Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:00, 11 July 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81

'Choir' or 'chorus' for secular music?

Does anyone have an opinion on 'Choir' Vs. 'Chorus'? Please see Talk:Men's chorus. Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Genres

Some of us are working on lists of compositions involving making decisions about genres. This is not always easy because we don’t have any lists defining terms. Category:Lists of music genres has a number of articles but there is no 'List of classical music genres' as such. We do have a long List of music styles, which starts well and then dwindles, but that is really for pop and folk music. We also have an article on Music genre, with a good introduction that approaches genre in an intelligent way, but that also is incomplete. Should we attempt a 'List of classical music genres'? One approach would be to agree a definition — distinguishing genre from style, form and instrumentation — and then divide up the work by category or period: maybe voice, chamber, symphonic, choral, Baroque, Classical, Romantic etc etc. Any interest? Any ideas? --Kleinzach 00:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support and willing to help. Some initial observations:

• Initiative has overlap with earlier initiative User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types that was born out of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music#Improving "List of compositions" articles.
• We have to take into account that compositions may sometimes belong to multiple genre's or its genre may be ambiguous or controversial.
• Hopefully we can align these genres with categories as well and vice versa. For example, I would expect that all articles in Category:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have an entry with Genre Psalm in List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. (interestingly this random pick already appeared to be an example of inconsistency, see talk).
• Some other relevant articles: List of opera genres, List of musical forms by era, Category:Song forms, Category:Musical form, Category:Western classical music styles. LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply: The articles in Category:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have now an entry with Genre Psalm in the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. In addition, I have set a link to the wiki page on the individual psalms in de column "Notes" (see talk). I think that it is, as we say in Belgium, "Un compromis à la belge" (a quite good political compromise).

Some genres, which are relatively specific to a country, have currently no link to a wiki page, e.g., Weltliches Chorwerk, which could be translated as "Secular choral works". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. I will put up a list on a user page next week, probably based on existing WP material, and we can see what it looks like and how we can take it forward. Kleinzach 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The genre "Psalm" with a link seems a bit strange, - could it be at least "Psalm composition"? For Bach, someone created a category even more cautiously named Category:Psalm-related compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, including works that set not a complete psalm but only part of a psalm within a larger work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I noticed that. Some attention is needed to sort out these church-related genres and categories, but then there are problems across the board. No one has done much systematic work in this area. Good editorial cooperation would be needed to address all these matters, but that's difficult if not impossible in the present climate. Kleinzach 13:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Psalm could perhaps be replaced by Psalm set to music. See section Psalms set to music in page Psalms. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'set/setting' is better in this context than 'composition'. --Kleinzach 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. But doesn't the addition "set to music" sound a bit like something that is already implicit in the term being used in the context of musical genre? You would not use it in a sentence, e.g. "Bruckner composed a beautiful psalm set to music.". And for the psalm example there might be many others that would potentially need such addition, some examples from the Bruckner list: Mass, Requiem, Offertory, Magnificat, etc LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Gerda's point relates to categorisation rather than text. You are right about not saying "composing . . .set to music". --Kleinzach 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We have Mass (music) and Requiem (music). Could we have similar constructions, such as Psalm (music), Magnificat (music), etc.? Could we perhaps list both, the composer's name ("If a composer calls his work a aubade then it's a aubade, even if it's all about the dark side of the moon.") and a more common term? Respect the composer but still have it in one of our categories? Say that the composer called Tristan and Isolde "Eine Handlung" (An action) but also say "opera"? Recent example The Company of Heaven, it started as incidental music to a radio feature, our article cantata lists it as a cantata, with justification. - Did you know that the article is a collaboration of three editors typically seen on different sides of the infobox controversy, - I see a climate change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition of genre

IMO a list is only worth doing if it’s done properly, based on (1) an agreed definition and (2) reliable sources. I’m offering the definition below. If this is accepted — of course with rewording as necessary — we can proceed to the next step.

This is a List of European musical genres used in art music from medieval to modern times.

A 'musical genre' is understood, for the purposes of this list, as a conventional category or description, usually given by the composer, for an entire work that is composed in a particular form, often in a distinct style. A music genre is thus different from a 'musical term' (which can include, very broadly, any word or words used in a special musical context), a 'musical style' (which can refer to a part of a work or multiple works) or a 'musical instrument' (even if certain genres are exclusive to particular instruments or voices).

The ultimate authority for genre will always be the composer (usually the first published version of his work). If the composer calls his work a aubade then it's a aubade, even if it's all about the dark side of the moon. (Some composers are notable for inventing fanciful names). If there is any ambiguity about usage, original languages names (again as used by the composer or publisher), are preferred to approximate English translations.

Incidentally I’m now inclined to divide the list by category — orchestral, chamber, voice, keyboard etc. — rather than by period, as I think the latter would involve repeating too much information. Kleinzach 03:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The first half of the final paragraph reads very much like original research. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

About the definition of 'musical genre' for the purposes of this list, I'd expect this would not be different than the one in Musical genre. If that one doesn't suffice that article may need change?

About the division of the list, a solution could be a sorted list, see example User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types.

In such format both category, period and maybe even other data could be held and sorted.

And it could be useful to have a look at this list anyway for some reuse as I have already looked up all possible Misplaced Pages genres I could find based on the parallel IMSLP genre list. LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Musical genre — quite rightly in my opinion — notes there are different definitions of genre. The first authority quoted is Green, whose definition is similar to the one I've suggested, but there are others. If the list to be created tries to follow each theory/definition of genre simultaneously, we will just get a incoherent mishmash of terms. I'm not going to attempt that. It would be a total waste of time and it would be no better or even worse than the List of IMSLP work types. As for sorting, this is for fact-based lists where you need to see data arranged in different ways. I don't think this applies in the case of a genre list.

This would be a big undertaking. I'm not going to take it on without getting everybody's support. Recently a lot of bona fide contributions have been reverted by certain editors. If this trend continues then it's just not worth attempting a major new page. One could spend hours and hours referencing a list and then find the whole thing had been deleted or subverted. Kleinzach 22:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:IMSLP3

In List of compositions by Anton Bruckner I had added a ♫ to the IMSLP links following example of List of Bach cantatas. But for this approach full IMSLP links must be provided: (http...). I considered using Template:IMSLP2, but it adds the IMSLP text " : Free scores at the International Music Score Library Project". Would it be useful to have Template:IMSLP3, which would then provide a link with ♫, or with any specified text, but without the auto added IMSLP text? LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice an convenient to have links to what's on IMSLP. The problem with it is maintenance. Are you always going to be around and available to check when a new Bruckner score is added to IMSLP? What about other composers? I can't imagine that anyone would want to be perpetually responsible for watching another website's holding. As with all external links on WP, I think it's better just to have a single link to the composer's page on IMSLP. -- kosboot (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ISMLP links to individual compositions are already on many WP composition pages. There you have the same problem. If you create an article about a composition but there is no IMSLP yet, it may need to be added later if it becomes available later, and also corrected when the name changes on IMSLP.

The links in the lists provide a user friendly way to the scores on IMSLP, but yes it comes at a maintenance cost as well. Similar to discussions in #Improving "List of compositions" articles I hope that one day WP and IMSLP composition data can be easier aligned, since both sites' contents are driven by (partly the same) users and have a considerable information overlap. I believe the links per composition are a step towards that as well. Maybe I'm thinking too big, but a link was a small step already. And ISMLP already proved useful in our joint efforts to improve the Bruckner list, which now we are also working on similar lines for the Brahms list.

Note also that the idea of having links to other sites in table entries is not new. See for example List of Bach cantatas, but also 2011 in film#2011 films. LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Be prudent with the links to IMSLP! When working to the (I agree complex) List of compositions by Anton Bruckner I found that the content of one IMSLP link was incorrect (WAB 42 instead of WAB 43 ) and the content of another (WAB 9) was inconsistent. I have then corrected these two IMSLP page, so that they are now OK.

Previously, I had already encountered two other problems, which I have corrected: WAB 6 was incorrectly named WAB 5 (another Ave Maria) and there was some confusion among the two Um Mitternacht (WAB 89 & 90).

Moreover, it is not always very clear to which version the scores apply (e.g., the version of the five Tantum ergo of WAB 41 & 42). The same applies for Bruckner's symphonies (WAB 101 to 109), of which the scores are generally of the first, non-critical edition. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original question: I don't think a template IMSLP3 for very short citations is needed. These can be created just as quickly using the syntax ], e.g.
] which gives ♫. For general documenation on interwiki maps, see meta:Interwiki map. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Reginald:

• Agree we should be prudent. Your corrections on IMSLP and the solution we found for the multiple versions problem (eg WAB 41), already show the benefits of aligning WP and IMSLP data: both sites get better.
• I am currently in the process of the Brahms list in which many irregularities are found between data from IMSLP and the 2 current WP pages.

Thanks Michael, that is what I was looking for. I updated List of compositions by Anton Bruckner accordingly. LazyStarryNights (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

For your info: Kleinzach has in the meantime renamed Bruckner's Study Symphony to the better name Study Symphony in F minor. I have updated the page Symphony No. 0 (Bruckner) and renamed it to Symphony in D minor (Bruckner). "No. 0" is a nickname, a source of confusion, because it is a misinterpretation of Bruckner's "nullifying" of it, and its date of composition (1869) is between those of Symphonies Nos. 1 and 2. I have also renamed the page on the IMSLP site, in which I have corrected the date of composition ("1869", instead of "1863, revised 1869"), and I have put the IMSLP "Bruckner's symphony template" in correct chronological order.

Good luck with working out the kinks in Brahms's lists of compositions! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

For those interested in a new initiative to apply infoboxes to classical music topics.....

...you may like to see the discussion here at WP Opera.--Smerus (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Alkan.....

Now up for FA review here. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Major discussions page

During the recent ANI about alleged stalking, I contributed a reference list of classical music-related box discussions. Today I moved it to a subpage of the project as an updated list linked to the guidelines page. Unsurprisingly, someone closely connected to the ANI got to it very soon afterwards, renamed it and made changes. Nevertheless I hope it is still useful. It is now at Major discussions. --Kleinzach 10:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My attempt is called Infobox, it aims at understanding, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When you discuss my edits, Kleinzach, please feel free to mention my name. If you wish to create pages that no-one else may edit (or "get to"; how charming), there are plenty of free web hosts available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor note to Andy: I'm not going to undo your renaming of the section because the name of the page under discussion is simply "major discussion" without the word controversy (though you were the one to rename it), but I'm not sure NPOV is something applied to talk or project-space pages. Brambleclawx 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW says "Keep headings neutral". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As everyone here probably already knows, the editor involved here follows me around Misplaced Pages reverting and refactoring my edits (e.g. , , , , ). Unlike this individual, who reports people he thinks are stalking him to AN/I (see the link above), this is something I have learned to live with, but it's also the reason why I am not more active working on articles. The title of this section before it was hacked was Major discussions and controversies page, like the page itself . I chose this as a neutral title. 'Controversy' is not a pejorative term, it's a common English word merely indicating disagreement — a common element in all the discussions listed. I avoided the word 'infobox' both to make the scope more general, and to avoid the impression that we were targeting anything. So I think I'm entitled to say that Major discussions and controversies page was a good faith attempt at providing information. Taking out the word controversies IMO makes it less noticeable, which I guess was the intention. --Kleinzach 01:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)