Talk:El amor brujo

Merge from Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla)‎ - Please give reasons when commenting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into El amor brujo.
Consensus opposed before discussion went stale. Re-propose merging to prompt fresh discussion if required. -- DarkCrow^Caw 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

---

I think the article Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla)‎ should be a section of this article: the Ritual Fire Dance is a movement of El amor brujo and most of the contet of ‎Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla)‎ is about the complete work rather than the movement. Thank you--Karljoos (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of merging the articles as the ritual fire dance is a longer article than the el amor brujo. This means that most of the article will be taken up with this piece. Also,the ritual fire dance it is often played as a separate piece.--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla)#Structure, the rest of the article is mainly about the ballet.--Karljoos (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we just have links between the two and treat the fire dance as a separate piece (as it is often played as) than a part of the opera. Also, the recordings section is also related to the piece rather than the opera. Please reconsider. Thanks--Pianoplonkers (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the proposition and agree with Pianoplonkers. The two Fire Dance is often played seperately from the ballet and in this context is considered a seperate piece. Also, the discussion of the role in the ballet only describes what happens during the Fire Dance itself. The preceeding information about the characters and earlier events of the ballet is necessary because without this people reading the page will become confused about the context of the Ritual Fire Dance. Thankyou.--Egemont (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors other than me and the Egemont/Pianoplonkers-partner account have to say about this.--Karljoos (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we do that?--Pianoplonkers (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should be dropped as it is three against one and there are no compelling reasons why they should be merged--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no voting about this. And I am still concerned about the whole Pianoplonkers/Egemont/Einticelles partnership, as it is a very dark thing, so If I were you I would not use those accounts to win a poll, in case there was one (this is a friendly advice). For the reasons please read the first thing I wrote on this page. The tag should remain until consensus has been reached.--Karljoos (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please find another person to contribute to this. But at the moment, it is looking like they should not be merged.--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, editors eventually will comment. Just be patient--Karljoos (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the merger per Karljoos. --Kleinzach 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This movement is the best known part of "El Amor Brujo", but it is just one of the movements. The best known movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony is the first one... should there be an article just about that movement? I can remember performing 3 times this piece during the 30 years I worked in professional orchestras (in some orchestras that people like to call world-leading) and we always performed the complete piece, never a single movement. No conductor ever programmed just the Fire Dance (not even as an encore). It is true that there're piano arrangements of this movement (as there are of all Beethoven Symphonies, of Wagner operas etc), but I have never, ever, heard a recital performance of this piece. I still recommend that the content of this article is moved to El amor brujo.--Karljoos (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend discussing this at WP:CM. This issue of whether to make articles on excerpts is something we might do a guideline on. --Kleinzach 01:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 08:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the "merge"-tag. Otherwise people will not know that this discussion is here.--Karljoos (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. --Kleinzach 11:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should be now dropped as no delvelopment has happened in a while. I will remove the tags in the next few days if no-one answers to this. Thanks--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 12:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing the tags? Leave the tags, please.--Karljoos (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please leave the tags for the time being. --Kleinzach 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In line with the WT:CM consensus, I suggest we should merge the ballet information with the main article, and focus the Ritual Fire Dance article on the use of the music outside the ballet. Is that OK? --Kleinzach 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that all the information is moved to El Amor Brujo (as a large section) and the article redirects there.--Karljoos (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFD is such a long article compared to EAB and it would not work if they were merged as the EAB page would mostly be about the one piece. The RFD is a well known piece played, often, as a piece on its own and, in a way, is more important than the ballet. This has been discussed on WP:CM and a decision has been reached allow allow experts in certain circumstances and I feel that this is one fits into this category. This page should stay as it is!--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 14:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The new guideline says: "Separate articles can be justified if the music, being performed in a different context from the complete work or in an alternative arrangement, is notable in its own right.' I think that justifies Ritual Fire Dance - but only covering the non-ballet music. The ballet should not be split into different articles as that would be bad for the reader. --Kleinzach 15:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we ever going to come to a decision about this because it seems that we are getting nowhere are making the same point over and over again? Can anyone think of a way to resolve this?--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 12:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Pianoplonkers: Do you accept the CM guideline? --Kleinzach 13:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the one on experts? If so, then yes, I agree with the guideline, however, do you feel that the Ritual Fire Dance fits into this category? Because I think that it does, as it is often played separately to the ballet and, therefore, I think that it deserves its own article and complies with the guideline. Thanks for bringing this up and sorting out the problem!--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 17:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think this piece stands by itself. And I have never heard performed as a complete independent piece. I don't think this piece is notable in its own right.--Karljoos (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

95.49.168.216 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC) The piece is unique and deserves a separete entry. Not many single movements have such power and emotion. Great music. However I would not link it to "Bumble bee" rather to the "Rite of Springs by Stravinsky.

Contrary to some of the above, in my experience the Ritual Fire Dance is far, far more well known and far, far more frequently played than the complete work from which it comes. I've heard the RFD literally hundreds of times over the years; but I've heard the complete El amor brujo about twice in my life. The RFD has very much established a life of its own, and most people would not even know where it came from. Or much care. I suggest this merge proposal be closed now, as it's been open for over 2 years and still has not got the required support; nor will it, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.