Talk:Wedding Day at Troldhaugen

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Title must be "Wedding Day at Troldhaugen"

That's what 1,000% of English-speaking people call it. There is zero case for calling it Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen - zero. Can it be moved asap, please? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take it up with Gerda, once I don't know if there's any convention as for this matter. Thank you Jack ! Krenakarore ^TK 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The convention is a Wikipedia rule - see Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles.

Now, this can be overridden when a subject is in fact generally known by a foreign title, such as La bohème or Il trovatore, for example. But this Grieg piece most definitely does not fall into that category. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How about changing such rules? Grieg didn't think in English, there are redirects, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Why change very sensible rules? Would one expect to be redirected to an article called "Messe in H moll", in an English encyclopedia, when one searched for Mass in B minor? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't suggest a German title for the Mass because Bach didn't name the piece (not h-Moll-Messe nor anything else). He didn't name the cantatas, but they still come under German titles (first line of text), - only the German names until I added the BWV #, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope Gerda will trust the English native speakers on this point: the piece is always referred to in English language contexts by its English title. It would look very eccentric (indeed, very pedantic) to retain the Norwegian title here. Incidentally, this is not so for Bach cantatas: English speakers just try to cope with the German titles for these, so German titles for these works are appropriate on WP.] Opus33 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

+1 for Wedding Day at Troldhaugen. This will require a WP:RM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also wondered why this had the Norwegian title, and agree with the move to the English name. --xensyria^T 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pretty clear case where it should use the English title. The use of it is overwhelming in English sources about Grieg and his songs, and in recordings and concert programme notes. Voceditenore (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My compliments on Gerda's inestimable contribution to this article, but I tend to agree with Jack on this one. I see no need for WP:RM either once it seems pretty clear by now which side this talk is leaning to. Thank you all Krenakarore ^TK 10:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just checked back and found it hadn't been moved yet, so I've added the requested move section below, which should be dealt with once the backlog has been cleared. --xensyria^T 00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. MikeLynch (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen → Wedding Day at Troldhaugen – When deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, we should follow English-language usage, as per WP:UE, which the consensus above shows to be "Wedding Day at Troldhaugen". --xensyria^T 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - despite the specialist Grieg-biographical sources used in article supporting the Norwegian name, - which I've checked and expanded into full text refs, mainly "Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen (Wedding Day at Troldhaugen)" - this isn't a song/cantata with a sung Norwegian text, just the name of piano piece, and the majority of non specialist (i.e. not Grieg biography, simply books on piano music) sources use the English translation. No contrary specific guidance on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Yes indeed, as per Ictu's remarks and the discussion above. Opus33 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support as I wrote above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major Work?

Hi Cote d'Azur & Gerda Arendt. Should the title be in italics or quotation marks? Does it match MOS:TITLE's definition of a major work:

• Non-generic names of major independent compositions:
  • Musicals, operas, operettas and other self-contained pieces of musical theatre
  • Named oratorios, cantatas, motets, orchestral works, and other compositions beyond the scope of a single song or dance
    • Symphony No. 2 by Gustav Mahler, known as the Resurrection Symphony ... (generic vs. non-generic name)
    • Stravinsky's Cantata is a work for soprano, tenor, female choir, and instrumental ensemble ... (unnamed cantata)
    • On an Overgrown Path (Czech: Po zarostlém chodníčku) is a cycle of thirteen piano pieces written by Leoš Janáček ... (named piano composition)

or a minor work:

• Songs, instrumentals, arias, numbers in a musical, movements of longer musical piece, album tracks, singles, and other short musical compositions: The Beatles' song "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" appears on the album also titled Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

and WP:NCM:

• Non-generic names are italicised, except those of individual dances, songs, hymns, lieder and arias

Wedding Day at Troldhaugen is an individual piece, and so a minor work, which should not be italicised.

The section of WP:NCM on quotation marks:

• "Quotation marks should be avoided, except for the name of a theme in a set of variations in a generic article title"

Applies to the naming of articles (in the same way that short stories - even "stand alone" short stories - don't have quotation marks in their article title; e.g. Blind Alley not "Blind Alley"; Wedding Day at Troldhaugen not "Wedding Day at Troldhaugen"), not the content of articles or templates. It's not saying that the styling the titles of minor works of music should be different from other minor works.

What are your thoughts? ‑‑Yodin^T 11:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My thought: we want to show that something is a title of an individual piece, in this case: show somehow that we don't speak about a real wedding day. We distinguish two kinds of works: major (italic) and minor (quotation marks), with whatever falls not in minor is major. This falls not in "individual dances, songs, hymns, lieder and arias", so is a major work. Keep simple. If you see short stories without quotation marks, add the quotation marks ;) - The thing to avoid is quotation marks in article names, which is a completely different topic and doesn't apply here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wedding Day at Troldhaugen is a solo piano piece in a collection of 66 piano pieces, an individual piece, therefore title in italics. Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the replies, I get where you're coming from now... do you mind if I open this up to see other editors via wikiproject, MOS, VP etc.? :) ‑‑Yodin^T

No, why should I. I write articles on classical compositions for six years now, but always learning. So far I learned that symphonies, sonatas etc. are generic (Symphony No. 8 (Dvořák)), vocal major pieces italic (Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161) and hymns in quotation marks (Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud), but not in the article title, only when referred to in the text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the italics in December 2012, and I still think that is correct. This is a part of Grieg's Lyric Pieces which is a major work and properly in italics. The individual pieces are more in the class of songs and should be in quotation marks. There's a similar situation with Schumann's Album for the Young, Waldszenen, Kinderszenen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see how Lyric Pieces is a piece of which this would be a part (guideline: "movements of longer musical piece"). This will be performed individually. - What exactly does "instrumentals" man in the above quotation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How can a musical composition have 66 parts, please? Cote d'Azur (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't ask me ;) - I think it's a collection, not a composition, and the pieces in it are individual stand-alone pieces which I would therefore have italic. We even render the movements of a Bach cantata italic, or is that wrong? - Anyway, the discussion is now at more general boards, not here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• borderline, so I'd go with whatever gets consensus:
  • Re. "How can a musical composition have 66 parts": Mikrokosmos has 153 parts – number of parts is not the issue.
  • Compare Lyric Suite (Grieg)#Structure (four of the Lyric Pieces organised into a Suite after orchestration) and Lyric Suite (Grieg)#Other arrangements of Lyric Pieces (two Lyric Pieces separately orchestrated). Also Op. 65 No. 6 has been orchestrated but afaik never in connection with other orchestral pieces.
  • Sometimes opus numbers or catalogue numbers can help, one opus number or catalogue number usually representing one work: applied to the Lyric Pieces (piano version), that would mean ten works (each of the ten books has a separate opus number), with the six to eight pieces in each book subdivisions of the work. Many of these pieces have indeed names referring to dances or songs. However an opus number, or a "book" of compositions can contain individual compositions: six concertos or three sonatas or whatever.
  • In this case, I'd lean somewhat towards individual composition, so italicised: didn't he write it for his wife for an anniversary, only later adding it to one of his piano books? It doesn't have the look and feel of a movement of a larger work, nor of a dance or song as such. Also, as said, its orchestral version is afaik never organised into a Suite or whatever. If stressing the "part six of Op. 65" aspect, in quote marks would be acceptable too, so I'd have no problem whatever way the consensus goes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Lyric Pieces, like Mikrokosmos, is not a composition with many parts, but the title of the collection. Cote d'Azur (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach is a collection, yet it contains both italicized (e.g. No. 3 Wer nur den lieben Gott lässt walten) as non-italicized pieces (e.g. No. 1 "Applicatio"). In other words, the collection concept is not really an indication in either direction for the individual pieces.

IMHO, it more or less works like this: (first question:) is it a separate work? (I'd say yes for Op. 65 No. 6 – but close to no), then (second question:) is it a dance or song or some such short work? (I'd say no for Op. 65 No. 6 – but close to yes). So leaning towards italicized (in other words closer to Siegfried Idyll than to "Ride of the Valkyries"), but could live with answering either of the two questions differently, leading to a different outcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I won't press the issue without reviewing the whole area first, but would be cautious of the definition of classical composition major/minor works diverging from the definitions of other media (e.g. literature, pop-music, etc.). The closest analogy I can see is of Lyric Peices being like a series of short story anthologies, with the pieces being equivalent to short stories... you could then argue that some of them might be the equivalent of novellas rather than short stories (and so major works), but with Grieg's playing of Wedding Day at Troldhaugen coming in at only just over 2 minutes, there's very little case I can see for claiming it to be a major work, unless the only comparisons are with other, similarly atypical "major works", in which case classical music has diverged. If it's not the equivalent of a song when compared to, say, a modern album containing a number of songs (some of which are released as singles first, but all are considered minor works), then what is it? :) ‑‑Yodin^T 18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)