Talk:List of major opera composers/Archive 4

Peliminary Results, Pt 2.

Whilst still unproofread, here are the results for all 9 acceptable lists [Baroque-only and stanford not used]

• Berg 9
• Britten 9
• Donizetti 9
• Gluck 9
• Handel 9
• Monteverdi, Claudio 9
• Mozart 9
• Puccini 9
• Rameau 9
• Rossini 9
• Strauss, Richard 9
• Verdi 9
• Wagner 9
• Bellini 8
• Berlioz 8
• Bizet 8
• Glinka 8
• Gounod 8
• Lully 8
• Massenet 8
• Mussorgsky 8
• Tchaikovsky 8
• Adams 7
• Charpentier, Gustave 7
• Debussy 7
• Glass 7
• Henze 7
• Janácek 7
• Leoncavallo 7
• Menotti 7
• Meyerbeer 7
• Pergolesi, Giov. Battista 7
• Purcell, Henry 7
• Rimsky-Korsakov+A183 7
• Schoenberg 7
• Smetana 7
• Thomas, Ambroise 7
• Tippett 7
• Weber 7
• Auber (Vik. Pol.) 6
• Beethoven 6
• Borodin 6
• Cavalli 6
• Cherubini 6
• Cimarosa, Domenico 6
• Delibes 6
• Hindemith 6
• Mascagni 6
• Offenbach 6
• Peri, Jacopo 6
• Prokofiev 6
• Ravel 6
• Saint-Saëns 6
• Scarlatti 6
• Shostakovich 6
• Barber 5
• Bartok 5
• Caccini, Giulio 5
• Chabrier 5
• Davies, (Peter?) Maxwell 5
• Dvorak 5
• Gershwin 5
• Halévy, Fromental 5
• Pepusch (Beg. Opera) 5
• Pfitzner 5
• Schreker 5
• Spontini 5
• Stravinsky 5
• Walton 5
• Bernstein 4
• Birtwistle 4
• Boïto, Arrigo 4
• Boughton 4
• Busoni 4
• Cilea 4
• Dargomijsky 4
• Dukas 4
• Falla, Manuel de 4
• Flotow 4
• Giordano, Umberto 4
• Haydn 4
• Humperdinck 4
• Korngold 4
• Lalo 4
• Nicolai 4
• Orff 4
• Paisiello, Giov. 4
• Penderecki, Krzysztof 4
• Poulenc 4
• Strauss, J the young. 4
• Szymanowski 4
• Weill 4
• Williams, Vaughan 4
• Wolf-Ferrari 4
• Balfe 3
• Berio 3
• Blitzstein 3
• Boieldieu 3
• Campra 3
• Casken 3
• Cesti, Marcantonio 3
• Dallapicolla 3
• Delius 3
• Gretry 3
• Holst 3
• Knussen 3
• Krenek 3
• Ligeti, György 3
• Martinu 3
• Meale 3
• Méhul 3
• Moniuszko (f. Pol. Op) 3
• Moore, Douglas 3
• Piccinni 3
• Ponchielli 3
• Schubert 3
• Schumann 3
• Stockhausen 3
• Weir, Judith 3
• Zemlinski 3
• Ame 2
• Argento 2
• Benedict 2
• Bishop, Henry 2
• Blow, John 2
• Catalani 2
• Chaucson 2
• Cornelius 2
• d'Albert 2
• Dibden 2
• D'Indy 2
• Einem 2
• Enescu 2
• Erkel 2
• Faure 2
• Fibich 2
• Floyd, Carlisle 2
• Ginastera 2
• Goldmark 2
• Haba 2
• Hasse 2
• Heise 2
• Hérold 2
• Hiller 2
• Jomelli 2
• Kabalevsky 2
• Keiser 2
• Kodaly 2
• Kokkonen 2
• Landi, Stefano 2
• Lehar 2
• Lesueur 2
• Lortzing 2
• Marschner, Heinrich 2
• Messiaen 2
• Milhaud 2
• Neilsen 2
• Nono 2
• Philidor 2
• Rachmadinov 2
• Reimann 2
• Respighji 2
• Rousseau 2
• Roussel 2
• Salieri 2
• Sallinen 2
• Smyth 2
• Sondheim 2
• Spohr 2
• Stradella, Alessandro 2
• Sullivan 2
• Suppe 2
• Telemann, G.P. 2
• Thomson 2
• Wallace 2
• Weinburger 2
• Zandonai 2
• Zimmerman 2

There are 115 composers with a single cite.

The difficulty is choosing the cut-off point. I'd be inclined towards 4. 4 has a lot of interesting and far more inclusive choices on it, like Korngold and Bernstein, which bring in new, interesting realms of opera not seen above.

Warning: These are still unproofread data. I will paste the last three into the proofreading page now.

Poll: What should the cut off be?

4 - 4 includes some really interesting things that seem a pity to lose, and has significantly higher recognisability levels than the opera composers below it. Vanished user ^talk 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

4 seems good to me. We'll lose Weir, of course, and ... uh ... Sullivan ... --GuillaumeTell 20:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the provisional list. 4 sounds good. Though I think we should give some indication which composers scored all 9 points (maybe putting an asterisk by their names on the longer list?). These are the unassailably NPOV choices. (NB: I think Davies, Maxwell Davies and Peter Maxwell Davies are the same composer).--Folantin 20:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do note that some of the list had a time-cutoff, which may raise Adams and Glass to full marks as well. (Both missed Birds Eye View and Norman Davies alone). As for Weir: A pity, but what can we do? Sullivan... eh, I had an incident a few weeks ago, when I was buying a ticket for Mazeppa where I fell into conversation about music with the ticket seller. I talked about how doing the Hallelujah Chorus in a not-very-well-managed school choir year after year for months on end (because they were bringing in new students, had no auditions, and Pittsburgh loves holiday traditions) had ruined Handel for me, so I preferred similar great polyphonic works, and mentioned two of Sullivan's serious pieces, The Festival Te Deum and the finale to the Golden Legend. He decided this was the perfect cue to rant for a long time on how awful Sullivan is. Not that he actually knew any of Sullivan's music....

Anyway, with experiences like that, it's possibly not surprising that he's so rarely cited in these lists, whatever I may think of him.

By the way, might I suggest we use listings in this format? It looks better to me:

Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643)

Usually considered the first major opera composer[1]. In Orfeo (1607) he blended Florentine experiments in expressing drama through monody with the lavish spectacle of the intermedi.[2] Later, in Venice in the 1640s, he helped make opera a commercially viable form with Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria and his most highly regarded work, L'incoronazione di Poppea, which is one of the earliest operas in the present-day operatic repertoire.

Looks better to me, though it might require some rewrite of text (as that first sentence shows)Vanished user ^talk 21:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe we should see whether our list survives "attack" before we go to all the hard work of writing the individual entries. You're right, the Monteverdi explanation is too compressed and obscure. If Peri, say, is included, we can explain he continued Peri's experiments to produce "arguably opera's first masterpiece Orfeo" (there are plenty of books I can cite for that statement). But, first things first. --Folantin 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think 4 is correct. Moreschi 08:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've found the list from "The Rough Guide to Opera" here.Initial impressions suggest that adding the list would make no difference to the composers at the top of the list; i.e. those currently on 9 points would receive 10, those currently on 8 would obtain 9. The key difference adding the new list would make is for those composers currently on 3 points. As far as I can see, the following would be "promoted" to 4 should we add it: Balfe, Berio, Boieldieu, Campra, Dallapiccola, Delius, Krenek, Ligeti, Martinu, Ponchielli, Schubert, Schumann, Stockhausen, Judith Weir and Zemlinsky. --Folantin 10:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You had originally wanted a list of about 30 composers. That would correspond to a cut-off of 7. At 4, you'll have to write a lot of "descriptions". On the other hand, if a name is blue-linked, and a composer has an article, why do you really need the subjective descriptions? After all, the selection criterion is that the composer appeared on x number of lists, and the point of using that criterion was so that you would not have to justify inclusion by use of the subjective descriptions. If you don't have to write descriptions, you could just say that each person was found on x out of the 9 or 10 referenced lists. Just a thought. -- Ssilvers 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Even better idea. First off, of course anyone on the list will be bluelinked, I don't think that's even an issue. My suggestion is list the number of operas (exactly or approximetly, depending on who) they wrote, and maybe a mention of one or two. No odd subjective summary, etc. Now maybe /which/ opera(s) to mention might be subjective...so I dunno. But it's a thought. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have to distinguish between the "core" group of 23 or so who are on every list (or every list but one) and the rest. Only the "core" group should get referenced descriptions. The others with more than 4 votes should merely be listed and bluelinked with no descriptions added. I don't think the number of operas a composer wrote has much bearing on whether that composer has made it to "major" status on the short list (e.g. Berg only wrote one and two-thirds of an opera). We should try to explain why those composers appear on all the lists, using references from the books in question.--Folantin 13:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Ssilvers, I think that a cutoff of 6 or 7 gives us about the right-sized list. At 4 or 5, quite a few composers of mid-to-low importance get pulled in. We're not doing affirmative action here. This is supposed to be a list of major opera composers. Below 6 or 7, you start getting a lot of composers who are interesting, but not really major. Marc Shepherd 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's head that way. If we add the figures from the "Rough Opera Guide" list and make the score for inclusion 7 out of a possible 10, we get the following result:

• 10 votes: Berg, Britten, Donizetti, Gluck, Handel, Monteverdi, Mozart, Puccini, Rameau, Rossini, Strauss (Richard), Verdi, Wagner. [13 composers]
• 9 votes: Bellini, Berlioz, Bizet, Glinka, Gounod, Lully, Massenet, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky [13 + 9 = 22]
• 8 votes: Adams, Debussy, Glass, Henze, Janacek, Leoncavallo, Menotti, Meyerbeer, Pergolesi, Purcell, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schoenberg, Smetana, Thomas (Ambroise), Tippett, Weber [22 +16 = 38]
• 7 votes: Auber, Beethoven, Borodin, Cavalli, Cherubini, Cimarosa, Delibes, Hindemith, Mascagni, Offenbach, Prokofiev, Ravel, Saint-Saens, Shostakovich,Gustave Charpentier [38 + 15 = 53 composers mentioned in 7 or more lists -- Ssilvers]

(NB: There was an ambiguity over Charpentier: the votes for Marc-Antoine Charpentier and Gustave Charpentier became combined. Neither make it to 7 votes.) I was wrong--Folantin 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just over 50 composers which feels like the right length for a list such as this. Marc Shepherd 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. If we have those 50 or so on our final list, maybe let's just list them with bluelinks and give a full explanation of the selection process at the top with the reference books or websites we used to provide the lists at the bottom of the page. I'd suggest arranging them in alphabetical order, surnames first, with those composers on all ten lists having their surnames in capital letters. Dates of birth and death can also be given.--Folantin 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no ambiguity I'm aware of: He was clearly listed as Gustave 7 times. Marc-Antoine only appeared on one list, as far as I know. Could you clarify where I made a mistake? Vanished user ^talk 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Marc-Antoine appears on two lists: the Kenyon list (first part) and the Penguin Guide to Opera on CD list. That was the source of my confusion. Apologies if that led to any mistakes in the grand total. (NB: Incidentally, both Charpentiers appear on the Rough Guide list. Don't know if that makes any difference.) Sorry --Folantin 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Gustave should have at least 7, then, I think. Double-check my count? Also, you say that both Gustave and Marc-Antoine appear on the Penguin list, so even iItalic textf I miscounted him in one list when I should have counted M-A, he should still make 7 once your new list is added. Vanished user ^talk 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in any case, I'd go down to 6: It's not too many more composers, and rounds off the history side with Peri and so on. Vanished user ^talk 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If we added the "Rough Guide", as far a I can see (and my eyes are going again) those on 6 would be: Peri, Scarlatti, Barber, Bartok, Chabrier, Peter Maxwell Davies, Dvorak, Gershwin, Halévy, Pepusch ("Beggar's Op."), Pfitzner, Schreker, Spontini, Stravinsky, Walton. Some famous operatic names there. Gustave would definitely be in (he's easy to write the comment for: "French composer famous for Louise".)--Folantin 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

At that point, you're adding quite a few who are notable for just one work, or whose operas frankly are seldom performed in modern times. When we finally get around to applying these same rigorous criteria to the List of important operas, those works will have their day. The cutoff at 7 still seems to me the correct choice. Marc Shepherd 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing earlier vote: I think I back Marc up on this on. 7 is right as the only 6 composer whose abscence might raise eyebrows is Shostakovitch. The presence of Delibes, Hindemith, and Auber, would, IMO, cause a lot more raised eyebrows. Moreschi 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Auber, Hindemith and Delibes all get 7 (I'm working from the list with the "Rough Guide" added). Odd, but these oddities aren't our responsibility. My final vote will be for 7 too.--Folantin 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose 7 looks reasonable. Though it might be nice to be more inclusive. Vanished user ^talk 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of major opera composers/ProofreadingOfData

I'd appreciate if all of you would check my lists match what they're supposed to.

What to do with the article

Given that we've now arrived at NPOV criteria for deciding who is on the list, we need to work on how the list will be organized, and what will be said about the included composers.

There was a suggestion to put the composers in alphabetical order, and remove all the descriptive text. I wouldn't go that route. An alphabetical list with no descriptive text is like a category. You could get the identical outcome by putting those 50 composers into a newly-created category called "Major opera composers." Usually, the reason for creating a list is so that you can organize the entries more sensibly and say something about them.

The article's current organization by the composer's birth date makes sense. I also don't have a problem with including a brief description of what makes the composer "major." That's what the original article was trying to do, but it was POV and unsourced. Some good steps have been taken in that direction. The descriptions still need work, but they're headed the right way.

Obviously, the inclusion criteria need to be stated at the top of the article itself. Marc Shepherd 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As the inclusion criteria are (slightly) complex, I'd suggest a brief mention at the top, linking to a footnote at the bottom. Vanished user ^talk 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've slotted in all the missing composers who scored 7 (I hope). Stravinsky only scored a total of 6, so according to our plan he must be removed (yes, I know). Will add brief descriptions over the next week or so. Explanatory note still needed.--Folantin 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that getting this to GA or even FA status would be a worthwhile goal - it would set a useful standard for lists. Vanished user ^talk 11:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no GA for lists. WP:WIAFL is an interesting read. Moreschi 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

FA status might be a "bridge too far"! It's just struck me that making 6 votes a requirememt for listing is more "objective" than 7, because it would mean we would include all composers who appear on the majority of the lists. Also, some notable absentees would make the grade. I would be quite happy to fill in the descriptions for the additional composers myself (over the course of the next week). --Folantin 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem!

The bottom of the references section is filled with html code rubbish. Vanished user ^talk 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Watch the closing of those <ref> tags. Vanished user ^talk 13:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Introductory language

I made some edits to the introductory explanation to clarify that the ONLY criterion for inclusion was the appearance on 7 out of 10 lists. There were no other criteria used, because that was the criterion that everyone agreed gave the most NPOV result. -- Ssilvers 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But see my note above. I now consider 6 out of 10 (i.e. a majority) is the most objective measure we can reach. I'm prepared to add and describe the composers with 6 votes. --Folantin 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have gone with 8 out of 10 lists. I think the list is too long -- The original discussion was that the list would have about 30 composers, and at 8, you're already above that. Even at 7, you're including a lot of composers who only had one major opera. But, if you want to write and notate more, I don't have a big objection. In any case, I think that your note about who appeared on all 10 list is good, and I think you should also note who appeared on 9 of 10, 8 of 10, etc. I think this is useful info. Alternatively, we could have a number somewhere in each composer's squb like (9) to show how many lists they appear on, with an appropriate explanation of the format. -- Ssilvers 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd hold off on that until my results are double-checked - I've probably made at least a few mistakes. I posted a proofreding page up above a ways. Vanished user ^talk 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of major opera composers/ProofreadingOfData Vanished user ^talk 18:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a rather dry introduction, though. It might be better to have some brief notes on opera in general before it? Vanished user ^talk 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you think we should also do an "Extended list of major opera composers" going down to, say, 4 (1/3rd of the lists)? That would get in a lot of interesting choices, but would be a lot of work. (Below that and we begin to hit length and obscurity issues) Vanished user ^talk 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is already a comprehensive list of composers in the Opera Corpus. That might be linked to, however. I think the introduction should be as dry as possible to avoid claims that it is POV. A list, by its nature, should be mechanical. The more interesting articles are all blue linked, and that's what people should read. The list should not have any new content that is not in the articles themselves. -- Ssilvers 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should try to let the facts speak for themselves as much as possible. These aren't "our" choices after all. As far as I see it there are three "objective" cut-offs: 10 votes (everyone who made it onto every list); 6 votes (everyone on the majority - i.e. more than half - of the lists); 1 vote (i.e. everybody on any list). That's why I'd plump for 6.--Folantin 18:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cutoff number (rides again)

I don't agree that 6 means anything special. Whatever number we choose, unless it's 1, it's a subjective cutoff. Indeed, the judgment that the lists are reliable (or the best ones) is subjective -- theyre just the ones that were agreed to by a small number of Wikipedians. So, I think 8 is the best cutoff, because it creates a list of what looks to me like a list that contains only composers that are truly important to opera. In the rank of 7 are people like Hindemuth, Beethoven, etc. who are important to music, but not what I would call really important to opera. Moreso with 6. Sure, people's favorites are on them, and I like many of them personally, but I think if you will look at who is on 8 and who is below that, you will see why the original discussion was to limit the list to about 30 composers. Just look at the description of Beethoven: "He wrote ONE of the most important GERMAN operas." As Marc Shephers (now retired from Wikipedia) said, an important opera like Fidelio will be described on the "List of Important Operas", or whatever we finally call that. So I think that if you consider the composers below 8, you sort of weaken the list as a tool for newbies. Anyhow, like I said, if you want to expand it, I won't lose sleep over it, but there is alread a comprehensive, blue-linked opera corpus that should be blue linked here, too, and there will also be a list of major operas soon that will have more objective criteria like we used here, I hope. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 18:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that eight is a better number. Dybryd 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I still like 4. Vanished user ^talk 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Think this Talk section's ready for another archiving? Vanished user ^talk 17:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, please try to leave everything from at least "Preliminary results" downwards, so we know what we're working with. --Folantin 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast. There is obvious POV gender bias here

Out of the nine lists consulted, only three contained the names of women. Six were exclusively male, yet the sources which suggested names which were exclusively female were discarded as being "non-neutral". This is obvious POV bias. The sources that were used have this obvious bias. This must be addressed. The NPOV tag is going back up for gender bias. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a note to the intro to point out the lack of women. However, the list is not POV on this issue: rather, the world is. I am a Sullian fan, and I think it is unfair that Sullivan has been discriminated against by the musical establishment for over 100 years. The Mikado, H.M.S. Pinafore and The Pirates of Penzance have probably been performed more often than all other operas combined over the past 125 years, and most English-speaking people's experience of opera probably started (and often ended) with Sullivan. But there's no way I can find a majority of opera experts willing to agree that Sullivan is a major opera composer. Encyclopedia articles reflect what secondary sources say, not what they should say. It's not POV, it's a reflection of actual bias in the world. This bias has presented women from producing a significant output of opera, due to the costs of mounting opera productions. If women start producing a lot of opera, Wikipedia opera articles would eventually reflect that. -- Ssilvers 23:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have lists that have only men, then you have to accept lists that only list women...and there is the matter of certain lists being suppressed, given this discussion off of User_talk:Vanished user which points to an obvious POV selection of sources.

Judith Weir

I think we could put her on the list if the need arises (then we'll no doubt get accused of British bias!). Most of those lists have a certain "modernist" bias as the compilers try to hedge their bets as to which contemporary composers posterity will regard as major. We should probably put some kind of disclaimer about that in the explanation we'll give of the selection at the top of the page. Cheers --Folantin 07:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've checked Kenyon twice. He also mentions Galuppi and Piccinni (because they set libretti by Carlo Goldoni, who influenced Lorenzo da Ponte). This probably involves promotion for Piccinni (actually, I have heard a couple of his operas). Shame Pacini is nowhere to be seen, then we could have the good old Pacini, Piccinni, Puccini trio. Disambiguation of "Charpentier" for the total lists: Marc-Antoine Charpentier gets 2 mentions; Gustave Charpentier gets 5.--Folantin 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've found the list from "The Rough Guide to Opera" here. It has Judith Weir on it. I don't propose adding it but I'll alphabetise it and we can use it as "back-up" should the need arise. Don't worry, if that happens, I can do the working out of the new total scores. You've done enough hard work on this already. Cheers --Folantin 09:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The key difference adding the new list would make is for those composers currently on 3 points. As far as I can see, the following would be "promoted" to 4 should we add it: Balfe, Berio, Boieldieu, Campra, Dallapiccola, Delius, Krenek, Ligeti, Martinu, Ponchielli, Schubert, Schumann, Stockhausen, Judith Weir and Zemlinsky.--Folantin 09:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This clearly points out that information which could have lead to the inclusion of one "token" woman was suppressed. Sources containing only information about women were not consulted. Sources containing only information about men were seen as "neutral". This is obvious gender bias. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 23:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While I understand why you added this information about women composers in the intro, this only makes the situation worse. It should be removed and sources which contain information about women composers should be consulted. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 23:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This would be all well and good, had this list NOT SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN ADDED. Judith Weir remains standing at 4. This puts her equal to Korngold, Bernstein, and other interesting, perhaps notable, but not major composers. I like the idea of including a wider, more inclusive selection, as it provides a broader view of what opera is. If there was a notable woman, i was all for having her on the list; however, the evidence seems to show she is not all that notable as yet.

Power allows access to money. Opera is expensive. Women were of low power until recent years. Besides trying to get us to buy books that you may or may not have an interest in, you have done nothing to show any woman composer is as notable as the ones on this list, did not,k as you say, provide lists of women that got rejected, but provided a poor-quality list of male cokmposers that was rejected due to not being a list as such, merely a collection of articles that were finished (a much longer list was linked to from that page as "composers wheo wrote or are believed to have written operas"), and a few names of books you said were about women composers.

I was willing to presume you acted in good faith, however, you also bullied, reverted edits over a lack of a page number in a reference, and made a complete arse of yourself in the name of "removing NPOV". You may have, judging by what you said, that you or Wahage misrepresented the context of discussions to the International Association of Women in Music so as to try and send them into an outrage against us. In short, you have done nothing to show that you are acting in good faith in any sense of the word, and rather a lot to show that you cannot be trusted. As such, frankly, I find it difficult to listen to a word you say.

If anyone trustworthy has evidence of a POV bias in the lists, present it. You, shut up. Vanished user ^talk 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My view of the matter is that the object of Wikipedia is to be a tertiary source, meaning that it synthesizes information from secondary sources, in a way which is a neutral as possible, while at the same time straying from the accepted understanding of information as little as possible. My view is that it would not be a bad thing to change the methodology to allow more composers, such as Bernstein and Weir. I don't think it would be appropriate to include every opera composer included in anthologies of women composers, since allowing men who were equivalently successful as many of these women would be simply ridiculous. We don't include lists of Baroque opera composers, and we don't include lists of Jewish opera composers, and I think it would be just as skewing to include lists of women opera composers. Jean-Thierry, would you suggest a specific methodology which would allow us to include more women on this list, while using standard sources, which do not include being a woman as a pre-requisite to inclusion? For instance, is there a general reference which you feel is less biased on this account? Please, everyone, Adam included, let's talk about the content and method for this list, and not the contributors. Mak (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. People, in general, agree that there were no women of importance on the level of the top 30-40 (or whatever) men in history. This is NOT gender bias in the least, any more than the fact that every one of those composers was at least mostly causaian, mostly American French, German, English, Italian, and Russian composers, and I'd find it likely that all were Christian (I'd have to look, but outside Bernstein I can't think of any well known Jewish opera composers).

I do, however, see nothing wrong with making a list of female opera composers, or list of Jewish opera composrs (though some might call it listcruft). But it's NOT bias, as Wikipedia is not affirmative action. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to have women opera composers: I don't think anyone denies this. However, the fact remains that there are very few women opera composers in the first place: I believe (I may be wrong), that all but one or two of the mere 17 or so women in the opera corpus list are from the 20th century.

The easy way to get a woman added would be simply to find, say, seven lists that include Judith Weir, whilst including men; or ten lists for any other woman composer, to make sure they pass the cutoff. However, the lists have to include both genders: Otherwise, this is tokenism. Vanished user ^talk 00:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid accusations of gender bias in two easy steps (the Musik Fabrik method): 1. add a single woman composer to your list; 2. make sure that woman composer is Germaine Tailleferre (publisher: Musik Fabrik). See the following pages for details: List of compositions for harp ("a non-exhaustive list of notable compositions for the harp"; NB Jan Friedlin, Geirr Tveitt and Lior Navok are men) and List of organ pieces. The eagle-eyed will spot a few familiar male names on those pages too. No prizes for guessing who contributed to the editing there --Folantin 08:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If all of the lists "have to include both genders", then you've already contradicted yourself. Six of the nine lists contain only the names of men. If you accept lists which only contain names of men, then you must also accept lists which only contain the names of women. I really don't care what you think of my actions and what they may or may not have meant. The fact remains that this is obvious gender bias and something must be done about it. Presumed Jean-Thierry Boisseau

They need to include males because there's several male composers it'd be strange to leave off the list. My intent, which you are willfully disregarding, was to say that they can't be lists that set out to select only the small handful of women opera composers that exist. Vanished user ^talk 12:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Folantin, we do publish the music of Jan Friedlin and he did happen to have one of the works imposed on an important harp competition....but I've never heard of Geirr Tveitt and Lior Navok. Are you suggesting that we also have a hidden "Jewish" agenda? If so, I would advise you to preceed with caution....Jean-Thierry Boisseau 08:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You really are scraping the barrel. Now you're trying to accuse me of anti-Semitism. I do not appreciate such slurs, to put it mildly. I merely mentioned those names because their gender is not obvious to an English speaker (Jan is a female name around here). I was trying to ascertain whether any other composer on those pages apart from Germaine Tailleferre was female. I don't know anything about Jan Friedlin and I didn't know he was also published by Musik Fabrik. I can't say it was a surprising revelation he was on your roster though. --Folantin 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why you single out those three Israeli composers if you were not trying to say something by pointing them out. All three of those names are men.

What three Israeli composers? Tveitt is a Norwegian. I have no idea about Friedlin's nationality; I just looked up to see whether he was male. I only found out Navok was an Israeli when I looked his site up to see whether he was a man or not. You know exactly why I singled those three out, because I've said so above. The only woman on those lists is Germaine Tailleferre (some contribtors to this page were unsure of her gender too). Learn to read English. Stop insinuating I am anti-Semitic or I will take appropriate action --Folantin 14:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have a very hard time of excluding Germaine from List of compositions for harp ("a non-exhaustive list of notable compositions for the harp") unless you ax the list altogether since her Sonata (published by Peer) and her "Concertino" (published by Heugel) are two of the most widely performed and recorded works in the Harp repertoire. The two other works are, yes indeed, published by us. the "Petit Livre de Harpe de Madame Tardieu" was written for Caroline Tardieu, the mother of the French poet Jean Tardieu when she was the assistant of Alphonse Hasselmanns at the Paris Conservatory. The other work was taken from a French television film. If you would like to learn more about the harp and it's repertoire, you can visit http://www.aiharpe.org/Textes2/Pieces/Auteurs/Aut1.html where almost all of the composers on this page have biographies.

This is becoming a witchhunt. The fact remains that all of these issues are not central to the discussion here...and elsewhere. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to here apologise for telling Jean-Thierry Boisseau to shut up: I was rather upset at having a private disaussion with Folantin over whether it might be possible to stretch the boundaries a bit so as to let Judith Weir in would be NPOV (private because such stretching just because she was a woman seemed worrisome to my desire to treat women and men exactly equally, and worrying whether that was unfair to men of similar recent achievements.) extracted and claimed as proof I was part of a conspiracy against women, when, in fact, I was trying to figure out whether it would be morally justifiable to support my now-accuser's assertion that there should be a woman on the list. As I was in the middle of posting when an edit conflict added that, I posted immediately, and rather emotionally read, which was wrong.

As to the worries about POV: I d not know enough about harp and orgaan music in the 20th scentury to know if the lists are justified, but was worried by the fact that the selections inevitably included the two contributors and one of thhe contributor's major private interests. Perhaps a VfD was too much, but I was unable to be certain of how to edit out NPOV, and saw no other way besides spending weeks of work collecting lists again as for this project. I was hoping you would have done something to deal with the NPOV issue on those lists by now; as you haven't, I did what seemed best. Vanished user ^talk 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology and would like to apologize for having seen a possible anti-sementic statement in Folantin's list of possible women in that list of harp composers-knowing Jan and Lior (I don't publish him) made that seem a bit too direct. I believe that we're all seeing things that perhaps are being blown out of proportion.

Trying to bring this back to the subject at hand (I had quite forgotten adding these things to that Harp and Organ list...and when it was brought to my attention, I did add sources...but that's beside the point here), several university scholars have brought to my attention that selecting lists in the first place is an inherent POV choice and that post-structural thought says that there is no way around these choices. Neutral POV position seems to be generally accepted as a fallacy and this question simply cannot be resolved.

William Osborn of the IAWM has sent us the following email which I believe may be relevant to this discussion: I am including it here:

I've deeply appreciate Paul Wehage's observations and concerns about women opera composers. Paul, who are some women composers you would include in the list of the greatest composers of opera?

Paul and perhaps others on the list would like to know that on April 20, 2000 the IAWM wrote a letter to the Metropolitan Opera asking if they would agree in principle to performing an opera by a woman. (See the letter below my signature.) I formulated it for Sally Ried, who was the IAWM President at the time and she sent it. The Met has performed only one opera by a woman in its 117 year history and that was 103 years ago. The opera was "Der Wald" by Ethel Smyth, which recieved a 10 minute long standing ovation. That apparently wasn't enough to cause them to perform another opera by a woman.

The Met did not respond to the IAWM's letter. The letter is six years old. Since then, the Met has commissioned several other operas by men, some yet to be premiered, but none by women. Does anyone know the exact ratio? I think it is now about 6 or 7 to 0. The Met now has a new director who is likely far less stodgy than Joseph Volpe. Perhaps the IAWM should write again.

None of the new operas by men premiered at the Met have been especially successful.

William Osborne 100260.243@compuserve.com http://www.osborne-conant.org

++++++

The IAWM's letter to the Met:

April 20, 2000

Joseph Volpe, General Manager James Levine, Artistic Director Metropolitian Opera, Lincoln Center Broadway and 64th Street New York, NY 10023

Dear Mr. Volpe and Mr. Levine,

I am writing to you on behalf of the International Alliance for Women In Music, a professional society with over 800 members in the United States. Our membership is comprised principally of composers, a number of whom enjoy international recognition. The majority of our members teach at the university level. We work in conjunction with affiliate organizations throughout the world such as Frau und Musik Internationaler Arbeitskreis e.V in Germany, Mujeres en la Musica Asociacion in Spain, Forum Musique et Femmes in Switzerland, Suonodonne Italia in Italy, the Association of Canadian Women Composers, Stichting Vrouw en Muziek in Holland, the Federation of Women Composers in Japan, and Women in Music in Britain.

We would like to suggest that the Metropolitan Opera plan a performance, possibly through a commission, of an opera by a woman composer in the nearest possible future. The Met has performed only one opera by a woman in its entire history, "Der Wald" by Ethel Smyth, and that was 97 years ago. [Now 103 years ago.] In the last eight years the Met has commissioned operas by three men, John Corigliano's Ghosts of Versailles, in 1991, Philip Glass' Voyage[1], in 1996 and John Harbison's "Gatsby" in 1999. It thus seems time to commission an opera by a woman.

A premiere by a woman would be an historic event at the Met and we believe its artists and patrons, as well as the international media, would find it a very exciting occasion. The premiere would be good for music and good for the house in many different ways. We would be pleased to assist you in identifying a composer of appropriate stature that would be a good stylistic fit for the Met.

We realize that such an undertaking takes a great deal of planning, but we would like to know if you are agreed with the idea in principle, and if so, the general time frame you might anticipate for such an event. We respectfully request at least a general response by the end of July, since this will be a topic of great interest to our international journals.

Sincerely, Sally Reid, Ph.D. President International Alliance for Women in Music http://www.iawm.org/

+++++ William Osborne

The Met did not respond to this letter, but it points out that clearly Ethel Smythe's reputation as an opera composer has been under estimated. Other women are also in this position. Clearly, working to identify and include women opera composers in this sort of a list is one part of correcting an injustice. It's as simple as identifying the women and finding the sources. The women have existed and exist. The sources are there. They simply are not in general reference books. But they should not be dismissed. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying that there is a historical bias against women in music. But, I fail to see a concrete suggestion here about this particular list. If we use a book, such as Women & Music: A History, how are we to divide the indidental from the "major"? It is difficult to compare a general reference book with a very specific reference like that, and you have already pointed out to us that we lack the editorial judgement to decide on that comparison. Also, somewhat off-topic, has it occured to you that some of us may be women in music (perhaps even women in opera?) Mak (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Thierry Boisseau writes: "Neutral POV position seems to be generally accepted as a fallacy."

It is not "generally accepted" as any such thing in Wikipedia policy.

And I have to add - you have been arguing for some time against what you assert is a POV bias in this article. But now, you abruptly declare that there is no basis for judging POV bias - that NPOV, one of the three central principles of wikipedia, is "a fallacy." Have you changed your mind? If not, then what have all your criticisms of the article as being biased meant?

Dybryd 23:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about correcting historical injustices. It is about compiling and reporting information reflected in current secondary sources. Someday, I hope that women will have produced more operas that are judged important by experts who write about opera, and then Wikipedia will be updated to reflect that fact. -- Ssilvers 04:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ssilvers has hit the nail on the head. The Met's sexism is not our problem (though I remember this year that the Royal Opera is premiering and opera by a woman, so the picture isn't all bleak; Dominique Le Gendre's Bird of Night). Nor do I doubt that in 20 years or even 10 a female composer will be "major" enough to be on this list. However, at the moment this is not the case and the sources we have compiled back me up.Moreschi 11:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to my changing view of NPOV, I am discussing this with a number of University teachers who work in this area and their positions on this subject are quite compelling. It would seem that the main reason that keeps most of these people away from this place is this idea of NPOV which is not currently accepted as being a valid concept, unless the information seeks to be as inclusive as possible (ie all opera composers, all works for the harp, all newspapers in Chicago) with out making hierarchial statements about them. In discussing this whole concept of NPOV with them, I find that my ideas about what this should mean are indeed changing. This however does not change the framework of what goes on here, but only my own thinking about it.

However, a model has been put forward by a University faculty member who teaches a Women in Music class which would seem to explain this type selective establishment of "canons" (her term) made by a small group of people. The model which has been put forward is as follows -

• • A hypothesis is put forward, such as "Opera generally is written by white European Males between 1600 and 1950" or "Men are better than Women at Math" or any number of things
  • Sources are found to prove this hypothesis
  • Any information which is contrary to this hypothesis is surpressed and people who try to contradict the group vision are either discredited or thrown out of the group.

The selective process just undertaken has been seen by this professer as being a "fascinating" example of this process. The question has now been put forward as to what will happen when you are confronted with other source materials which prove that your position is not necessarily perfectly inclusive. The case with the IAWM letter is interesting in that all of you only saw the information that the Met has never commissioned an opera by a women, yet no one commented on the fact that Ethel Smyth had an opera produced by the Met that received a ten-minute standing ovation. One would think that this information, which isn't readily known, would have been of interest given the subject, but it didn't even register; The point being that the "canon" was established and now the work consists of closing any contradictary holes by either dismissing them or surpressing them.

I really do not care who exactly is on this list, but sources and other information has been provided which would establish probably two or three women on this list (no, I'm not going to say who they are....but they are easily identified). How you deal with this from here on out is not really the question. It is the process itself which is much more interesting. However, I really do not see how you cannot at this point at least examine these sources.

To Answer Mak's specific question (and this response is only an answer to that question, not a response to anyone in particular), I would be extremely surprised if certain women and specificially women working in opera were not involved in this discussion. There is a well-known process where women who have low level positions of power in male dominated hierarchical structures are actually more gender-biased than their male colleagues, as a means of conserving their power within the group. This situation is sometimes refered to in women's studies courses as "Venus de Milo" syndrome because although these women are generating power for themselves individually by accepting and furthering male-dominated agendas, they are actually taking power away from themselves in the long term by further gender-biased thinking. Examples of this would include the female recording executive who refuses to record music by women, women conductors who refuse to programme works by women or women in academics who write books about music who refuse to address the gender specific issues in Musicology. Whether or not this actually taking place here is another question, as I have no concrete idea of anyone's gender and do not presume to make that kind of assumption without being told of it first. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So, just to clarify: your view of POV bias has changed, such that you no longer think that a neutral POV is a possible goal for wikipedia articles, but you want to include women composers in the interests of correcting a social injustice. Is that a fair characterization of your views? Dybryd 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

...I had no idea that doing a Google search for "List important opera composer" (and similar variations) and taking all general lists from any news or academic source and encyclopedic articles found was a sexist act. I must remember Google is a tool of the patriarchy in future. Vanished user ^talk 17:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning POV issues, these discussion are not in the scope of Wikipedia, as my colleagues are currently giving me ideas concering general academic research. Of course, the idea of "NPOV" as it is defined here should be respected as one of the conditions of this particular project. I am simply questioning the validity of this idea as an evaluative tool, but not questioning the way they are defined or used here.

Mr. Vanished user, that particular act is not sexist in and of itself. The question that this University professor (not I) is asking is : did you make an effort to locate sources using other means which are not according to your own way of proceeding? Given that you used your own sources and used your own procedures, it follows that your conclusions will reflect your preliminary hypothesis, which was also based on this information and your usual methods of research--according to the thinking of my correspondant. It has been suggested that a more heteroclytic list could have been found by seeking out sources which would document aspects of this subject which perhaps were not in your personal knowledge base. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

the only qualification I sought to enforce was that it was either from an encyclopedia, published book, major news outlet, or similar, and did not claim a bias, E.g. "A history of Russian opera". In short, something acceptable for Wikipedia citation. Major exclusions were single-composer articles (It's hard to judge from a one-or-two composer article that claims they're important their relative importance), lists of articles completed (e.g. The link you provided, which connected. by link, to a several hundred composers "known or suspected to have composed opera" with requests that they be provided to be added to the main list: No sign of conscious selection of notables; as well as lists that sought to be comprehensive, e.g. the complete contents of the Grove Encyclopedia of Opera.

Lists that state they only contain woman composers fail the "do not claim a bias" angle, meaning they're not directly comparable.

In any case, if I was trying to juggle the results, you can be sure Sullivan would have appeared on all my lists. Vanished user ^talk 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a mention of who the female composer who appeared on four lists was, which is the best NPOV way I can see to showing that there are reasonably notable women in opera. Vanished user ^talk 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So we have a lower standard of notability for women than for men? Good thing we're not sexist! Dybryd 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. But instead of saying the hard to prove, since there's a lot of non-obvious-gender names in the one-list ranking statement that only four contained a woman, this at least makes things somewhat clearer. However, if you think this confirms undue notability to her, change it. I'm merely trying to be as fair as possible to what woman composers there are, whilst keeping them off the main list, and as she began composing in 1980, the brief mention isn't quite so bad for her (as at least two lists seem to cut off before that date) as it would be for earlier composers.

Frankly, with all the shouting and accusations going on, I don't know what the hell to do about the note. The best thing, IMO, is to drop it and give the list down to four or so (2 would be a right bastard to note up, as it'd involve working in another list to the spreadsheet, though I'll do it if need be) in the ranking notes. Vanished user ^talk 23:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that there are no major female opera composers. Wikipedia can't actually fix that by pretending it is otherwise and you have already - several of you - tried far too hard to acommodate what amounts to politically correct revisionism. Ask anyone to name five, ten or twenty opera composers and I sincerely doubt you would get a female name. Is there anybody who has not heard of Wagner or Handel? Rather fewer will have heard of Monteverdi, Gluck or Borodin, and those are some of the more unambiguous ones. Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs, although we can of course record them.

Let the women in music mob loose on list of female composers which has numerous redlinks, and leave it at that. And to be frank the whole issue stinks anyway; to say that women composers are under-represented on Wikipedia is completely arbitrary. One might just as well say that horn players are under represented (of course they are, and I have added several myself). Music coverage in Wikipedia is strongly biased towards modern popular music and weakly biased towards the popular classical repertoire. I don't think I've ever had to delete a vanity article about a living classical composer... Guy 16:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No way! At 4 we would including composers who are simply not "major", and in some cases obscure. 6 is very bottom limit that we should go down to. I refuse to see that common sense should be altered to accomodate bullying, POV pushing and moved goalposts. No. Moreschi 21:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What Moreschi said. I'm not going to be bullied either. Something tells me even if we did try to deal with the lack of a woman composer on the list, the goalposts would simply be moved again. Remember User:Musikfabrik (Wehage? Boisseau?) also complained that the lack of Azerbaidjani composers on this page was POV. --Folantin 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility

This is about the fourth time that rudeness has become a problem in this discussion. I would like to ask all editors to moderate their tone. Dybryd 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I seem to have not realised "Smyth" was a woman. Corrected Vanished user ^talk 21:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Notification

For anyone I haven't contacted personally, but who is more involved than I may have realised, there is a Request for Arbitration ongoing involving Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Musikfabrik, and, well, pretty much the major editors here who dealt with him. I apologise if I failed to notify you personally and you feel involved. Vanished user ^talk 14:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears from his "contribs" record, Jean-Thierry Boisseau has been canvassing at least seven parties to investigate "gender bias" on this page. I thought such canvassing was regarded as unacceptable (see WP:SPAM, section 3). Can anyone clarify this?

This paragraph seems particularly relevant: "If you canvass...It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors who were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Canvassing can be deleted on sight by admins and editors alike and, again, individuals found to have disrupted Wikipedia by canvassing are often blocked."--Folantin 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Members of the IAWM suggested that since this was essentially a gender-bias problem that efforts should be made to interact with the people who are already involved in Wikipedia on those issues. The request made was not to interact on the article, but to comment on the issues of Gender bias, canon formation and the sociological aspects of the situation. You will note that I specifically mentioned that a RfA was underway and that I didn't feel that it was appropriate for people to interact on this article itself, or that RfA discussion. Since most university scholars are not aware of the specific procedures in place here, it has been felt during the discussions currently underway that feminists currently working on the project would be better qualified to examine the situation with the specifics of the project in mind.

Please be aware that the vice-president of the International Music Council (UNESCO) who has a special interest in Women in Music has also been contacted about this issue. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Thierry, the problem here is that the gender bias is historical and external. We cannot fix that. To bend the criteria in order to include women composers in this list would be gender bias. Wikipedia does not do positive discrimination. Guy 21:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Saint-Saëns

• Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921) Of Saint-Saëns's many operas only one, the Biblical Samson et Dalila, has a solid place in the standard repertoire.[32]

Is this really an appropriate description for a list that proports to show MAJOR composers? If they are determined to be major for NPOV reasons we can't then try to say they aren't major when we add the blurbs. That's effectively adding POV. Vanished user ^talk 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV. It's true. Look at the reference (which says, e.g. "To his regret his operas, with the exception of S&D, failed to win the success he had achieved in other...fields."). That might be a shame, but it's not my fault. This list was compiled neutrally. I wouldn't have put S-S on it, but the majority of our sources did.--Folantin 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but the blurb should perhaps talk more about why S&D is important. The selection of material for the blurb should be in accordance with the guides to making the list, in my opinion. If the list is to claim they're major, at least one reason why they might be considered major should appear in the blurb, says I! Vanished user ^talk 11:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, I understand where you're coming from now. I imagine a lot of those lists defined "major opera composer" as someone having at least one piece in the standard rep (Debussy, Beethoven, Borodin, Gustave Charpentier, Mascagni, Leoncavallo and so on probably come into this category). None of the descriptions I supplied are intended to be "set in stone" of course. I just thought I'd finish the list off. Consequently some of them are a bit basic and rather bland. Anyone is free to try to improve them with sensible edits (with references included). If you can do S-S proud, then go ahead (I quite like S&D but I'd say it was major mostly because it was popular. Vocal opportunities maybe? I think there's a discussion of S&D in the archives to this Talk Page). Cheers--Folantin 11:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like, "...which has continued to have a strong hold in the basic repertoire" (sp?) or something of that nature. Or maybe 'Composer of nine(?) operas, of which S&D holds a strond hold in the basic repertoire' or whatever. Just some thoughts... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

At least he wrote more than one. What about Beethoven? I suppose if you're only going to write one opera then it might as well be Fidelio but even so, he's not known as an opera composer, is he? It strikes me that this list actually divides into two divisions - the composers on nine or ten lists seem to be a cut above those lower down the scale, in terms of their influence on opera anyway. Guy 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been saying all along that the ones on 8 or more lists seem to be a real list of "major" composers, whereas the ones who are on 7 but not 8 seem to be a real step down. But I would agree that the 9 or 10 list is even more clearly just the major opera composers. -- Ssilvers 22:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This "4 vs. 7 vs. 9" stuff really is pretty POV. My feeling is that the most neutral way to make the list is to include only those on every cited list. As far as I can see, the only problem with this from a common-sense standpoint would be the exclusion of Bellini.

The best alternative would be including everyone on more than one list, which would make the page rather unwieldy. Dybryd 22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

8 might be better, but could someone check I counted Mascagni and Leoncavallo right? It's odd one's on 7 and the other's on 8. Think I blundered somewhere. In short: I'd be happier with a higher cutoff if I knew the proofreading had been done. I don't think, however, that "everyone on more than one list" is that practical: Trying to figure out who people are at anything below 4 is really rather difficult. Vanished user ^talk 00:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Hmm. Actually: How about this option: Instead of just the one option, we could use templates for the composer biographies, and then set up a range of pages: say 10, 8,7,6, and 4 (9 and 5 could be done as well if desired.) Then we could have buttons: Add more composers - remove less-frequently cited composers. (Things get so obscure at 3 and 2 that it'd probably be not-too-difficult to get cites if needed to show that those composers are overly obscure, at least in opera.) - this removes POV, since it changes it from our selection to an interactive tool that lets the user choose how obscure he wants to go, letting him decide what seems right for him. 7, as the midpoint of the "reasnable" range seems a good automatic choice.

It might be an idea to have special pages used when counting down stepways that bold the newly-added composers. [anfd wash-out the just-removed ones when stepping up?]Vanished user ^talk 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bit too complicated, I think. Let's stick with one page. As I've said above, I think a "mathematically objective" case can be made for 6 votes (composers on over 50% of the lists). I wouldn't really want to go below that point. It might be possible simply to list all the composers who got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 votes at the bottom of the page in the explanation of the results (as we've done for the others)*. Then bluelink them (or redlink them as the case may be). But no fully referenced descriptions for anyone below at least 6, please - otherwise this page will turn into an unmanageable monster.

(*)In other words, like this:

The composers included on six of the lists were: Jacopo Peri, Alessandro Scarlatti, Samuel Barber, Bartók, Giulio Caccini, Chabrier... And so on.

Of course, this means that all the composers in the "Rough Guide" list will have to be added to the final list scores. I only worked out the results of all ten lists for those on 6 votes or more. --Folantin 07:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We have to be reasonable. There's a difference between that and POV. And 5 and below there are composers who are not only not major, they are flagrantly obscure. Going down would make a mockery of this list's claim to be a list of "major" composers. I think a NPOV case can be made out for using composers who had cites on a majority of the lists: i.e 6, per Folantin. Nobody is going quibble with "The composers who were represented on the majority on the following extant lists are here listed, with referenced annontations etc..", nor, for that matter, should they. The other thing is this: we shouldn't spend too much time on this. The list is basically finished, and even got complimented in the RFAR yesterday. An identical rescue job is going to have to be performed at the List of important operas to save that from AfD, assuming everyone's up the battle. Best, Moreschi 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and I'm still in favour of a page-move to List of opera composers considered major. Musikfabrik instantly killed that a while back, which meant that nobody else even discussed it. What to people think? Moreschi).

Yes, I think we're basically done here. If anyone wants to take it down to 6 (an "objective" number, as I've explained), then I'm prepared to help out with the descriptions and references. Otherwise, let it stand. Three weeks of discussions are quite enough for one page. I have no strong opinion on a page move. I think it's sufficiently POV as it is now we've given a full explanation of the selection process. But if others feel differently, then it's no problem. --Folantin 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, basically done except for fixing up descriptions a bit. Agree otherwise. Is it worth mentioning the connection between Barber and Menotti, d'ye think? It's probably musically relevant, but, as it was also sexual, might be a bit, well, tabloid for a very short description. Vanished user ^talk 12:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added the descriptions for the "sixers", so we now have an "objective" list. Some of those descriptions need cleaning up (e.g. Schreker was an Austrian not a German) but since Wikipedia seems to be being temperamental at the momenty, I'll leave that till later (or to other kind souls). Some of my descriptions (e.g. Gerswhin) are particularly uninspired. Fans should feel free to improve them. Lastly, I don't think the relationship between Barber and Menotti explains why they might be considered major opera composers--Folantin 12:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think six is a little low, but since it brings in Peri, whose contribution is to my mind quite significant, as well as Gershwin and Chabrier, I'm not going to quibble too hard. Guy 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Relative importance of opera among the composers' works

Great work on these lists! I was thinking it might be nice to note (in bold? italics?) in some way composers who are primarily or nearly exclusively for their contributions to opera. It might also make it possible to include some cases from below cut-off zone (3 to 4) who are primarily operatic. I don't believe though it will generally help the ambiguity. Certainly Wagner, Verdi, Halevy, and Pfitzner are bold and Schoenberg, Dvorak, and Beethoven are not; but Mozart, Adams, R. Strauss? It might be interesting. --Myke Cuthbert 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but it risks readding POV or second guessing the list (particularly adding composers below the cut - I wouldn't). Possibly dangerous. I suspect it'd be best to wait a bit - this NPOV-making has just finished, and I think everyone's a bit worn out, and not up to secondary work. Vanished user ^talk 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure how we could do any of those things. If we were selective about including a few composers on 3 or 4 votes, then we'd be right back where we started with accusations of non-neutral POV levelled at us. Remember, this isn't our own choice of the major opera composers but an attempt to create an objective list. Though in my personal opinion one or two of the experts' choices are distinctly odd, I think no truly major composer of opera has been omitted. I think we've taken this list as far as it can go objectively and it is now for all intents and purposes finished. Cheers --Folantin 08:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for entertaining the suggestion. The objections are good ones. --Myke Cuthbert 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)