for DYK, with you as the author, of course. We sang a mass by him (or of him?) for just 2 choirs, 2 conductors had difficulties to coordinate them in a cathedral, so I wonder how the 12 choirs worked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)