Talk:Islamey

Title

Anybody have any idea of where Balakirev got the title from and what it means? 65.206.122.30 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the name of a village - [1]. Presumably the village's name was in honour of the religion of the inhabitants, Islam, but that's just a guess. Thanks for the question: I had no idea there was such a place as Islamey. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

An Islamei is a type of dance, related to the better known lezginka. This is how the piece got its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstaf (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Title of the article

I wonder about the word "an". Russian doesn't use definite or indefinite articles, which means that sometimes English translators need to insert an "a", an "an" or a "the". But in this case I don't see the need. I've never seen it as "Islamey: an Oriental Fantasy", but simply:

• Islamey: Oriental Fantasy, or
• Islamey (Oriental Fantasy) or
• Oriental Fantasy "Islamey" or
• various other permutations, all without the word "an". -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, it's universally referred to as just "Islamey". Its full formal title (whatever it is in English) can be mentioned in the text, but let's go for simplicity and move the title to simply "Islamey". I'll do it within a few days if there are no objections. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No objections? Good. Done. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about this change, and wish to raise objections now that I've looked into the matter. Whatever the piece is 'universally referred to as', the fact remains that its proper title has the words 'Oriental Fantasy' in it.

Two printed versions:

---

Title: Islamey : fantaisie orientale pour piano / par Mili Balakirew. Edition: Nouvelle édition, revue et corrigée par l’auteur. Published: Leipzig : D. Rahter, [1889]

---

Title: Islameĭ : Vostochnai︠a︡ fantazii︠a︡ dli︠a︡ fortepiano = Islamey : oriental fantasy for piano / M. Balakirev ; v orkestrovkakh = orchestrated by S. Li︠a︡punova i A. Kazelly. Other Entries: Li︠a︡punov, S. M. (Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich), 1859-1924.

Casella, Alfredo, 1883-1947.  

Published: Moskva : Muzyka, 1971.

Additionally the copy visible via the imslp site also is headed 'Islamey: an Oriental Fantasy'.

I do not believe any defensible reason can be offered for giving the article a shortened title that plainly has no authority. Kindly restore what was there before. Pfistermeister (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised objections are being raised only after the action I foreshadowed almost 3 months ago has now been taken. There was no comment whatsoever on my suggested change, let alone any objections, so it certainly didn't seem to bother anyone. Anyway, I'll put that to one side and focus on the main issue.

Google gives me over 15,000 sites that have the words Balakirev and Islamey, but do not have the words Oriental or Fantasy. So there's plenty of evidence that the main title is very often used by itself, without the sub-title, to identify the work. That's undeniable.

On the other side of the ledger, there are only 5,500 sites that have all 4 words.

This strongly suggests to me that the work is more often referred to as just "Islamey" than by its full formal title.

Are there other examples of works whose sub-titles do not appear in the titles of their WP articles? Sure there are.

• Symphony No. 6 (Tchaikovsky): subtitled Pathétique
• Così fan tutte: subtitled ... ossia La scuola degli amanti
• The Marriage of Figaro: subtitled ... or the Day of Madness
• Symphony No. 1 (Dvořák): subtitled The Bells of Zlonice
• Symphony No. 2 (Shostakovich): subtitled To October
• Cantus Arcticus: subtitled Concerto for Birds and Orchestra
• El Cimarrón (musical work): subtitled The autobiography of the runaway slave Esteban Montejo
• Timbres, espace, mouvement (Dutilleux): subtitled La Nuit Etoilée
• and many more.

Then there's Don Giovanni: its full formal title is Il dissoluto punito, ossia il Don Giovanni. So "Don Giovanni" is merely the sub-title, but that's the name it's best known as, so that's the name it gets.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Classical music titles says:

• There is no requirement to use formal titles on Wikipedia. However, in an article about a single composition of classical music, all the information one would get from a formal title should be included in the lead. Often, using the formal title to introduce the work is the most elegant way to convey this information.

Which is precisely what we have at the moment. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry; but I have to conclude that you are mentally ill. Pfistermeister (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow this charming response managed to escape my radar till now. I'd normally bother to assert my sanity and demand a retraction or else, but in this case the angry-mouthed editor has been indefinitely blocked for uncontrollable spleen elsewhere. His response to the indef is to say "Wikipedia is full of illiterates and idiots. Shove it". So, it seems he's quit voluntarily. Me, I hope it stays that way. Wikipedia is definitely not for everyone, just people who can treat others with a little respect. Good riddance, Pfistermeister, and have a good life if you can. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Where does Op. 18 come from?

@JackofOz I have been doubting about this opus for a while. Yes, there are quite some mentioning of Islamey associated with Op. 18 (Youtube, for example), but it's very likely they copied from Wikipedia, beliving Wikipedia as an ultimately trustable source. However I never managed to find other independently trustable source of info, not in books nor other music encyclopedia so far. However I must admit my search is pretty limited, as I can't read any non-English media.

The only pre-Wikipedia source I could come up with is IMSLP, but I don't think it's that trustworthy. Some IMSLP helper just added it without bothering to mention where it came from. AbelCheung (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, AbelCheung. You could be right about IMSLP, although I've usually found it trustworthy.

Russian WP gives Islamey the opus number 19, not 18.

Our own List of compositions by Mily Balakirev shows that the opus numbers used were opp. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18 and 102. That is extremely weird. I'd be much more inclined to disbelieve the 102 than the 18, but that aside, the 18 is itself significantly out of kilter with the earlier numbers.

Maybe we just remove the opus number until we can find an indisputable source. One that will, hopefully, resolve the 18/19 discrepancy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed about removing opus for now, musicology research is essential here to decide anything. Op. 102 is equally suspicious, my bet is it came from Boosey and Hawkes (its catalogue search explicitly states Op. 102 for 2^nd Piano Sonata) or whatever info the publisher trusted. It's issue for another wiki page though. AbelCheung (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)