Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Death and the Maiden (song)/Gasp! Copyvio

At Death and the Maiden (song) there is a copyrighted translation of the song - with the copyright notice blazenly displayed on the page!

I didn't want to summarily delete it, as it is so key to the article. Does anyone have a free version of the translation? (I did one, but my German is really about 100 words of Yiddish, with Google translate assist). --Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Gerda Arendt might help? It's very short after all. --Kleinzach 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There was already a translation there, so I just reverted the edit that put the copyrighted version in. Technically, they're both copyrighted, but at least with the old version, there's an assumption that permission was given... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Now what does that mean for me? I am generally willing to help, but to translate such famous words, not knowing about the English of Schubert's time, might be more than I qualify for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We use modern English for translations, but it looks as if SarekOfVulcan has solved the problem. --Kleinzach 04:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't help thinking about how I would translate a word as "vorüber" that may have changed meaning since Claudius's time. vorübergehen - pass by (fr: en passant), es ist vorüber - it's over, "vorüber" is not used as a single word in modern German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are unsure of the copyright status of the translation that's been reverted to, there are two out-of-copyright ones available at archive.org, although the English texts are quite archaic-sounding:

Book of songs in repertoire of Feodor Chaliapin p. 40

Fifty mastersongs by twenty composers : for high voice , p. 28

- Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

"Oh! leave me! Prithee, leave me! thou grisly man of bone!

For life is sweet, is pleasant.

Go! leave me now alone!

Go! leave me now alone!

Give me thy hand, oh! maiden fair to see,

For I'm a friend, hath ne'er distress'd thee.

Take courage now, and very soon

Within mine arms shalt softly rest thee!"

Comments: line 2 misprint: "ia" should be "is". "ahalt" never heard. "Take courage" closer to the original than any of the two versions discussed so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's "shalt" the plain text of the scans often throw up these errors. I've fixed them above. Voceditenore (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But (ahem) it's ungrammatical. 'Within mine arms shalt softly rest thou' would be correct, but wouldn't of course rhyme.--Smerus (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantatas review

By now we have five cantatas to look at and discuss, an extraordinary one Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191, a "chorale cantata" (Choralkantate) or how is that called, based exclusively on a chorale, Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 177 (initially not by me, btw), a cantata for a feast day Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171, a cantata in Ordinary Time Schauet doch und sehet, ob irgend ein Schmerz sei, BWV 46 and a Ratswahlkantate Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille, BWV 120 which includes a wedding cantata 120a and an anniversary cantata 120b. - Some are more developed than others. - I'm planning to "grow" a general page in my user space user:Gerda Arendt/Bach cantata containing general things like the churches, terms like "basso continuo", ... YOU please name it. I will need translation of terms. - One more question: I wonder if the prescribed readings might be included in the List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function rather than with every cantata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You could just wikify basso continuo. It redirects to Figured bass which is a fairly thorough article. All the articles look great. Thanks for taking the time to help out with these articles. As for the prescribed readings. Do any of the existing articles have them already? (I'm looking for precedent). I don't know that I'd add too much to List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function as its already quite lengthy.DavidRF (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Readings: the older ones yes, the latest ones no - because I wanted to discuss first. - Basso continuo - I will link once in the general article but no more (nor violin, soprano ...). (I personally think "Figured bass" is a not so great an article name because - as discussed there - it is rather a special meaning of basso continuo than the other way round.) - I just got the general article to some initial state - before making music in choir rather than writing ... Much still missing, instruments, poets, the churches, order of service ... but a start. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with linking to basso continuo once in each article. We have thousands of articles that link to things like Minuet or violin or soprano. It's not that intrusive, it just turns the text blue once on each page. I'm not sure we can control the name of that article though. That's in a separate area of wikipedia. That type of thing isn't a big deal, though.DavidRF (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong - but I prefer to see blue for the things that should get further reading. (I am known for "over-linking" in de-WP and was told not to do so, for an explanation ...) Article name: do you mean "Bach cantata"? That is a redirect to the list, linked by one portal and one user - could be handled, I guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant basso continuo vs. figured bass. You might be correct in that basso continuo might be the better article name there, but that article has been there a long time with that name. (The redirect is fine here because its not in a template.  :-)). Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some General Points re the above. Erstmal, thanks to Gerda for undertaking this. Second, the appropriate links should be provided once in each article; don't overlink! Third, we might adopt a standard taxonomy for all the cantatas. Cantata + BWV and create redirects from their common titles. Fourth, it is fine to include the standard literature in each article. To echo David's point above, avoid at all costs linking to the Bob-Who-Went-to-Wikipedia-to-write-his-Concert-notes for the Wherever Symphony and Choir performance. The canonical (or should that be cantatical) reference guide is fine, as well as Groves and any articles or books that may be relevant (cf. BWV 191). Eusebeus (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments! I linked to Figured bass in the general article (called basso continuo of course, as Bach wrote) and expanded it a bit, please look again. Literature: please, Eusebeus, add Grove etc. - I grew up on Albert Schweitzer. - More topics I would like to include: the churches, performances, recordings. - As for the prescribed readings: I tend to not specify them unless they are needed to explain the music. (Whoever is interested enough can easily find them in the external links, as the words and translations.) Tbc, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of historical opera characters

For general info, I've put together a List of historical opera characters. It turned out to be quite a lot larger than I originally anticipated, and it might benefit from partitioning. Some borderline historical people are included, others are excluded. Not much rhyme or reason except my personal caprice. All suggestions for improvement welcome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Terrific idea. I don't have time at the moment to offer much, but Lucan the poet (from Monteverdi's L'incoronazione di Poppea could be added. Several listed characters (Nero, Otho, Poppea) don't have their appearances in Agrippina recorded, and Agrippina herself isn't listed. If I think of anyone else I'll enter them on the list when I have time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Like Lucius Silla (Mozart) Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Vivaldi Dresden Concertos

I've seen several recordings of worked collected as the "Dresden Concertos". I see very little mention of such a grouping at List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi (except for RV577). Is this a common grouping of concertos that should be mentioned here? Is there a story behind why they were written? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi won't let me save edits on the talk page. I get a long wait cursor and then it tells me I have IP issues and I should log off and log back on. I don't seem to have any problems on other pages.DavidRF (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tested this and found no problem, see the talk page. --Kleinzach 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach Konzertmeister

The rank that Bach had in Weimar starting March 1714, "Konzertmeister", how could that be said best in English - translated or described? Please s. discussion of Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten, BWV 172 and answer there. - btw the move of the Bach Passions is still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata

Please have a look if this general information Bach cantata is helpful. - The Konzertmeister question was solved. The move of the Passions not yet. Erschallet, ihr Lieder! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC about to close

Any more on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC? It closes up in a few days. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 15:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Péter Csaba

Conductor Péter Csaba has been nominated for deletion per WP:PROD, having been unreferenced for three years. Does anyone think he is sufficiently notable to be worth rescuing? His articles on the Spanish and Finnish Wikipedias each cite a single external link, though I am not sure if these are reliable sources. The Finnish one appears to be his agent, whilst the Spanish one seems to be some kind of video masterclass. He has conducted two recordings for BIS Records — does that make him notable? --Deskford (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has contested the prod and attempted to source the article. However, the sources only seem to make passing mentions. He might yet be notable but more research is required, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this conductor: he is not one of the top ones but he is notable enough to have an article here. Let's try to find more sources.--Karljoos (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found the following references: [1], [2], [3], [4] (in French), [5] and [6] (in Spanish).--Karljoos (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are much better than the paltry few I managed to find for many of the composers I attempted to source in January! Good work! --Jubilee♫clipman 12:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Book clean up

The following books have been identified by Headbomb (talk · contribs) as having problems (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book clean up). Any questions, ask Headbomb. Thanks.

• Book:Johann Sebastian Bach (problems)
• Book:Ludwig van Beethoven (problems)
• Book:Bradley Joseph (problems)

--Jubilee♫clipman 04:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Instrument listings in infoboxes

 I'd appreciate some input on this matter.  User:Fanoftheworld has been changing some infoboxes for classical and popular pianists to show the Steinway brand name as a "notable insturment." I have read the applicable template and I believe that adding the brand name is out of scope. User:Fanoftheworld has stated that it's justified as "custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated". True, on some violinist articles, the specific violin(s) they played are listed (see Jascha Heifetz), but these violins were their personal property.  Pianists, with rare exceptions, do not bring their own instruments with them.  They simply play whichever instrument is available to them.  I don't think of a Steinway grand piano as a custom instrument, unless it has been "customized" in some way (like special color, or other unique characteristic) and it travels with the pianist. Any other opinions?THD3 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, User:Fanoftheworld has added "Notable_instruments = [[Steinway & Sons|Steinway]]<ref>http://www.steinway.com/steinway/artist_roster/roster.php?artistSection=main&artistListing=n</ref> piano}}" to several articles. This obviously makes no sense as a Steinway, per se, is not a custom instrument, it is a make. Anyway, THD3 is essentially correct: pianists get what they are given unless they are Billy Joel (but then again, he is one of those that the above has been added to). More importantly, classical musicians are not supposed to have that box, anyway, so removing the box would solve the issue for those particular articles (read the box's lead). Replace the box with {{Infobox person}} for now (see above RfC, though) --Jubilee♫clipman 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading that Infoboxes were discouraged, then they suddenly started popping up. Thanks for pointing me to the guideline.THD3 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same the Strad of a violinist and the piano of the concert hall. Pianists are usually offered several (two or three, depending on the hall) pianos to try out before the concert (then the piano is tuned following the instructions of the pianist)... and I can tell you that most soloist will perform even if there's no Steinway or if the one in the hall is not the best of the options given. Unless the pianist plays only on her/his customized piano (as some soloists do) or a historical piano there's no reason to be included in the infobox?--Karljoos (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I was invited to this discussion on my talk page.
To put it briefly: You can read the history of the article Tori Amos. As long as Tori Amos can have Bösendorfer as notable instrument, other pianists, who perform on Steinway pianos, can have Steinway as notable instrument. (Furthermore, all "Steinway Artists" must own or buy at least one Steinway piano to become a "Steinway Artist". As I know a pianist does not need to own a Bösendorfer piano to become associated with Bösendorfer).
Regarding Jubilee♫clipman's comment above, I do not think, that "Infobox musical artist is the standard infobox for non-classical musician articles..." (from Template:Infobox musical artist) is meaning, that the infobox can be used in articles about non-classical musicians only. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody who needs a Bösendorfer with extra keys to play compositions using those keys will not be able to play the same on any other piano. Somebody who plays the usual 88-key compositions on a Steinway will be able to perform them on a Yamaha or Bösendorfer or even a Kurzweil digital. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, I'm not sure if the Tori Amos question would apply here, since she's not a classical performer. But, what if she was? I think in that case, we would need a source that she plays a Bosey Imperial (probably her own that she brings with her). It has been sourced, for example, that Krystian Zimerman travels with his own customized Steinway keyboard (one of which was destroyed by America's Homeland Security), so that can go in the infobox. But if someone is merely playing a particular brand, that's out of scope.THD3 (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion can be summed up by looking at User:Fanoftheworld's talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"But if someone is merely playing a particular brand, that's out of scope.THD3 (talk)" – so that puts the mention of Bösendorfer in Tori Amos out of scope. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If Tori Amos does not bring her own piano with her, or if she merely plays the Bösendorfer as a preference (i.e., if she doesn't need the extra keys for her compositions), then, yes it's out of scope. The purpose of this discussion is to build consensus and more forward in a way that is fair and impartial.THD3 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unacceptable when some users think (and make edits) that Bösendorfer can be mentioned in infoboxes but on the other hand think that Steinway can not. It seams they have a problem with me and that they punish Steinway for it. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my above comment, Fanoftheworld, the purpose of these pages is to build consensus. It's not all about you.THD3 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You should say that to other editors: "I think this whole discussion can be summed up by looking at User:Fanoftheworld's talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)". Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What Fanoftheworld apparently fails to grasp is that in the Tori Amos case, we have a legitimate independent third-party source that claims that Amos has a custom-made piano from a specific company. All he offers (for the most part) is primary sourcing directly from a Steinway promotional site, which is not acceptable for verifiability. And a good hard look at his talk page might do him some good too. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

- "... in the Tori Amos case, we have a legitimate independent third-party source that claims that Amos has a custom-made piano..." - I would like to see that source. The sentence you wrote as a source was "Having secured an endorsement from Bösendorfer, the company would be providing Tori with their pianos for use on tour and in the studio" and that is not about a custom-made piano.

- "All he offers (for the most part) is primary sourcing directly from a Steinway promotional site, which is not acceptable for verifiability." - It is completely other reasons written in the history when Steinway was removed from articles.[7][8][9] Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your activities which promote Steinway and push down other piano brands are biased, one-sided and problematic. Because of the tone of your work here, you have gathered a train of editors who watch your editing to make certain such promotional activity is limited to an encyclopedic scope. If you think Steinway is being punished, you can blame yourself. However, Steinway was not in infoboxes before you came to Wikipedia, so what's the big deal? Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"If you think Steinway is being punished, you can blame yourself." - No, I and the Wikipedia readers can blame the editors who are more interested in me than in the edits I make. You can see that an editor is so interested in changing all edits made by me that he clearly makes a mistake.[10][11] Furthermore, your argument is like saying that a pretty girl can blame herself for being raped. Another laywer can explain you what I mean by that if you do not understand yourself. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, let's keep the discussion focused on the matter at hand. I believe we have found consensus as to when the brand name of an instrument (piano, violin, theremin, or whatever) should be listed:

• It is the performer's personal property and travels with the performer;
• All or part of the instrument has been customized, either in terms of appearance or performance;
• The brand has unique capabilities (such as extra keys) which render the music performable only on that instrument;
• It is a historic period instrument, or a re-creation thereof.

Favor, or oppose?THD3 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Please note, these guidelines only pertain to Classical music performers and only to the instruments they use for performing and/or recording.THD3 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Favor - with adequate independent and verfiable third-party sourcing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, these 4 sentences listed will result in Bösendorfer being removed from Tori Amos. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Go back and review my original comment about Tori Amos. She is not a Classical musician, the status of her page is irrelevant here. If you want to discuss whether the piano brand name should appear on her page, take it to the appropriate talk page.THD3 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The four sentences above does not mention anything about classical or non-classical pianists. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, this is the WikiProject Classical music page.THD3 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will remember that. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Favor.--Karljoos (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Favour but only when an infobox is approved by consensus on each article's talk page per this project's guidelines. Biographical infoboxes are normally not appreciated by the members of WikiProject Classical music, WP:WikiProject Composers or WP:WikiProject Opera. Note, though that I am only reminding you of the majority view that has established the consensus at these projects: I do not entirely agree with that consensus but do I feel obliged to follow the majority and to ask that others do the same until and unless consensus changes. Thanks for understanding --Jubilee♫clipman 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree in part with the foregoing proposed limits on "notable instruments" (and observe, wryly, that the discussion is a perfect illustration of why so many of us oppose infoboxes in general and such entries in them in particular), I must say that dedicating the category to instruments actually owned by the artist is probably at once too restrictive and too generous. Plenty of violinists are associated with celebrated instruments that they don't own, on loan from museums or private benefactors, and it seems to me that they fall within the pale of what was meant by "notable instruments"; at least a fair number of pianists in the top echelon have owned and toured or recorded with their own Steinways (Paderewski, Horowitz, and Samaroff spring to mind), but that doesn't make "Steinway" an appropriate entry in their infoboxes, although those particular instruments might bear mention on a page devoted to the Steinway D. I'd suggest something along the lines of what I suggested at the RfC anent "occupation": if the particular instrument (NOT the brand of instrument) would be notable enough in its own right to merit an article, then it is a good candidate for "notable instruments." That would probably embrace pedigreed Stradivari and customized (Steinways)(Mason & Hamlins)(Bosendorfers)(take your pick) while excluding routine loans from the local piano bank. Drhoehl (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate relevent to this question

• Strong request - please scan through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. The debate relates to all classical music projects. Most project members are against infoboxes in any form in classical music articles. The non-classical disclaimer was added to {{Infobox musical artist}} precisely because it is inappropriate for classical musicians, not least such things as "notable instruments" and "associated acts" etc. We are presently deciding what to do when a box is requested on any particular article. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• To project members: it isn't only the likes of Tory Amos and Billy Joel that have {{Infobox Musical artist}}, Hélène Grimaud, Lang Lang (pianist), Krystian Zimerman and Keith Jarrett all have that box --Jubilee♫clipman 07:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related question about Steinway D-274

While we're about related questions, Steinway D-274 (i.e., Model D) just narrowly survived a deletion debate. I supported retention on grounds that the subject is notable while admitting the article is deeply flawed, in particular by being too promotional, insufficiently specific to the Model D, and too tied to company sources. In the grand tradition of "no good deed goes unpunished," during and since the deletion debate I've been trying to introduce some balance, but the other editor who has become involved, also a deletion debate participant and closely involved in the article's creation, doesn't always agree with me about the way forward. I'm sure we'd both be grateful for some disinterested third-party assistance in bringing the article up to snuff if anyone here is willing to take a look. Thanks. Drhoehl (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)