User:JackofOz/Musical styles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following are some of User:JackofOz's ideas about what Wikipedia's preferred styles for the citation of titles of musical works (classical) should be:


Sequence[edit]

  • The correct sequence and syntax is:
    • <Title of work><space>
    • No.<space>
    • <Number of work><space>
    • in<space>
    • <Key><comma><space>
    • Op.<space> (or D., K., BWV., etc., where relevant)
    • <Opus number>
  • Examples:
    • Flute Concerto No. 7 in D minor, Op. 81
    • Impromptu No. 3 in G flat major, D. 934
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Flute Concerto No. 7, Op 81, in D minor (wrong order)
    • Symphony No. 2 in D Op. 64 (no comma before "Op.")
    • Beethoven's Symphony in C minor, No. 5, Op. 67 (could be mistaken for "Op. 67, No. 5" - see "Sub-opus numbers" below)
    • many others

Comments[edit]

  • Where (if anywhere) (and by what syntax) do special work names fit in this? (e.g. Eroica, Trout, Kreutzer) If they are to be omitted from the main article name (with suitable redirects), this should be made clear; in article prose, there should be a guideline on how to reference those works. Magic♪piano 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I did have something on this in my first draft of this page, but it seems adequately covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Classical music titles in the part about nicknames. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the (logical) sequence, but not necessarily with any kind of mandatory punctuation (use of commas, parentheses etc). I think this should depend on usage (in main text, tables, headings or article titles). Perhaps punctuation needs a separate section? --Kleinzach 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Another generalized MOS issue that probably bears specific repetition here: abbreviations ending with period (e.g. "No." should be followed by a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) rather than a regular space if they are followed by a number. (This can be a real pain to retrofit into articles, says he, eyeing Franz Schubert.) Magic♪piano 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There are 2 principles: (A) use non-breaking spaces wherever necessary, and (B) if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I've just scanned Schubert, and found only one D number that was broken over 2 lines, so I fixed it. Putting non-breaking spaces into all the others would do no harm, but it would have no effect on the look of the article as it is right now. Sure, some of them will undoubtedly get broken over 2 lines as further edits are made, but that's easily fixed. Requiring editors to insert nbsps into all opus/D etc numbers would be as much of an overkill as requiring them to do the same with all dates. But I certainly support the need for them where necessary, because I cannot abide opus numbers, work numbers, dates and similar things being split over 2 lines. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
While it's true that in many cases, they're not needed, it ought to at least be mentioned, even if it's not phrased as a requirement. Magic♪piano 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'll think about some wording. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm probably far too late to the party to be raising this issue, but I think this method for giving titles, at least for principal citations, raises some problems of its own; might I therefore suggest an alternate construction? Rather than "Flute Concerto No. 7 in D minor, Op. 81," I'd much prefer (issues of capitalization, not germane to this part of the discussion, left aside) "Concerto No. 7 in D minor for Flute and Orchestra, Op. 81." My reason: "[Instrument] Concerto," although to my ear a trifle informal, works perfectly well with single-solo-instrument concerti, but things get sticky when the number of soloists begins to grow, as it often does in pre-Classical literature. Take, for instance, the first of Heinichen's "Dresden Concerti" presented in the celebrated MAK set--the one in F, S. 234--which is scored for 2 horns, violin, oboe, flute, and orchestra. Listing it as "Concerto in F major for Two Horns, Violin, Oboe, Flute, and Orchestra, S. 234" works; "Two-Horn, Violin, Oboe, and Flute Concerto in F major, S. 234," at least in my opinion, really doesn't. Similarly, "Concerto in A major for Four Harpsichords and Orchestra, BWV 1065" falls far more trippingly off the tongue than "Four (or Quadruple)-Harpsichord Concerto in A major." Thus, the "Concerto [No. X] in [Key] for [Instrument(s)]" form can be applied universally, whereas the "[Instrument] Concerto [No. X]" form can't without what I'd perceive as awkwardness. (Naturally, I have no objection to adopting an abbreviated form like "Flute Concerto No. 7," if not unduly awkward, in text once the formal title has been established.) Oh, by the way, in response to a point raised in an earlier comment, my preference for works with nicknames would be of the form Sonata No. 9 in A major for Violin and Piano, Op. 47 ("Kreutzer"). Drhoehl (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation of the word "Opus"[edit]

  • Rule/syntax:
    • Op.<space><number>
  • Example:
    • Symphony No. 7 in D minor, Op. 82
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Op/op
    • op.
    • Opus/opus
    • Opus number/opus number
    • Opus Number
    • All the above with or without a space before the number
    • Op. without a space before the number

Comments[edit]

I agree, and that's the only version I've considered as acceptable. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'Op. 82' style is supported by Hart's Rules (i.e. Oxford) and Judith Butcher (Cambridge) and every other source I can find. --Kleinzach 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sub-opus numbers[edit]

  • Rule/syntax:
    • Choose between "Op.<space><number>, No.<space><number>" and "Op.<space><number>/<number>", but do not use both styles in the same article
  • Examples:
    • Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C sharp minor, Op. 3, No. 2
    • Chopin's Étude in C minor, Op. 25/12
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • He recorded Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C sharp minor, Op. 3/2, and Chopin's Étude in C minor, Op. 25, No. 12. (mixing styles)
    • Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C sharp minor, No. 2, Op. 3 (or any other version that has the "No'" before the "Op.")
    • Rachmaninoff's Prelude No. 2 in C sharp minor, Op. 3 (it was in fact his 1st prelude, not his 2nd, but it was the 2nd piece in his Op. 3)

Comments[edit]

  • I'm not totally wedded to this one, I have to admit. There are some contexts where the Op. 3/2 style would work better, such as in lists of works at the end of an article. In a general reference in the text, I can't quite make up my mind between:
"Rachmaninoff came to detest his Prelude in C♯ minor, Op. 3, No. 2, because he knew that he had to play it at every single concert", and
"Rachmaninoff came to detest his Prelude in C♯ minor, Op. 3/2, because he knew that he had to play it at every single concert".
On reflection, if I had to choose one style to the permanent exclusion of the other, I'd probably choose the more concise slash style. I predict that this "rule" will change. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky one. Maybe there is a lot of real world variation? Maybe this would be one rule too far? --Kleinzach 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've given them back the choice, but again stressed the need for consistency, something we can never have too much of. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation of the plural of "Opus"[edit]

  • Rule/syntax:
    • Opp.<space><numbers separated by commas and spaces>
  • Examples:
    • His three concertos, Opp. 51, 82 and 93
    • Her four piano sonatas, Opp. 1, 3, 53, 68
    • His three symphonies (Opp. 16, 43 and 79)
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Op/op
    • Op./op.
    • opp.
    • opp
    • all the above with or without a space before the number
    • Opp. without a space before the number
    • Opi/opi – No such word in Latin (or English)
    • Opuses/opuses – Exists in English but is inappropriate in these contexts
    • Opera/opera – This is the formal Latin plural of opus, but the word is much more strongly associated with a staged music drama genre and it should not be used to refer to numbers associated with musical works that do not necessarily have anything to do with opera, as the potential for confusion is very great. (Operas themselves can have opus numbers, though)

Comments[edit]

  • Yes, Opp.<space><numbers separated by commas and spaces> would be consistent with Op.<space><number>. --Kleinzach 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Posthumous opus numbers[edit]

  • Background: Works are sometimes published for the first time after the composer's death. If the composer had allocated an opus number to the work, that is usually used. Sometimes numbers are allocated by publishers (e.g., Chopin, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Elgar et al); sometimes no opus number is used at all. The fact that a work was published posthumously is not something that has to be noted every time the work is referenced; after all, the most important thing, generally speaking, is not that the work was published posthumously, but the fact that it was written at all. Hence, it is often sufficient to show the opus number in the usual way. But where it is considered appropriate to indicate posthumous publication, the following rules apply.
  • Rule/syntax: Op. posth.<space>, or Op. posth.<space><number>
  • Examples:
    • Brown's 17 Cambodian songs, Op. posth.
    • Smith's 9th Symphony, Op. posth. 93
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Chopin's 17 Polish songs, Op. post. 74
    • Walter's cantata The Royal Wedding, Op. 63 (posth.)

Comments[edit]

  • I've seen 'Op. posth.' style the most, I think. Sometimes the posth. part isn't there, even if it's a posthumous number (Tchaikovsky), so it should certainly use sources to even use it in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the "posth." is not mandatory, but the version "post." is one I want to put to rest, if possible. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. "posth." (not "post.") is supported by Grove. --Kleinzach 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Special catalogue numbers (Köchel, Deutsch, Hoboken, BWV, Burghauser, etc.)[edit]

  • Rule/syntax:
    • An abbreviation (K, D, etc) is followed by a period (full-stop) and a space. Multiple-letter abbreviations may have a period or not, but be consistent within an article.
  • Examples:
    • Schubert's last sonata, D. 958
    • Mozart's Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550
    • Bach's Coffee Cantata, BWV 756
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Schubert's last sonata, D.958
    • Schubert's last sonata, D958
    • Schubert's last sonata, D 958
    • Bach's last three great organ works (the Fantasy and Fugue, BWV. 934, the Toccata and Fugue in C flat, BWV 967, and the Great Canon in F, BWV.1002)

Comments[edit]

  • Having explored this to some extent already, it seems there is considerable variation used in the real world. The bottom line in any event should be consistency within an article. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Within an aritcle, of course. I've brought it up before, but I've seen various ways, and it's not even the same across the same 'type'. Bach's is pretty universal, but others have quite the variance, and it's not nessesarily the best to say "all of this style do this". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose (provisionally). As explained elsewhere, I think we should adopt the standard style used by Grove which is D123, K123, RV123 etc. with no period and no space. This is also recommended by Judith Butcher (the Cambridge style book) and I imagine many publishers. (I don't have Chicago and would be interested to learn what they recommend.) --Kleinzach 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Too much precedent here. Almost everyone else puts a space between BWV, HWV, RV and the numbers. Also, it should be noted that I've never seen a period after an acronym (HWV BWV KV RV etc), only after an abbreviation or single initial. That is I've never seen "BWV.". Though I have seen the single letter ones with and without the period. (K/D/P/etc) DavidRF (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the single ones all four ways (D795, D.795, D 795, D. 795). As for RV, I've usually seen it RV 123, though I've noticed Hyperion at the least seems to favor always nixing the space, both on their CDs and their website (For instance. And they have complete Liszt piano, and complete Schubert song editions). Arkivmusic, on the other hand, will always put the space and no period (Like here. And incidently, use no. rather than No.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Al of Jack's unacceptable versions do look to my eyes wrong. The real issue here is probably whether to include the period after the abbreviated single-letter. I have no opinion on that, although K., D., etc... look fine to me. Eusebeus (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For clarity and consistency, we need one rule not two. If BWV, HWV, RV are without periods, then D, K etc likewise. No? --Kleinzach 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The distinction is acronyms vs abbreviations. Acronyms never have periods, abbreviations usually do ("Op.", "Hob."). The single-letter case falls into both categories, so it ends up being ambiguous. DavidRF (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we're getting towards something like this:
"Editors may choose:
  • to have no separation between the letter(s) and the number - D876, BWV542, etc, or
  • to separate them with:
    • a space - D 876, BWV 542, etc, or
    • a period and a space - D. 876, BWV. 542, etc
    • but NOT with just a period - D.876, BWV.542 etc. (*)
However, it is important, generally speaking, to use one and only one style in an article.
There is one permissible exception to the rule about consistency of style. One style may look better in a list of works sorted by number (where the letter(s) and the number would precede the title) than it would look in general text (where they would come after the title) - and vice versa - so there may be cases where one style applies throughout the text of the article proper and another style applies throughout the list of works. This would be a matter of consensus among the editors of the article in question".
(*) Or should we even allow the version I've outlawed? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I never see the dot with acronyms. I never see BWV. 1006 or HWV. 7. I like the acronyms versus abbreviations distinction.
"For acronyms, editors may choose:
  • to have no separation between the letter(s) and the number - RV312, BWV542, etc, or
  • to separate them with: a space - RV 312, BWV 542, etc
"For abbreviations, a period and a space is required:
  • Op. 76, Hob. I/87, etc
"Single letters qualify as either an acronym or an abbreviation so either of the above rules can be used:
  • D876, D 876, or D. 876"
Clear enough? Or too confusing?DavidRF (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Incidently, for Haydn, just as often I've seen it as I:87. I'm kinda curious if either one if "right" in this case. Also, I often see it Hob with no . after it, but since Hob. is an abbreviation, it's sensible to include it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea, David. Just a couple of points. Many people regard BWV, LSO, NYPO, FBI, CIA, UN etc not as acronyms, but as multiple-letter abbreviations. In this school of thought, the only true acronyms are those that are pronounced as words in their own right - such as laser, radar and QANTAS - rather than by naming each of the letters individually. Others think this is making a pedantic distinction and they still regard the BWVs, LSOs etc as acronyms. We have to word the rules in such a way that it's crystal clear to both camps. Re the single letter cases (D, B, K, L, S etc numbers): I really doubt that many people regard these as acronyms; I certainly don't. Nevertheless, the case for requiring a period after them is nowhere near as strong as that for requiring a period after "Op." and "Hob". So, how about this version:
"For abbreviations that use only the initial letters of a cataloguing system that contains at least two words in its full description (e.g. Bach Werke Verzeichnis, commonly abbreviated as BWV; some people regard these as acronyms, but others disagree), editors may choose:
  • to have no separation between the letters and the number - BWV542, RV312, etc, or
  • to separate them with: a space - BWV 542, RV 312, etc
  • but periods should not be used (e.g., RV.312, RV. 312).
"For systems that use the initial letter of the surname of the author of a cataloguing system (e.g. Kirkpatrick, Longo, Köchel, Searle, Deutsch, Burghauser), editors may choose:
  • to have no separation between the letter and the number - K457, B198, etc, or
  • to separate them with:
  • a space - K 457, B 198, etc, or
  • a period and a space - K. 457, B. 198 etc
  • but not just with a period (K.457, B.198).
"For abbreviations of a single word, where more than the initial letter is used, a period and a space are always required:
  • Op. 76, Hob. I/87, etc.
This still doesn't pin down what we should do with KV and mixtures like K. Anh.. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
KV is like RV. I have no problems outlawing the period for KV. K. Anh. includes a partial word, so I would force the period. I suppose "acronym" was the wrong language above, what I meant was that they are "initials". The distinction for me is whether or not the label is purely initials or contains abbreviated words and it makes sense to me that a single-letter label is ambiguous. But if the KV 467 vs K. 467 distinction is only not confusing to me (we've got quite a discussion here :-)) then maybe the most efficient way is to list them all on some master table? DavidRF (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The master table idea — presumably aiming for visual clarity — would be a good idea, given the complexity of the rules above. But are we are trying to re-invent the wheel here? Music publishers have spent years debating these questions, attempting to write rules for their editors that meet all instances. The Opera Project has been successful in solving style problems — which in their case are complex — by adopting the existing rules used by the main publishers, rather than making new ones. Chicago is basically a distillation of these rules. Do either of you have it? If not, I think one of us should buy a copy. (Or alternatively of Hart's Rules.) --Kleinzach 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I know them both by reputation, but don't have them. I think the issue here is that we want to see one consistent approach used throughout our encyclopedia. Any external style guide may be helpful, but won't tell us which particular style WP should use. Only we can decide that. Every music publisher, encyclopedia, music magazine and other music reference work will have made its own decision about this, and now it's time for us to do the same. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Good publishers do not develop their rules in isolation. We need to be consistent and have practical rules that take into account past practice. We should not introduce new rules that could confuse readers and (future) publishers. In a word, we must be responsible. Some style points are easy to decide without checking too laboriously through multiple sources, however there are going to be some tricky points – like the catalogue numbers — and we need to look at them them properly. As a Brit-educated editor, I've just ordered the 'New Hart's Rules' (equivalent to Chicago) which is Oxford's much expanded version of the old 'Hart's Rules'. I'll be looking at their recommendations for music catalogue numbers when it arrives. --Kleinzach 02:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Special catalogue numbers used alongside opus numbers[edit]

  • Background: There are some composers whose works became well known under an opus number, but later, special catalogue numbers were created. Some works are still frequently shown with both numbers
  • Examples:

Comments[edit]

  • I have no preference for which order these appear in, but consistency within an article should apply. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure I've usually seen them appear after, as a rule. The worst is Smetana who might have an Op. and two special numbers, in which case B seems to go before T. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Then there's Domenico Scarlatti, who has no opus numbers, but for his sins can have any one, any two, or all three, of L, K and P numbers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This applies to Vivaldi, see here where Op. comes first. --Kleinzach 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation of "Number" (in a title)[edit]

  • Rule/syntax:
    • No.<space><number>
  • Example:
    • Clarinet Quintet No. 9 in C minor, Op. 65
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • No/no
    • no.
    • Number/number
    • #
    • N/no
    • N/no.
    • N/no
    • N/no.
    • All the above with or without a space before the number
    • No. without a space before the number

Comments[edit]

  • Article titles should use "No. " (for consistency in the article namespace). Use within articles could be looser, but the number of allowed variants ought to be shorter than this list. (My vote: "No. " "Number " "#") Magic♪piano 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd better rename "Recorded variants" as "Unsupported variants" or something like that. I wasn't suggesting these are acceptable alternatives, but as unacceptable alternatives. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation of "Numbers"[edit]

  • Rule/syntax:
    • Nos.<space>
  • Example:
    • His Piano Concertos Nos. 3 and 5 are considered his best.
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Nos/nos
    • nos.
    • All the above with or without a space before the number
    • Nos. without a space before the number
    • Numbers/numbers

Comments[edit]

Keys[edit]

  • Rule/syntax:
    • The letter of the key is always capitalised
    • The words "flat" and "sharp" are never capitalised
    • The words "major" and "minor" are spelled out but are never capitalised
      • Note: There is a special group of works where the words "major" or "minor" do not generally appear. Examples include: Bizet's Symphony in C (not "C major/minor"), Gershwin's (Piano) Concerto in F (not "F major/minor"), and Stravinsky's Symphony in C (not "C major/minor")
      • In other cases, sometimes the word "major" is omitted in a general reference, e.g. we might talk about "Beethoven's Symphony No. 6 in F"; but if the reference includes an opus number, it would be "Beethoven's Symphony No. 6 in F major, Op. 68", not "Beethoven's Symphony No. 6 in F, Op. 68".
      • Where the work is in a minor key, always include the word "minor" (e.g., one would in no circumstances ever refer to "Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C" - it would always be "Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor"
    • Simple keys are never hyphenated (G minor, not G-minor)
    • Never insert a hyphen before "major/minor" (e.g., C major rather than C-major; A-flat major or A flat major, rather than A-flat-major)
    • Oblique (flat and sharp) keys may be hyphenated (D-flat major) or not (D flat major), but be consistent within an article.
  • Examples:
    • Concerto No. 19 in C major, Op. 92
    • Symphony No. 5 in E flat minor, Op. 64
    • Toccata in F-sharp major
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Concerto No. 7 in D Major
    • Prelude in d major
    • Sonata No. 9 in c minor
    • Symphony No. 5 in e (meaning E minor)
    • Quartet No. 6 in c-minor
    • Concerto No. 23 in Gm (meaning G minor)
    • Her two xylophone sonatas are in C-sharp major and F sharp minor.
    • C-sharp-minor
    • One style used by Grove and other reference works is to abbreviate keys by showing just the letter, in upper case for major and lower case for minor, but the words "major" and "minor" do not appear. Thus, B = B major and b = B minor. Some editors have extended this in an inappropriate way, and we see references in the same article to "B major" and "b minor", or "His four nocturnes are in B major, f-sharp minor, c minor and G major"

Comments[edit]

  • Works like Symphony in C and Concerto in F deserve special mention as possible exceptions. In these cases, the name/nickname of the work incorporates the key without the word "major". I don't know if its ever appropriate to include the word major when referring to these two works. Whereas, with almost any other work (like Beethoven's Sixth in your example) it would be preferred to say "in F major" rather than simply "in F". DavidRF (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well the question is, are they called that because that's their 'real' name, or because they lack a number and nickname, so it became convention? I imagine in many cases (Bizet, Gershwin, etc) it's the later. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point, David. I've now included something about this in the rules above. Melodia, not sure about the Franck reference there; isn't it always "Symphony in D minor" for the Franck work, never just "Symphony in D"? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • On the presence of hyphens in the "flat" and "sharp" keys (B flat major vs B-flat major). There was a big debate a couple of years ago and the hyphens "won"... much to my dismay as I voted for no hyphen. The pro-hyphen crowd seemed pretty adamant about their side, though, and it wasn't worth putting up too much of a fuss. Anyhow, just a heads up that there was a previous debate on this and a large movement to add hyphens everywhere (many of the editors leading this have been anons, actually). DavidRF (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why this should be an either/or situation that applies to all articles at all times. I also hate the hyphens, because they are just so damn unnecessary, and needlessly detract from the clean look of an article. I mean, does anyone seriously suggest that "B flat minor" would be construed as B "flat minor" rather than as "B flat" minor? That's the only possible issue that I can see. But others seem to like them, so there's no accounting for tastes. The main point we need to stress here is that editors (a) have a choice, but (b) must be consistent within any one article. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If I may, I'd like to add a suggestion that spans a couple of these categories. (My apologies for the effrontery, since by innocence and personal quirk I've long followed just about the opposite of the capitalization rules set out here.) If lower-case-o "opus" and lower-case-n "no." offend, why are lower-case-m "major" and "minor," -s "sharp," and -f "flat" acceptable, nay, mandatory? Just as a thought, might we not save everyone a lot of grief by adopting the rule "capitalize everything"? (E.g., "Symphony No. 3 in E-Flat Major, Op. 55 ("Eroica").) That, at least, while not necessarily my first choice given my own head, would have the virtue of being simple enough that even relatively casual music lovers who contribute or edit articles could easily remember and follow it, promoting the consistency that I think we all recognize as a capital-g Good capital-t Thing. I guarantee that if the rule is not simple and internally consistent in that fashion, many who don't spend large parts of their days immersed in opus and catalogue numbers will at best scratch their heads, say "Now, what was that rule about capitalizing opus numbers and key signatures?" and then add "Oh, to heck with it--I'll just do what looks right--nobody in his right mind cares." Yes, someone can go back later and fix it, but I suspect we'd all prefer to spend our days adding content instead of cleaning up capitalization issues. If that puts us at odds with some or even most earlier printed sources, well, where's the harm? After all, Wikipedia is a new approach to constructing a reference, and it surely is entitled to the occasional conscious choice of style adapted to its own needs rather than hewing strictly to earlier models. Drhoehl (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of ♭, ♯ and ♮ signs instead of the words "flat", "sharp" or "natural"[edit]

  • Rule: Never use ♭, ♯ or ♮ in an article title or a heading
  • Rule: These symbols are acceptable in general text, but do not mix, for example, "B flat" and "B♭" in the same article
  • Rule: If the symbol characters are used, use the {{music|flat}} template for ♭, the {{music|sharp}} template for ♯, and the {{music|natural}} template for ♮. This will ensure that the character will be visible on all browsers.
  • Rule: Never use the lower case letter b in place of the ♭ symbol or the word "flat".
  • Rule: Never use the number sign or hash # in place of the ♯ symbol or the word "sharp".
  • Example:
    • His 2 cassations are in A flat major and C sharp minor.
    • Her three preludes are in C♯ major, F♯ minor and D♭ major.
    • The BACH motif consists of the notes B♭, A, C and B♮
    • The BACH motif consists of the notes B flat, A, C and B natural
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • His 2 sonatas are in A flat major and C♯ minor. (mixing styles)
    • The BACH motif consists of the notes B♭, A, C and B natural. (mixing styles)
    • Symphony No. 2 in Bb (write B♭, B flat or B-flat)

Comments[edit]

  • If the symbol characters are used, then the editor must use templates {{music|flat}}, {{music|sharp}}, {{music|natural}} to ensure that the character will be visible on all browsers. Actually, we should have a bot do a scan for these. These characters are displayed as white squares in IE (default browser for the non-computer-savvy) which looks really tacky.DavidRF (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There should be a hard yes-no rule on whether these (vs. "flat" and "sharp") are used in article names (i.e. consistency in the article naming space). Magic♪piano 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree with Magicpiano on this. Eusebeus (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I vote no. You can't use the music-template in an article title and those terrible white squares look even worse larger and in bold. DavidRF (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I also say no. --Kleinzach 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • If headings are the only issue, is it appropriate to ban the template from headings but permit its use elsewhere in the article? Or would it look "wrong" to have an article titled "Symphony in B flat" but thereafter refer to it as "Symphony in B♭"? Maybe one way forward is to decree that if the word "flat" or "sharp" appears in a title, then the templates may not be used in that article at all; but for any other articles, they still have a choice. Just a thought. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The issue with the heading is that the symbol goes into the URL for the page. The example that pops up in my head is C_Sharp_(programming_language) which adds a note under the title citing wikipedia's restrictions for article names. A big caveat here is that evidently the programming language always uses the '#' and not the '♯' for "sharp". The '#' is forbidden because of how that character is used in url's to direct to subsections in the articles.DavidRF (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • It's a good point noted by David. For consistency, we should apply that standard generally. So I'll say no as well. Eusebeus (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I've rationalised the rules to incorporate these comments. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Following up, all these articles Template:Semitones have special characters in the titles of the articles. It looks fine on firefox, but not in IE.DavidRF (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue: Capitalisation (specific titles)[edit]

  • Rule/Syntax:
    • Each word in the titles of specific works is capitalised, where written in English
    • Exceptions include true titles in French, such as Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique; the adjective fantastique is not capitalised because the French do not capitalise adjectives in titles.
  • Examples:
    • Clarinet Concerto No. 4
    • Piano Sonata No. 17
    • String Quintet No. 8
    • Brahms's Double Concerto, Op. 82
    • Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D, etc
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • He played Beethoven's Piano concerto No. 4 with the LSO
    • She recorded Tchaikovsky's violin concerto under Bernard Haitink.

Comments[edit]

  • I personally prefer the 'every word capitalized', but I realize that's not the most common way for names. Oddly, generic titles seem to fit my way more often than proper ones. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding foreign-language names, the Opera Project have well-organized guidelines in line with The Chicago Manual of Style, see Opera titles. I suggest putting this in a separate section. --Kleinzach 01:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation (general references)[edit]

  • Rule:
    • Not capitalised
  • Example:
    • Chopin wrote two piano concertos
  • Unacceptable alternatives:
    • Chopin wrote two Piano Concertos

Comments[edit]

No argument here, Melodia. But the capitalised versions are used often enough that there needs to be an explicit rule saying "Don't do this". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is one of the commonest English mistakes found on WP. --Kleinzach 01:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JackofOz/Musical_styles&oldid=285513546"