| Revision as of 15:17, 26 March 2010 editFanoftheworld (talk | contribs)2,923 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:18, 26 March 2010 edit undoFanoftheworld (talk | contribs)2,923 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
| :It's not the same the Strad of a violinist and the piano of the concert hall. Pianists are usually offered several (two or three, depending on the hall) pianos to try out before the concert (then the piano is tuned following the instructions of the pianist)... and I can tell you that most soloist will perform even if there's no Steinway or if the one in the hall is not the best of the options given. Unless the pianist plays only on her/his customized piano (as some soloists do) or a historical piano there's no reason to be included in the infobox?--] (]) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | :It's not the same the Strad of a violinist and the piano of the concert hall. Pianists are usually offered several (two or three, depending on the hall) pianos to try out before the concert (then the piano is tuned following the instructions of the pianist)... and I can tell you that most soloist will perform even if there's no Steinway or if the one in the hall is not the best of the options given. Unless the pianist plays only on her/his customized piano (as some soloists do) or a historical piano there's no reason to be included in the infobox?--] (]) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::I was invited to this discussion on my talk page.<br>To |
::I was invited to this discussion on my talk page.<br>To put it briefly: You can read the history of the article ]. As long as ] can have ] as notable instrument, other pianists, who perform on ] pianos, can have ] as notable instrument. ] (]) 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:18, 26 March 2010
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
List of historical opera characters
For general info, I've put together a List of historical opera characters. It turned out to be quite a lot larger than I originally anticipated, and it might benefit from partitioning. Some borderline historical people are included, others are excluded. Not much rhyme or reason except my personal caprice. All suggestions for improvement welcome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Terrific idea. I don't have time at the moment to offer much, but Lucan the poet (from Monteverdi's L'incoronazione di Poppea could be added. Several listed characters (Nero, Otho, Poppea) don't have their appearances in Agrippina recorded, and Agrippina herself isn't listed. If I think of anyone else I'll enter them on the list when I have time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Like Lucius Silla (Mozart) Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
St. John Passion
Please have a look at a request on renaming the Passion to match St. Matthew - and help the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- How to procede to give the two great works matching decent titles, such as "St. John Passion" and "St. Matthew Passion", primary topics? How about doing that until Bach's 325th birthday March 21? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- The birthday passed without action. I regard renaming as urgent - NOW is the time these pieces get performed and hopefully looked at. I am not familiar with the administrative procedure, please help. My personal preference:
- 1. St. John Passion + St. Matthew Passion - primary topics, now disambiguations
- 2. St. John Passion, BWV 245 + St. Matthew Passion, BWV 244 - like the cantatas
- 3. St. John Passion (Bach) + St. Matthew Passion (Bach) - now working redirects --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- The birthday passed without action. I regard renaming as urgent - NOW is the time these pieces get performed and hopefully looked at. I am not familiar with the administrative procedure, please help. My personal preference:
My preference would be for St John Passion (Bach) and St Matthew Passion (Bach) — note the lack of dots. In British English "St" generally abbreviates "Saint", whereas "St." abbreviates "Street". I believe that in American English, as well as in archaic British English, the dot is often used for "Saint" as well, so some of our American editors might argue with me on this one! The articles themselves, and WP in general, seem to mix the spellings with and without the dot. --Deskford (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Learning. I saw many streets in American English abbreviated St without a dot. I see in Bach cantatas (no sacred scriptures, smile) "English Title: St. John Passion", most of the recordings bare German titles, of course, or Latin. English with dot #13, #41, #43, #44, #49, #52, #62, #64, #73, #74, #102, #148, English without dot #106, #108, #109, Saint John Passion #18, a few undecided (may be small dots). I see a majority. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- What do people's various recordings use? I only have one, from BIS, which uses it without the dot. As for the names, as I said on the John Passion talk page, *if* the two are the primary topics, they should be without the '(Bach)' disambig in the title. There's zero reason to redirect St John Passion into St John Passion (Bach). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to look yourself for St. Matthew, 175 entries: . I also see St. Thomas Church, Leipzig with a dot. If we don't want to be caught between English and American, we could of course go German, but then real German, please, Matthäuspassion & Johannespassion or Matthäus-Passion & Johannes-Passion. Johannes Passion is no German. The German abbreviation for Sankt has a dot. But there is no Saint in the German nor the Latin title. (Same for Thomaskirche, btw) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would go with the
original LatinGerman titles: Johannespassion and Matthäuspassion. These are not the original titles, note (these were in Latin and the title of the Matthew is huge!), but, since Bach was German, the German makes sense and avoids the whole stylistic issue altogether --Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)- Johannespassion and Matthäuspassion are not Latin but German titles, and apparently not the correct ones. The German Misplaced Pages follows the Neue Bach-Ausgabe and calls it Johannes-Passion and Matthäus-Passion; for a discussion on the subject, see de:Portal Diskussion:Klassische Musik/Archiv2#Johannespassion vs. Johannes-Passion. The Neue Bach-Ausgabe uses St John Passion as the English term; it doesn't offer an English term for Matthäus-Passion, but the obvious analogue term would be St Matthew Passion. Currently, the latter term is a REDIRECT to St Matthew Passion (Bach) and the former is a disambiguation page with the Bach work titled Johannes Passion. As to "St." vs "St": there doesn't seem to be consistent usage in Misplaced Pages and the article St. leaves both possibilities.
- St Matthew Passion (Bach) should be moved over the REDIRECT at St Matthew Passion and Johannes Passion should be moved to St John Passion after the current content of that page has been moved to St John Passion (disambiguation). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oops... I had originally meant to suggest using the Latin but then saw the original title for the Matthew Passion! I forgot to change my opening statement, now corrected, above. Johannes-Passion and Matthäus-Passion are fine also, of course, as are the "undotted" English titles (as it were...) Whatever else, we need to be consistent --Jubilee♫clipman 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The last names suggested are equal to de-WP which makes sense to me, and to Neue Bach-Ausgabe, more sense. To use German is also good to avoid disambiguation needs. I'm not surprised that NBA uses an English title versus an American, it's Europe. - If we move to German I will start calling the works that name in articles also, at least where it is sung in German. And who is the "we" doing a move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oops... I had originally meant to suggest using the Latin but then saw the original title for the Matthew Passion! I forgot to change my opening statement, now corrected, above. Johannes-Passion and Matthäus-Passion are fine also, of course, as are the "undotted" English titles (as it were...) Whatever else, we need to be consistent --Jubilee♫clipman 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would go with the
- If you want to look yourself for St. Matthew, 175 entries: . I also see St. Thomas Church, Leipzig with a dot. If we don't want to be caught between English and American, we could of course go German, but then real German, please, Matthäuspassion & Johannespassion or Matthäus-Passion & Johannes-Passion. Johannes Passion is no German. The German abbreviation for Sankt has a dot. But there is no Saint in the German nor the Latin title. (Same for Thomaskirche, btw) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- What do people's various recordings use? I only have one, from BIS, which uses it without the dot. As for the names, as I said on the John Passion talk page, *if* the two are the primary topics, they should be without the '(Bach)' disambig in the title. There's zero reason to redirect St John Passion into St John Passion (Bach). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have asked JackofOz to comment here --Jubilee♫clipman 06:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think these works are generally known in the English-speaking world under their German names (Johannes-Passion and Matthäus-Passion) but as St John Passion and St Matthew Passion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes in the English world, but with dots in the American world. I voted for American English titles to start with, remember, probably being known best worldwide? - btw todays picture on Main page is another example of "Saint", name questioned on the talk page, perhaps you want to speak up there, too? I was there a few weeks ago: beautiful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care much either way regarding the dot after "St"; I simply thought that my proposal was relatively easy to implement given the set of REDIRECTs and names we already have for these works — all without a dot, except St. John Passion recordings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- If we agree on no dot I would of course rename that article. No dot just is impossible in German - but that is probably not relevant here, and maybe wrong, our "Neue Rechtschreibung" is full of surprises. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Without a dot - new idea - is likely to be more compatible with url naming. So why not? I'm not passionate about the dot. St Matthew Passion + St John Passion then? Whatever, let's DO IT. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- GO! GO! GO! Indeed, let's go with no dot and change them all to be consistent --Jubilee♫clipman 07:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Without a dot - new idea - is likely to be more compatible with url naming. So why not? I'm not passionate about the dot. St Matthew Passion + St John Passion then? Whatever, let's DO IT. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- If we agree on no dot I would of course rename that article. No dot just is impossible in German - but that is probably not relevant here, and maybe wrong, our "Neue Rechtschreibung" is full of surprises. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care much either way regarding the dot after "St"; I simply thought that my proposal was relatively easy to implement given the set of REDIRECTs and names we already have for these works — all without a dot, except St. John Passion recordings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes in the English world, but with dots in the American world. I voted for American English titles to start with, remember, probably being known best worldwide? - btw todays picture on Main page is another example of "Saint", name questioned on the talk page, perhaps you want to speak up there, too? I was there a few weeks ago: beautiful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your proposal has my imprimatur. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Feeling blessed, I did what I could so far: change to fewer dots in the recording articles (names) and in the lead of the passion articles and the parts in those articles I had written. I think we should not change in the titles of sources, and I would not change what other contributators wrote. I will change DYK Max van Egmond once we moved - now who is WE? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your proposal has my imprimatur. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well... Jack requested the move originally and normally the nom moves the articles once the debate has decided which way etc. However, Jack is pretty busy with RefDesk stuff, usually, so I guess that will be you... or me if you prefer? :) (I have time to kill at the moment) --Jubilee♫clipman 09:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, these requsts might have to be sent to WP:RM since the histories of the desired pages (St Matthew Passion, St John Passion and St John Passion (disambiguation)) may well cause problems for non-admins. I'll try first, though, then RM. Later today, probably --Jubilee♫clipman 09:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Man proposes: God disposes. :) But seriously, I've never heard of a policy that the proposer of a move always does the move once it's been agreed to. I'm just glad to see a positive change happening. I have no interest in any personal glory coming from it (being the son of a Pope is celebrity enough - and quite a burden sometimes, let me tell you). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was going by the norm. Anyway, I'm happy to do this --Jubilee♫clipman 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the consensus seems to favour a move to undabbed pages without dots ie St John Passion and St Matthew Passion and to move the disambiguating material over to St John Passion (disambiguation) and St Matthew Passion (disambiguation). Correct? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be the way forward for now so I'll go ahead. I'll report back with problems and so on --Jubilee♫clipman 22:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK. They will all have to go to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests because of the page histories. Will send for admin assistence through that channel and direct them here for verification of the consensus. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have moved St. Matthew Passion (disambiguation) to St Matthew Passion (disambiguation), though --Jubilee♫clipman 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Others listed awaiting a passing admin: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests. Please check the details of my requests for inaccuracies etc. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! What about St Matthew Passion, now a redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- All resolved: St John Passion, St Matthew Passion, St John Passion (disambiguation) and St Matthew Passion (disambiguation)! Thank you, Anthony Appleyard!
--Jubilee♫clipman 23:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- All resolved: St John Passion, St Matthew Passion, St John Passion (disambiguation) and St Matthew Passion (disambiguation)! Thank you, Anthony Appleyard!
- Thank you! What about St Matthew Passion, now a redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Now what about St Mark Passion and St Luke Passion? --Deskford (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- %^&$£#%$... d'oh! Sorry. Another day, perhaps! They do need resolving, though, agreed --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
St Mark St Thomas
St John St Matthew all resolved: a reason to jubilate! St Mark and St Luke are not of comparable importance but now we are at it, why not now? Also perhaps St Thomas Church and St Nicholas Church, and do they need Leipzig? or could there be St Thomas Church (disambiguation)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Vivaldi Dresden Concertos
I've seen several recordings of worked collected as the "Dresden Concertos". I see very little mention of such a grouping at List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi (except for RV577). Is this a common grouping of concertos that should be mentioned here? Is there a story behind why they were written? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- As a side note, List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi won't let me save edits on the talk page. I get a long wait cursor and then it tells me I have IP issues and I should log off and log back on. I don't seem to have any problems on other pages.DavidRF (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've tested this and found no problem, see the talk page. --Kleinzach 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Bach Konzertmeister
The rank that Bach had in Weimar starting March 1714, "Konzertmeister", how could that be said best in English - translated or described? Please s. discussion of Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten, BWV 172 and answer there. - btw the move of the Bach Passions is still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Bach cantata
Please have a look if this general information Bach cantata is helpful. - The Konzertmeister question was solved. The move of the Passions not yet. Erschallet, ihr Lieder! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
RfC about to close
Any more on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC? It closes up in a few days. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 15:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Instrument listings in infoboxes
I'd appreciate some input on this matter. User:Fanoftheworld has been changing some infoboxes for classical and popular pianists to show the Steinway brand name as a "notable insturment." I have read the applicable template and I believe that adding the brand name is out of scope. User:Fanoftheworld has stated that it's justified as "custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated". True, on some violinist articles, the specific violin(s) they played are listed (see Jascha Heifetz), but these violins were their personal property. Pianists, with rare exceptions, do not bring their own instruments with them. They simply play whichever instrument is available to them. I don't think of a Steinway grand piano as a custom instrument, unless it has been "customized" in some way (like special color, or other unique characteristic) and it travels with the pianist. Any other opinions?THD3 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, User:Fanoftheworld has added "Notable_instruments = ]<ref>http://www.steinway.com/steinway/artist_roster/roster.php?artistSection=main&artistListing=n</ref> piano}}" to several articles. This obviously makes no sense as a Steinway, per se, is not a custom instrument, it is a make. Anyway, THD3 is essentially correct: pianists get what they are given unless they are Billy Joel (but then again, he is one of those that the above has been added to). More importantly, classical musicians are not supposed to have that box, anyway, so removing the box would solve the issue for those particular articles (read the box's lead). Replace the box with {{Infobox person}} for now (see above RfC, though) --Jubilee♫clipman 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I recall reading that Infoboxes were discouraged, then they suddenly started popping up. Thanks for pointing me to the guideline.THD3 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the same the Strad of a violinist and the piano of the concert hall. Pianists are usually offered several (two or three, depending on the hall) pianos to try out before the concert (then the piano is tuned following the instructions of the pianist)... and I can tell you that most soloist will perform even if there's no Steinway or if the one in the hall is not the best of the options given. Unless the pianist plays only on her/his customized piano (as some soloists do) or a historical piano there's no reason to be included in the infobox?--Karljoos (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was invited to this discussion on my talk page.
To put it briefly: You can read the history of the article Tori Amos. As long as Tori Amos can have Bösendorfer as notable instrument, other pianists, who perform on Steinway pianos, can have Steinway as notable instrument. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was invited to this discussion on my talk page.