Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Instrumentation

Classical music articles for pieces scored for a complex orchestra usually feature a section called "Instrumentation" or "Orchestration". First, they should all be unified.

This topic is a controversial one currently. There is the format issue. Somehow, this issue must be resolved and put on the page as a guideline! Any comments? — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of a simple, space-efficient format, for example: "Mahler's Symphony No. 11 is scored for large orchestra, which includes three flutes and piccolo, three oboes and English horn, three clarinets in Bb and bass clarinet, six horns, four trumpets, three trombones and bass trombone, tuba, percussion including celeste, cowbells, and upside-down prepared piano, timpani, two harps, organ, soprano voice, and strings. There are prominent parts for solo violin as well as for solo viola, and the cowbells play offstage." Or something similar. I think it's a bad idea to break out the instrumentation into the "outline" format I've been seeing recently, since it isn't expandable into sub-paragraphs and consumes unneeded space. Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

on the Mahler symphonies, please take a look at their format. Before one changes them, it should be discussed. Their format differs from many other articles. The format was almost implemented into Beethoven's nine symphonies. As a vote, I would go with the space-efficient format, but with complex scoring of big orchestras, like Mahler's, I prefer the new format. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 02:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all I agree that consensus on this issue is of great importance, so I encourage all those who are interested to participate in this discussion. I am strongly in favour of the single-paragraph format, as has recently been implemented to a large extent by for instance ILike2BeAnonymous, and myself. Other solutions might be necessary for Mahler symphonies, for instance, but this should be regarded as an exception to the rule, and should be handled on a case by case basis on the affected articles' talk pages. EldKatt (Talk) 07:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think other solutions might be necessary for Mahler symphonies? Does the "for instance" imply you think it's necessary for any large (needs a definition) orchestra? If so, what's the size cutoff? Is it the addition of the auxiliary woodwinds? Having 4 flutes instead of 2 doesn't make the list any larger in either format.

Actually, I think one big contributor to the problem is the percussion, as I recently encountered in Turangalîla-Symphonie. A list of instruments in parentheses looks ugly in either format (it fells like you have to take a big mental breath and read them all at once), but I don't know a better way. David Brooks 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(postscript) - oh, wait, I guess you're echoing Andy's complex scoring of big orchestras. But isn't that exactly when you want to be more space-efficient? Post-postscript: most LP sleeves and CD liner notes that mention orchestration (usually with larger orchestras) go for inline, in my experience, so we do have dead-tree precedent. David Brooks 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One other dead-tree precedent: the program you get at a symphony concert will usually say something like "the work is scored for [compact, inline list ]." I find this quite readable and wouldn't want to see a chart. Provided we link every instrument to its article, the list format gives enough information. Opus33 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to David: The Mahler symphonies (some, not all) differ not in that the orchestra is large, but in that there are many doublings and prescribed reinforcements making it typographically more complex. I mentioned these because I came across them as I went through a long list of articles to implement the inline format, but skipped them because I considered it too much work for me. I said "might" because I'm far from sure. I said "for instance" because they're probably not unique. I have no idea about a size cutoff, because it's not my job to develop a complete guideline. I hope this answers some questions. EldKatt (Talk) 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(<<going back up thataway) Here's my recommendation, both the "rule" and the exception to the rule (i.e., for larger, more complex works like Mahler): use what I call the "standard compact list" format that others here have endorsed. The simple list in prose format.

For works with lots more instruments, see what I did for Mahler's 8th; basically the compact form divided into sections (woodwinds, brass, perc., etc.). This is mainly to accomodate the large number of auxiliary percussion instruments.

I'm not married to this latter format; if someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. But it seems to be a good compromise between a really terse format and the horribly long expanded bulleted list that that guy Justin whatshisname started putting into articles. Be interested to hear what others think.

By the way, the section should definitely be titled Instrumentation, not "Orchestration". Orchestration is, technically speaking, a process of composition, not the list of instruments used for a piece. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

All right, I've given it a try. Please feel free to comment/revise. Opus33 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the draft idea so wordy? Everything is written out (e.g. numbers and such). And why is only the San Francisco Symphony's example used?

The reason I hate those paragraph forms is because they are so difficult to read at a glace. You have to look at it for quite some time and try to discern what instruments are present in the score. That is why I wanted to make the new format in a list form. The paragraph forms are too hard to look at. It also looks unsightly to have all of those instrument names clumped into one large bundle. I think ILike2BEAnonymous' "compromise" on Mahler's 8th is insulting, and it still looks bad.

All of the information is from original scores. (Yes, it is accurate) I have changed the lists according to the source, which is how things should be in an encyclopedia. Never is the “Orchestration Page” (page that has all the instrument listed) in these scores written in paragraph form, nor is it listed as "Instrumentation" (And if it is, the piece is a non-orchestra piece.)

Just thought I would share my four cents.

Justin Tokke 18:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding just a couple of points here:

• "Insulting"? Your skin must be pretty thin.
• Regarding the instrumentation page in scores, looking at my (miniature) score for Tchaikovsky's 6th, there's no list at all; the first page of the score just has staves for every instrument, so it's a vertical list.
• Sometimes the best guide is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Somehow, people have been able to muddle through figuring out instrumentation (don't know why you insist on calling it "orchestration", which is something altogether different) for musical works for at least a century now using a simple list format. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the section has been added. I slightly modified it; please revert if opposed. I personally believe that the last paragraph should be more open to the new format, introduced by Mr. Tokke. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true as Tokke says that an instrumentation list, when present in a score, is usually in the list form he proposes. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a score, and thus different rules apply. For instance, I think we can all agree that we should write "flutes" instead of "flauti", even though the latter is perhaps more common in the context of a score. Regarding the titling, a trip to dictionary.com, or any printed dictionary, should verify that instrumentation is without any doubt the best word to use. Finally, I would like to ask Mr. Tokke to follow WP:CIV. Calling a good-faith edit "insulting" does nothing but make this discussion more taxing for myself and others. EldKatt (Talk) 20:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a score which has a FULL PAGE dedicated to instrumentation is an entirely different context. Here, we simply do not want so much white space. Why do you think lists of works are branched off? Because they create extra length that is simply overbearing compared to the rest of the article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What s/he said. David Brooks 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How was that edit in "good faith"? To totaly change something without discussion or warning? I think not.

BTW, I agree that all of the aditional string stuff is used and not crossed out.Justin Tokke 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You might also call it being bold, which is not something wrong. It was not in any way in bad faith, and it surprises me that the demand for discussion-before-editing is coming from the guy who's been pretty much ignoring any attempts at establishing consensus through discussion (see your talk page). That's in the past, though. Let's try to make this discussion both pleasant and fruitful. EldKatt (Talk) 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Opus33's addition to the page helps? It seems to reach a fairly good consensus. Some points I would like to bring up: few people seem to be supporting the largely expanded format. Most are in agreement with the paragraph form. Unless some people shall step up and defend the expanded format more clearly, the consensus is currently something like what Opus33 put on the Wikipedia project page already. I am not a host of this discussion, however. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

A radical proposition: why not slap it all into a table and float it to the right, then explicate in accompanying text? ALTON .ıl 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Like we used to say, let's not and say we did. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that that might be a good idea. Either that or some kind of template (I don't exactly know how templates work, so I don't know if one would work here. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that idea that much. It may be better just to put it as text in the article. A box or a table can attract too much attention, I think. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A few items:

1. I'm not 100% sold on "Instrumentation" over "Orchestration" for the section header. I think it should be standardized, but both terms do get used, and Instrumentation has a different meaning for non-musicians. What about a disambiguous neutral header: say, Forces, or Performing forces, or some such? That might also aid clarity in describing, eg, Histoire du Soldat, the Berio Sinfonia (no article?!), or Clapping Music.
2. Whatever standard is applied, the Instrumentation (music) and Orchestration articles need (coordinated) work.
3. I only discovered the String section article via Opus33's draft guideline...& I don't think I'm alone in that. I think lots of articles link "strings" to String instrument, which is less helpful; that may be why so many go on to say "(violins, violas, etc)". This may be a cleanup project...
4. After voting for paragraph style, I remembered that for Luto 3, the only forces list I've actually edited in (w/ help fr Tony), I used a hybrid para format that does use bullets--does that list approximate the alternate style for "complex" scores that folks have in mind?
5. As a rule I think the lists should try to at least approximate the number of percussionists, in addition to listing the things they hit.
6. Lastly, the guideline itself might need to be bulleted, as the last para is right now a bit confusing.

—Turangalila ^talk 09:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeing to Turangalila's comments. The bulleted "list" for Symphony No. 3 (Lutoslawski) is the "compromise", where instruments are grouped in families. It's not really a hybrid format. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The String section article is brand new this week. Is there ever a need to clarify the details of the string orchestration? Maybe not in the numbers -- which vary from orchestra to orchestra -- but in the number of parts? Lots of Mozart historians make a big deal out of presence of "divided violas".DavidRF 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably difficult to make a hard and fast rule. Do you point out that the extremes of divisi in Don Quixote imply a minimum number of strings? (might be too much detail) Or that some 20th Century composers (Xenakis comes to mind for some reason) specify exact numbers? (probably yes, important to the structure) Or that Berlioz specified some minimum numbers (probably yes, for historical interest). David Brooks 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An idea: use expandable lists. I know very little about the Wiki code, but perhaps there is a way - template or non-template - to append a showable/hidable table to the end of the instrumentation section. (Labor intensive, I know.) That way, those who find paragraph form confusing are able to see the organization more visually.

Instrumentation vs. Orchestration: One-hundred percent, hands down "instrumentation." Orchestration means, for example, when the piccolos come in. Not how many piccolos there are - that's instrumentation.

I will vote once I know how you feel about the above ideas. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 00:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you asked for it: yea for your endorsement of instrumentation over orchestration (actually, technically speaking, orchestration is the task of assigning parts—melody and harmony—to particular instruments, but it's clearly different from instrumentation). But unfortunately nay to the "expandable list" idea. For the vast majority of pieces, the standard, compact list form is more than adequate, and in any case is what you'll find out there in the Real World in writing about classical music. The few more complex pieces can be easily handled by a list divided into sections, as the modification proposed here, somewhere. Such an expandable table (which, so far as I know, isn't possible here anyhow: Wikipedia doesn't incorporate any Javascript elements, which I think would be required for such a scheme) would be overkill. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To avoid starting a edit war, I'll put my reasoning here - cor anglais is a far more common name for the English horn. This is shown by the fact the Wiki page is actually Cor anglais rather than English horn (which redirects). There are people who have images of the French horn and brass instruments if you mention the English horn to them. Centy 10:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

There is currently a poll running for this discussion. It is open to all. The poll will close on Sunday, April 22 at noon UTC. I am not familiar as to how polls are run, but just sign your name under one of the four categories.

The poll has now closed. The general opinion is to divide up the instruments into their respective families. (point 3). That would seem to be the general consensus. If it is still not agreed upon, discuss this below the poll. (Some users are supporting the list, while some are introducing the table.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy M. Wang (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

• Support the expanded list format for compositions with orchestras.
  • Support, Justin Tokke 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support the expanded list format for compositions with fairly large or complex orchestras. Should resort to the paragraph form for other compositions.
  • Support, Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, although I come close to the "oppose the expanded list completely" position. I think the expanded list should be used only in extraordinary circumstances (as extraordinary as Gruppen is what I mean) and I oppose the table as being too distracting. But I think the next step is not to use the vote to create a policy, but to construct some side-by-side examples from archetypes of classical, romantic, early 20th century, and totally weird. I'm sure that will help the vote. And, I'm not as passionate as I sound about this, because I have written very few such articles. David Brooks 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd put it this way: support an expanded list only when the instrumentation detail is a key part of the artistic statement, not when it is just a means to achieving the composer's vision, however grandiose. If there are any interesting artistic or historical quirks (first published use of the contrabuffoon, the triangle is treated as a virtuoso instrument), they can be handled in an additional sentence. Have I said enough for someone who's not passionate about it? David Brooks 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Does not support the list format, but supports the division of instruments into their families (woodwind, brass, etc.) still in paragraph form, and only in special cases. This will be used only for unusual compositions with unorthodox orchestras with complex doublings. Resort to the usual paragraph form (space-efficient) for most compositions.
  • Support, but only in the case of pieces that justify it (i.e., those with complex doublings or large percussion sections, like Mahler's 8th). +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (unsigned, from User:Opus33)
  • Support, per conditions of ILike2BeAnonymous. Should be avoided if it's intelligible without it. EldKatt (Talk) 05:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, but with the general caveat that voting is not a substitute for discussion. While in general I would prefer the paragraph format, which is elegant, space-saving, and close to a universal standard, I don't think we want a hard rule about this: there might always be a strange exception: maybe there is a modern piece where the players do unusual things besides play their instruments, which need to be listed beside each: but these cases would be extremely rare. Consider Black Angels, which has only four players, but the outline format makes sense for that kind of composition. Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, noting that (hypothetical) consensus on this issue doesn't finish the debate, but leads to further style and consistency questions.—Turangalila ^talk 08:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the expanded list format completely.

• Have some other idea or no opinion. (Please sign and explain your idea.)
  • There was a complaint that the instrument numbers should not be spelled out. My idea: spell it out if the instrumentation is simple, like Beethoven. Don't spell if the instrumentation is complex, like Mahler. About parentheses, just phrase it appropriately in the paragraph form so you don't need parentheses. Avoid parentheses. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what does "spelled out" mean -- 2 vs two? Or numbers of string players? (the latter I think should be given when the composer specifies...) Parentheses are I fear really tough to avoid in works involving doubling, and listing percussion instruments the same way as, say, brass, could lead to the impression Mahler 5 requires 8 percussionists (actually the list format currently does just that!). —Turangalila ^talk 08:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Numbers spelled out. Is there a need to spell it out? However, that is not a big issue. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In regards to polling see WP:POLL and WP:!VOTE (though personally, I think we should just follow WP:IAR). I favor the table/template idea (see comment above). Instrumentation ios something that applies to virtually every non solo piece. I see no reason why it shouldn't be put in a standard, easy to find and read format. I think that some kind of table would work well for this. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 20:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I also like the table idea. Justin Tokke 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the table idea, I must say that I really don't understand what exactly the proposal is. If someone could draft a demonstrative example of it in use, I would be very grateful and also able to comment it. EldKatt (Talk) 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive discussion and poll?

For the sake of those of us with primitive equipment I'd like to propose moving this discussion to its own separate archive page, and updating the links on the project page. It seems like a decision has been reached which renders this more-or-less moot or historical, and it's super long. I'll leave some time to see if there are any objections. thx—Turangalila talk 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Opus33 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox, Template and Categories

I've made a template page for our userbox more in line with the other WikiProjects: {{User WPClassical}} and it also looks neater. Is it OK if I update the front page with the new link?

Secondly I think we should also have a template so we can put on the talk pages of classical music articles that this article falls into the scope of WP Classical like they do for other WikiProjects. This will allow us in the future to rate each article.

Lastly I've noticed that the categories are quite organised. I hope we can keep it this way rather than letting the number of categories explode and then making it very difficult for authors of new articles to remember which categories their article(s) fall under. Also maybe we should note somewhere on the front page how many classical music categories we have.

Centy 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do change the userbox, make sure that a bot updates it on people's userpages. I don't see any difference between the two myself, but whatever. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 03:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made the bot request. Call me slightly obessesive compulsive, but our userbox seemed slightly smaller than the standard size. Centy 13:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've edited the float properties of the userbox. Currently it forces the text to go above and below the userbox. This is OK when incorporated into prose like on this page, but if you notice on your userpage for example, the old userbox messes about the table due to the fact it doesn't have floating properties. Hopefully the new userbox will correct this. Centy 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's actually policy now that userbox templates are supposed to be hosted on subpages in the [User:] namespace. I think it's calle the Great Userbox Migration or some such; you can do a Google search. It's probably worth checking before the Template gets deleted or whatever.—Turangalila _talk 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we are OK as our userbox is of encyclopediac value given if identifies users as part of a WikiProject. It seems most other WikiProjects' userboxes still a Template page rather than a userpage. Centy 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the difference now. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 18:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Style: Naming notes or keys (see MoS)

I've copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music), Please add new comments there, thanks.—Turangalila talk

I wanted to call attention here to my attempt at the music-MoS talkpage to generate a better consensus standard for writing the names of "black key" notes or keys on WP. Majority usage right now seems to favor writing out "sharp" or "flat," since those Unicode ^#'s and ^b's are a browser access problem...but there's alot of variation in using the hyphenated form ("C-sharp") versus the non-hyphenated ("C sharp").

I strongly favor the hyphenated form. It's one note and should be one word; I think most browsers won't put a linebreak in the middle of the hyphenated form; there's a difference between a B-flat and a "flat B"; and, well, I just like it better. To me "A-flat major" just looks right, while "A flat major" could be a two-dimensional commander. My books and scores mostly use the symbols, but seem to favor the hyphen when they don't.

Anyway, I think the style should be consistent if possible, and I'd appreciate folks chiming in on either side -- probably better over at MoS page. Thanks, —Turangalila talk 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Until the actual Wikipages for B flat major etc. get hyphenated, I would be wary of going on a hyphenating spree just yet. Centy 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm hoping to achieve a consensus for the MoS first, then change/move the article titles as necessary. Redirects should be available in either case, but my object is a standardized style, which doesn't yet exist. —Turangalila talk 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Key names shouldn't be hyphenated: I believe that if you look at the literature, "naked" keys are the norm. (Points for humor by Turangalila, though, as in the answer to the riddle: "What do you get if you drop a piano down a mineshaft?"). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the points, but I'm not sure there even is a "norm". Most books on my shelves use the symbols; among those that don't, my Baker's, my Maynard Solomon Beethoven, and the translations in all my Dover scores use hyphens, while my Paul Henry Lang and Kobbe's use the "naked" style. I just think within WP it should be one or the other, & personally I feel the hyphenated style is clearer. —Turangalila talk 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music), Please add new comments there, thanks.—Turangalila talk

More style: Instrumentation...Orchestration...Forces?

I mentioned this above; either it got lost in the bullets vs paragraph discussion, or maybe it was just ignored as a dumb idea, but what the hell...

Consensus seems to favor the "the piece is scored for..." section being titled Instrumentation. But there's still alot of dissonance out there; many articles still use Orchestration. Plus there's some ambiguity in Instrumentation:

• what about pieces with singers and dancers, or no "instruments" at all?
• for nonmusicians it probably calls to mind the stuff on the dashboard of their car...
• looking it up on WP won't help much (I did revise Instrumentation (music) a bit...)

I note that the guideline here uses the phrase musical forces. What about using that, or at least mentioning it (or just Forces or some other variant) as an option?

Like I said, I might just be overthinking this, but I thought I'd toss it out there...—Turangalila talk 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• • If not "Instrumentation", perhaps "List of instruments and voices", as printed on many scores of symphonies. But currently, I think Instrumentation is fine. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 13:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, there's also something to be said for letting individual editors make informed judgments - let's not micromanage. I think all that is really at stake is IL2BA's dislike (which I think is reasonable) for "orchestration" used to mean "instrumentation", and other than that, a flexible system would be best. Cheers, Opus33 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; but the current language on the project page ("strong consensus...") is rather prescriptive. I know I'm the one who put that wording in, but I didn't want to soften it or add other options w/o consensus.—Turangalila talk 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even more style: instrument names

After a minor Edit border-skirmish today over cor anglais vs english (or English) horn, ILike2BeAnonymous dropped me a line mentioning both that and the issue of capitalization, particularly for things like E(e)nglish horn and F(f)rench horn. I thought it might as well be brought up here (perhaps at the MoS too?)...

Personally (not citing any authority) I'd go for a general rule favoring

1. English names, except where the foreign name is universal, like oboe d'amore or glockenspiel,
2. lowercase words except in piece titles like Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta,
3. roman type (as opposed to italics) always.

What sayeth the jury? —Turangalila talk 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this one miniature point (the capitalization of terms which contain normally-capitalized names, e.g. "French"), the authority I cited Turangalila was my old copy of the little Chicago style manual (the one on term papers, theses, etc., not the big Manual of Style), which says that terms which include proper names that have become common terms in English should not be capitalized. The example she gives is "french doors". So by this rule, none of the above—french horn, english horn, cor anglais—should be capitalized. (I should add that this is probably a losing battle, considering the context [Wikipedia].)

I would concur about no italics for these terms. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it back. Before you edit, please, please read your userpage for my reasoning. I would argue cor anglais is more easy for new people to classical music follow. Say English horn and they'll think French horn and shiny brass instrument, not a big oboe thing. I firmly believe this would give them the wrong impression - eg. if they think a brass horn plays the melody of the Largo from the New World Symphony. Centy 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The user-friendly thing cuts both ways; to my ear using the French when a perfectly good English version is out there has a snobbish feel. I think the better question is more what folks'll hear and read in the real world, on the radio for instance, but that might actually be a bit of an Eng-US/Eng-UK thing. An unscientific survey of scores on my shelf breaks down pretty evenly between French, German and Italian names (the German ones capitalize "Englisch" fwiw); but then my Boosey score of El Salon Mexico, a British edition of an American piece on Mexican themes, has all the instrument names in Italian, so who the hell knows. As long as the wikilinks end up in the right place it's not as important as the style questions IMO.

Maybe I just like English horn better because it fits better in the bassonist's lyrics for the opening of the Rite of Spring  ;-) —Turangalila talk 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the Wiki page is cor anglais so I guess it's just better to link straight to that page. It's the same reason we say timpani instead of kettle drums. Centy 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

GA and FA status

We have a worrying small number of classical music articles at FA status compared to that of more contemporary music. I know there's been a collaborative drive to bring Beethoven to FA status.

However, maybe we should also look at bringing some of the articles on classical works to GA status. Some of them will have too little to bring them to FA status, but surely with enough references on the basic structure of the music and a little section of its history, background, and cultural impact (all with adequate references) should surely bring some of the pieces to GA status.

Being utterly biased, I'm hoping to bring Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn) up to GA status once I lay my hands on a authoritative text. However I see great potential in the two big Rachmaninov Piano concertos and the Beethoven symphonies. There must be a mountain of literature out there, surely enough to bring at least GA status to these pages!

Centy 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Centy, I diffidently recommend that we not make a big effort in this direction. The problem is that if you make a public effort to get FA or GA status for a classical music article, then you attract the involvement of people who don't know anything about classical music, and the article actually gets worse! [By this I mean: unsourced edits, bad prose, contentless infoboxes, and irrelevant pop culture references.] Better to take quiet pride in doing a careful and conscientious job, and let the FA and GA awards keep on going to articles about sitcoms. Just a thought... Yours truly, Opus33 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What you said. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not oppose working to bring these to FA status, but like Opus I agree that the best way to go about this is the way the classical music clique has always been, quietly. I would love working on all those pieces mentioned, but I never see the benefit of creating a collaboration, because members will inevitably fail to persevere till the goal. Speaking of which, we should work together on that newsletter... ALTON .ıl 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Major Keys

Copying something I wrote in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music):

Hopefully this will be less contentious than the whole hyphen discussion. When a piece a music is written in a major key, can we make it a policy to actually write in major instead of just leaving it out. Eg. it will be Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D major, instead of just Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D.

There are many pages where anything in a major key loses the word major. Although we may know what we mean, this is highly ambiguous and confusing for new people. (Someone once asked me how Mozart wrote an entire symphony using just one note).

Centy 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)