Talk:Flute Concertino (Chaminade)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Melodia in topic Title
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Title edit
If it comes to a !vote, I'm in favour of returning this article to its original title (from the current "Flute Concertino (Chaminade)" to "Concertino for flute and orchestra (Chaminade)"). The title on the 1902 manuscript is "CONCERTINO pour FLÛTE avec accompagement d'ORCHESTRE" and Google returns over twice as many results for a search of "Concertino for flute and orchestra" Chaminade as it does for "Flute Concertino" Chaminade. I don't feel that we should be changing this title to fit with the scheme of other articles; instead, we should be using the sources. GFHandel ♬ 04:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Except the fact that it's a generic title. Mozart hardly called his 40th symphony that, he probably had no idea how many he actually wrote (or what would be and wouldn't be one). He certainly didn't call it K 550. He would have called it "Sinfonia en g-moll" or whatever. And if you want to go by sources, Citron's list writes it out as "Concertino, Op. 107." and then like the rest of the list puts instrumentation afterward. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am in favour of returning it to its original version too so that it is consistent with a range of other things in this encyclopaedia, such as: Concertino (composition); the title on the title on the IMSLP; what it was called in the ABC Classic Countdown; Concertino for Horn and Orchestra (Weber); Concertino for Harpsichord and String Orchestra (Leigh); Concertino for Trombone and Orchestra (as it used to be) etc. This is how people would look it up. As a tertiary reference source, one of whose strengths is in dealing in collections and lists, we have to find a consistent way of addressing the needs and expectations of readers using an encyclopaedia - one that takes account of the original name as well as any agreed practice regarding collections of things that has grown up over the intervening period. It seems that publishers of music collections, like the IMSLP, go with "Concertino for ..." Of course Mozart did not know what number his works would be, but he did know that they would be called for instance Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra.The type of composition is a higher-level organising principle than the instrument - in short, more encyclopaedic. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Then surely we should call concertos in the same way? Why not Concerto for Violin and Orchestra (Beethoven) or Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra (Mozart)? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am in favour of returning it to its original version too so that it is consistent with a range of other things in this encyclopaedia, such as: Concertino (composition); the title on the title on the IMSLP; what it was called in the ABC Classic Countdown; Concertino for Horn and Orchestra (Weber); Concertino for Harpsichord and String Orchestra (Leigh); Concertino for Trombone and Orchestra (as it used to be) etc. This is how people would look it up. As a tertiary reference source, one of whose strengths is in dealing in collections and lists, we have to find a consistent way of addressing the needs and expectations of readers using an encyclopaedia - one that takes account of the original name as well as any agreed practice regarding collections of things that has grown up over the intervening period. It seems that publishers of music collections, like the IMSLP, go with "Concertino for ..." Of course Mozart did not know what number his works would be, but he did know that they would be called for instance Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra.The type of composition is a higher-level organising principle than the instrument - in short, more encyclopaedic. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)