Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 → Archive 80

New Project Page design

Wow, that was the most HTML I've done in a long time. Presenting my rough idea for what a better and more user friendly WikiProject page might look like: User:Aza24/Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. The design centers around the idea that this WikiProject is especially connected to related ones, so these (WikiProject Composers, Opera etc.) are emphasized and prominently displayed. I'm rather happy with the image box I've created; I tried to show diverse media and content with a (hopefully) reasonable size constraint. Especially interested in the thoughts of @Smerus, Gerda Arendt, Tim riley, Antandrus, Toccata quarta, and Michael Bednarek: but comments/ideas from anyone are most welcome. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As a note, the history section and below is mostly a copy of the existing project text with slightly different formatting (as in, there's much work to do there). Aza24 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Those huge icons that are used instead of the normal table of contents are quite irritating in desktop view, and they don't work at all in mobile view.
I can't work out why the links in the text from the transcluded imagebox are not clickable, but they ought to be.
The small caps Copperplate font is an acquired taste. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Have removed icons and replaced with simplified horizontal TOC; the links in the imagebox should be good now (I think). The copperplate is certainly an acquired taste... but it does the trick of emphasizing the words in question. Aza24 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • IMHO, Aza's proposal looks rather garish. Not an improvement over the current layout. Aza24, here's an idea: were you ever involved with Portal:Classical music? The kind of layout you propose would seem to be an improvement over that page's current layout... Note that portal pages are generally not very well maintained, and the classical music one is no exception. Also, the portal page is often linked from mainspace articles (the project page is not), so the layout of the portal is, due to its greater exposure, of somewhat more importance than the layout of the project page. Maybe get involved in the portal page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll look into the portal at a later time, but honestly, anything would be an improvement to the current page. It is virtually unchanged from 12 years ago and almost looks like a student HTML school project. We need an engaging project page if we want to keeps people's attention and appear as an inviting topic to contribute to. More and more WikiProjects have been upping their designs to stand out more, the idea here is to do so the same. Aza24 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Re. "looks like a student HTML school project" – really? Have you actually looked at your proposal (I mean, on screens of different sizes, with different enlargement factors, different settings, different browsers, etc.)? To me it looks like a student HTML school project just after the student learnt about <div> tags, but not yet aware that the effect of using these tags can look very different depending on screen size, user settings, browser etc. I can know, I was in such classes. Anyhow, the proposal does not, as in not at all, work on the screen size, user settings, browser etc. I mostly use when editing Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The current page is boring and unengaging—so I'm not sure where your reluctance to improve it is coming from. Am looking at other browsers and formats more now, and have addressed various issues, though I don't think I'm seeing as many issues as you are and it doesn't seem like others are either. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
          • The current version is layout-wise still very problematic (please do, as I recommended, look at your proposal in different magnifications, on different screens, with different systems, etc!) – the amateurism of the layout is way below "student grade": a html student who would present this would still be very far off from getting a grade... --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
            • OK—I think we can drop this school project analogy, lol (I shouldn't have introduced it in the first place...). I have checked on 3 devices (2 different sized computers w/ chrome & safari + phone on safari) and found no outstanding issues, what are you seeing? More specific examples would be most welcome. Aza24 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
              • Every browser has the ability to increase and decrease scale. That is a first step to emulate large and small screens, before even going to different software and hardware (e.g. various screen height/width ratios) set-ups. When performing such first step checks you should see that your proposed layout (especially the second) is extremely problematic. For clarity, such checks, when working with <div> tags, are html student 1.0 steps. Note that the MediaWiki software allows to use <div> tags directly, but usually that shouldn't be done: <div> tags are, in wiki environment, commonly operated via templates and other features, without most editors actually ever seeing them. That is because they are tricky, and the template implementations of them at least avoid to make the most common mistakes. So, if you can't find a template to implement a layout feature, it should normally better not be implemented with html code directly, while those that are a bit more experienced in html specifically tried to avoid them (by not including them in a template or some such). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the explanation, it sounds like the main issue here is the related projects section, which uses the bulk of the divs (the others are just those three blue lines) I may be able to replace the format with a border wikitable, I'll let you know. Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed design looks fine to me, and certainly an improvement on the existing page. Tim riley talk 09:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tim! Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I started a Wikiproject over ten years ago and I think the design has held up well over the years: Wikipedia:WikiProject Speed Skating. Perhaps you can look at that template, which is a little more consistent in design in comparison to your new version. I do agree the page could use an update. For one thing, you can see the "Parentage" on the project I created and how that lists the hierarchy of related projects. I think keeping that simpler is better than over emphasizing it with icons and all that.  oncamera  (talk page) 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Oncamera, I think some of your formatting could definitely be used for the new project page here (especially history section and below). The reason I'm torn is because the Classical music WikiProject seems to be mostly a hub/central place for the smaller ones (I mean, we don't even assess articles here!), so I wanted these to dominate the screen (hence the icons/big bold text). Though at the same time, parentage may be a clearer method... not sure. Aza24 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this project needs to have an assessment on the articles. Perhaps there's a way to get a bot to go through and add those? On Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics they have a bot that keeps their articles updated in the "Recognized content", perhaps that can be activated on this project to get that work done for us.  oncamera  (talk page) 10:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed much in the past, but since most articles are assessed under the composers/opera/compositions projects, it's not a huge deal. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Oncamera, I hope you don't mind, I've now added some similar formatting (to the bottom half especially) of the WikiProject page. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinged: Thank you for the idea, Aza, and I don't know if it's an improvement because I don't remember the present one, having looked last probably in 2010, - so I'm reluctant to invest much thought into it. For whom is it? That's the key question. Around 200 views in a month, - I suggest we rather write articles about music, composers, performers ... for 200 views per day. (Beethoven had a six-digit number last month.)
After having looked at the present one now I see that most of my criticism relates to the wording back then, which I'd rather like to see improved than layout. Besides the wording: I don't need five images, which makes each individual one too small, - a better way might be a rotation of them, and Bishonen and Iridescent know how to do that. Showing the St. Matthew Passion in a concert hall seems a strange idea, and the article about the work not our most glorious example, - how about a Mahler symphony instead? I'd also not need the un-word WikiProject, at all, - it could be piped. Missing Contemporary music which should be revived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I recommend a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera for inspiration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda Arendt, I've switched out the orchestral picture to a more engaging one (where the piece is uncertain)—I looked at some Mahler pictures on the commons but none seemed to work. You can think of it as "only 200 people" but I prefer something like "anyone of these 200 people might join the project". I think a more engaging and appealing project page could do wonders for making the latter true; and it's not like I'm going to be spending my time working on Wikipedia Project pages, this is a one time thing after all. Any wording suggestions would be appreciated, though it may be best to keep the wording minimal, I've already tweaked a few things. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I like the present image collection much better, but would prefer a pianist to a landscape which is supposed to suggest opera but how would a reader new to all this know? On my browser, right now the pic presentation hides some of the other projects" information. I'll be back tomorrow, have a discussion about lead pic selection going on project opera, and today is Sunday ;) - When you visit project opera's talk, the top is a pointer to new articles, -- perhaps we could do something like that herealso? For ten years, the one thing this project tells a guest that it was covered by the Signpost. Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree, the top of the talk page is dissapointing here; I'd recommend opening up a new thread about it... and the images have been changed again [1] if you're interested. Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your hard work, Aza. I cannot be held to be any sort of expert on matters of design, but imo this is certainly preferable to the present one and I would be happy to support it.--Smerus (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Smerus! Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I like the design. Some notes:
  • The image gallery should be reduced in height, otherwise there is a lot of empty space under the "Participate" button on lower widths. (Reduce your browser's width or enable the new Vector skin in the preferences to see what I mean.)
  • Semi-active task forces should not be collapsed by default, as that would only further reduce their visibility and disincentive new editors to join.
  • I would not include {{Classical-music-stub}} in the table of project templates; stubs should be sorted more precisely.
  • Otherwise, good work! intforce (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Intforce. I've removed the classical music stub & displayed the semi-active ones. There's not any easy solution for your first point (which I'm now seeing when I reduce my window size)—the image doesn't seem to change the issue. I've added block quotes so that the projects get "squished" rather than pushed down... is this perhaps better? Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the block quote seems to have made it worse, as now the related projects are simply cut off when the width is not enough. I can see three options here: 1) Add more welcome text 2) Reduce the font size (or use something else than the rather wide Copperplate) and spacing of the related projects, and scale the spacing with the width 3) Reduce the height of the image. intforce (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I like it; attractive, useful, sensibly organized. I'm sure I could nit-pick, but no need; we can all fix nits as they arise. Looks good, and excellent work! Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes well, we're all perfectionists here :) — the nitpicks thus far have been valuable so I'm not concerned or anything. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Composite lead image

Image contents

From top left:

Some ideas about the proposed composite lead image: →

  • The image does not comply to Wikipedia:Image use policy:
    • WP:IMGSIZE – uses px instead of "upright" to define image sizes: this is allowed if there is a good reason for it – I do, however, fail to see a good reason.
    • Wikipedia:Image use policy#Infobox and lead images: Stand-alone lead images (not in an infobox) should be no wider than upright=1.35 (= 300px). The proposed image width is 364px.
  • The first image does not work very well: it is a medieval composite showing three scenes, four persons, surrounding decorative elements, and text. Of all that, only two scenes seem to relate to music, but the size of the composite-within-composite is so small that it is hardly detectable that the image has anything to do with music. Only if cropped, with one, or maximum two, music-related scene(s) showing at a reasonable size this could possibly work as (part of) a lead image.
  • Second and fourth image relate to opera: comparatively too many, while there is a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera – the message this is sending to editors reads like an attempt to lure them away from the opera project, suggesting that the classical music project itself is for a substantial part engaged in opera. It isn't, while that's the domain of the other project. I suggest removing the opera-related images from the proposal. Each project its own focus!
  • Three images (2nd, 4th, 5th) relate to vocal music, only one clearly to instrumental music (the 3rd) – the medieval image could refer to both. All in all, the composite lead image gives too much focus to vocal music, imho. Note that, generally speaking, classical instrumental music is mostly quite somewhat more popular than classical vocal music (e.g., Bach's most popular concertos are generally far more often recorded than his most popular cantatas). If my suggestion in the previous point would be followed (remove all opera-related from the selection), that would restore balance.
  • 3rd image (disclosure: I was the one cropping it for the classical music article – to end a protracted discussion-with-RfC to do away with a large *composite* lead image for that page): doesn't work very well in the smaller size. Also, this image is currently also the lead image of the Portal page. Please give another image for a change!
  • 5th image: with its secular setting not a very representative image for a St Matthew Passion performance. Also, with the *very* large choir, not very up-to-date historical performance practice-wise. Don't we have a Concertgebouw image with them performing a Mahler symphony? Their Mahler performances are the Concertgebouw's stronghold, as you may know, and then a large performance apparatus is well in its place.
  • Also, don't know why the composite image is realised with a rather complex syntax of successive tables within a table (instead of using the {{Multiple image}} box)? Aza, can you explain? Tx.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Image contents

From top left:

  • All very helpful, thanks Francis. I didn't even know multiple image boxes could do rows so that's why I didn't before (have switched to that now and adjusted the size). I've now switched some images around in my new version, we have:
    1. Medieval, Spanish, Instrumental (Winds)
    2. Romantic, German, Opera
    3. Renaissance, Franco-Flemish, Vocal
4 & 5 don't really follow the same pattern, but have a street performance & an orchestra in Mexico and Italy respectively (neither pieces are known). While there are 3 performance images now, I think the genres/format/context is different enough to not cause redundancy. Aza24 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Update, Francis Schonken, a second alternate version...? Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks, much better. I'd drop the opera scene (#2) though: as such the scene is not very illustrative of "music" – it is very illustrative of "opera", not of "classical music", and also size-wise it does not work very well imho as a small image in a composite: at this small size it looks like any romantic era painting (nothing to do with music). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Have changed this to a pic of the MET house opera house but IDK—if you have any suitable alternatives, they'd be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Other suggestions:
      1. All images now refer to pre-baroque or post-classical era music. There should be some reference to the core era of classical music, that is classical period (music) (e.g. the lead image of that article). One image of pre-baroque times might suffice, and instead an image relating to the baroque era in music might be better.
      2. Talk:Classical music/Archive 10#Option C has some images that might work fairly well at the smaller scale of a composite image (that "Option C" is part of the RfC on the classical music article lead image).
      3. Something with a piano would be nice (if you look at my image suggestions in the previous two points that doesn't seem too difficult).
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Alternate version number 3; I was looking for a new piano one and thought that three performance photos seemed like too much, so went with a Renoir painting... maybe not ideal though? I switched the sheet music back to the Baroque Scarlatti score, since it's an FP and addressed the pre-baroque issue. Switched the string quartet to the one you linked to since the camera angle is less like the orchestra one. Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Very generally: not opera, but core to what THIS project covers, so yes to Bach's first prelude. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I've tried some new images, which I believe satisfy Gerda and Francis's concerns... Aza24 (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the discussion (and got lots of Wiki catching up to do), but I really like the page design proposed by Aza24 and think it represents a vast improvement on what is in place at the moment. My one quibble would concern the choice of fonts and letter sizes (some headers and paragraphs stand out a little bit), but all in all, I will be happy to see this proposal put in place. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No consensus

Seems like we have no consensus on the new layout (I, for one, oppose it, and have not been convinced otherwise by the above), at least it was not up to Aza24 (pushing their own proposal) to determine whether we have consensus on it or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Curious, I see approval from Toccata quarta, Smerus, Tim, Antandrus and intforce, with addressed concerns from yourself, Gerda Arendt, Oncamera and Michael. Re "at least it was not up to Aza24... " — a month had passed, what was I supposed to do? It's not like admins close discussions on WikiProject pages. Aza24 (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, there are still unresolved technical issues (layout unsuitable for screens of various sizes). So, no, this is not ready for project space. And you never asked whether what you saw as an improvement was well executed in that department. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Your concerns remain ambiguous. First you give a spiel on the how different screens are because of the use of divs, so the entire related project section is switched to a tabular format. But suddenly, it seems there are still "layout unsuitable for screens of various sizes"—it's like you don't want to be take seriously, what are these magical issues? Aza24 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
That's only to avoid the most common pitfalls. I think I was clear about that when it was discussed before (see above). Related to this:
  • I had a look at the page in mobile view:
    • This starts with the short url box (which is even less OK in that view) with whitespace on its left, followed by the content of the "wikiproject" box squeezed to the left by the shortcut box. Even the start of the image is not yet seen when opening the page (on my phone, that is)
    • The image caption list is uncollapsed in that view, and that, combined with the boxes (or their content) before the composite 4-row image makes that quite some scrolling is needed before reaching the start of the prose of the intro (leave alone the first clickable link going somewhere actually related to the classical music project)
  • The fixed font used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Related projects was still causing problems.
  • I see no reason to have that separate page transcluded here: the wiki-code/text can be on the page here
  • Same for the separate lead image page
  • The (inactive) divs are still present in the code.
  • Last three for ease of future editors.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The image caption cannot be collapsed on mobile view unfortunately, but now the intro is coded to be before it and the image box in mobile view. The divs cause no issues in mobile view. Ironically, the separate templates are "there for ease of future editors"—it is overwhelming to put all four templates directly into the page and creates a mess of code that is extremely hard to navigate. In general WikiProjects do not cater towards mobile users; it is common sense to assume that the vast majority of editors are on desktop/computer screens, while readers might be split on mobile vs desktop. And editors that are especially active (and hence, the ones using project pages) will be even more likely to be using desktop. WP:MILHIST (probably the most active WikiProject), for example, has a project page with poor appearance on mobile view. Aza24 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No fan of the "short url" box either. Do we do that for WikiProject pages? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • And, for clarity, definitely no "big" font should be used for the intro. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Short URL taken from WP:WPWIR, among the most active WikiProjects. I have no idea where your dislike of the big font is coming from, and it doesn't seem like others share your opinion there. Aza24 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Still oppose it. See also above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Also, in mobile view, the WPWIR project page starts with multiple clickable links *relating to the WPWIR project* preceding the short url link (which also is not in a box with whitespace to its left). In general, I think such short urls are more suitable for much more active projects than the classical music project: imho, for this project such url link box is quite redundant & undesirable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
        • See below. Aza24 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I will also give my approval for the current format. I will also improve the image of the first prelude of WTC1 to a high resolution image from the Bach digital archive. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I am writing yet again to voice my approval for this format. Also, as mentioned, I have now created a high-res image for the first page of BWV 846/1 for Commons. (As on numerous previous occasions it was created by the dezoomify tool and edited using GIMP software.) Almost all participants on WikiProject Classical Music seem happy with your changes and tweaks. Mathsci (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I repeat my support for the present format, and object to the consistent attempts of Francis Schonken to overthrow it without consensus.--Smerus (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention to overthrow whatever, and the ad hominem is in that regard quite out of order, imho not far from bullying. I'd rather have some assistance to iron out whatever needs ironing out per my justified remarks above. It's not the first time that editors who are quite insensible to interface-dependent usability issues think that showing up in numbers is a free pass to ignore technical flaws (because the flaw doesn't show on the interface they happen to be using). I also just had a look at the PDF and printable versions of the renewed project page. Imho very problematic indeed too (much more so than the former version in print/PDF layout)... I'm not saying many issues can't be addressed, but *as is* the current layout does not have consensus, while consensus is not blunt majority rule. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Francis , I should be very glad to respond to any formal accusation you make about me bullying. If this and this are not attempts to overthrow, then I should like to know what is. By the way, threatening to accuse an editor of bullying, is, of course, also a form of attempted bullying, but I undertake to accept your apology if offered. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I was not "threatening to accuse an editor of bullying", so no apology needed. I said what I said, your ad hominem was imho not far from bullying, nothing more, nothing less, and for that reason disturbing enough the way it was formulated. And no, there was no attempt to overthrow consensus. I was quite right to say that consensus was not properly established: the ad hominem rather confirmed me in that view. With all the problems the page layout update continues to exhibit, I think it should best go through another BRD cycle (which is a consensus-seeking cycle, not a cycle to overthrow whatever). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Anyway, proposing to remove the collapsible caption list from the image box. I don't think it necessary for the project page, and while by default uncollapsed on the *smallest* screens it is quite conspicuous especially where it is least wanted. I'd also reduce the number of thumbnail rows of the lead image to three (instead of the current four), or, alternatively, instead of working with a boxed set of images, ask ourselves whether we shouldn't work with a single image, normal thumb size, that changes over time. I suppose a rotation of the lead image, from a pre-defined set, could even be automated (e.g., showing the same image every eight days). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I can never understand User:Francis Schonken why you always act *first* before discussing what you want to do. Discussing before taking action would probably reduce a lot of the animosity you regularly cause. With regards to the box for the shortcuts, I am very much in favor of those, as it appears to be a near-standard on the majority of WikiProjects as well as WP:Help pages. - kosboot (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't oppose the box for the shortcuts. I oppose the other box, the one for the short url ({{Short URL box}}), which is far from standard afaics: it is used on no other main WikiProject page. It is used on very few high-traffic pages in project namespace (e.g. at WP:V where it is below the banner containing the shortcut box), and a few other pages with exotic and/or long pagenames which have no banner box with shortcuts. So, no, imho, this box should go. And no, WP:BRD is a normal consensus-seeking process that allows to sort issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Since a small box of 10 characters is causing you so much distress, I've moved it to "useful links", hopefully you will be able to recover from what ever turmoil said box gave you. As for "BRD"—unfortunately, you must be on a different site than us; WP:BRD is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines", WP:Consensus is "an English Wikipedia policy", but please, continue to assign emphasis to which ever processes you find most helpful to push your narrative. Aza24 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination)

To advise that this article, which was deleted on 4 March, has been restored is again up for deletion (as above).--Smerus (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Levine discography / videography

Of course James Levine is receiving much attention due to his recently-announced death. The article even says he recorded extensively, but there is just a single recording listed. Same with the videography. Perhaps some would like to enhance those sections (the amount of which could easily fill a separate article). - kosboot (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced blp

I just came across Jerry Kirkbride, an unreferenced blp. Not sure if he is notable or not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked around and couldn't find any coverage (only passing mentions), as such I nominated him at AFD. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD (Chloe Chua)

Notifying AfD discussion as above.--Smerus (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Chopin: NPOV discussion

To notify that the issue of NPOV in the article Frédéric Chopin has been raised here. Comments are invited.--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Jane Manning

Jane Manning's death was reported today. I haven't edited the article because I only have the Slipped Disc blog as source and I'm not sure if that counts as reliable, but it will need updating when sources are available. RIP. --188.30.18.238 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Help needed at FAC

Hi all, University of Missouri School of Music—which has an extensive classical music program—is at FAC (see here) and is in dire need of reviews. The article is pretty solid overall, and fairly short. I've done a source review but there seems to be little other comment. This it the articles third nomination, and the other two were failed because of a lack of reviewers, it would be a shame if this were to happen again! Aza24 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Philip Ewell

I posted this to the WikiProject Music Theory, but I suspect few will see it. So I'll post it here: Philip Ewell absolutely needs an article. I would start it but I'll be occupied all weekend. If you need material, his website has reprints of most of his articles and summarizes recent controversies: http://philipewell.com/ - kosboot (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, his music theory is racist ideology has caused quite an uproar in academia, with vehement opinions on both sides. He is quite the man of the moment. This nyt article would certainly help establish notability.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
A glaring omission indeed! He has some fascinating perspectives—not all of which I agree with, but quite a bit I do. Regardless, it is refreshing that people are challenging the stagnant status quo that is preventing the progression of classical music. If anyone wants to start a stub, I can help expand—otherwise, I'll try to do so myself in the coming days. Aza24 (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I would not call it a progression of classical music, as he’s advocating studying theory not in the Western tradition such as Indian classical music (ie a globalized approach to music theory). In other words, he’s calling for a shift of focus away from classical music where we are not even looking at the same musical traditions or paradigms anymore, but completely different ones from different musical traditions. This isn’t progression but diminishment. He’s calling for a paradigm shift in focus within academics in music where non-white music traditions increase while western music (both classical and popular) decreases in importance. Thus instead of four semesters of western classical theory, students would only get two (as recommended in Ewell’s speech), and then they would have two semesters in other music theories from other cultures outside of the west. I personally am not enthusiastic about this idea as I think such a change would make it impossible for undergraduate students to achieve enough competency in western music to work professionally. Should we be studying more than western music in music theory? Absolutely, but probably not in undergrad where students are preparing for careers in western music performance and music education ( which requires a high degree of skill in teaching western music ensembles). Such courses would be more appropriate for graduate programs in music theory in my humble opinion or optional electives at the undergrad level. Just my two cents on Ewell who I find to be a little unrealistic as to the goals of preparing students for the job market.4meter4 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Do take note of my "not all of which I agree with"—my main appreciation for Ewell's work lies in his willingness to encourage the further exploration of overlooked black and female composers. I mean, for example, L. Boulanger and Coleridge-Taylor are incredible, but given meager attention. I am not especially enthusiastic about his views on course changes, but much of what is taught, figured bass, species counterpoint, formalized harmony, is not practical of useful for musicians of the current job market. These seem like things that should be focused to those that need it (e.g. baroque cellists/harpsichordists for figured bass; counterpoint and formalized harmony for composers), but they are almost always required courses for all music students (in America, at least). Now this is where Ewell and I disagree. Rather than replacing these things with a Byzantine music class, in my experience, there's very little discussion of rhythm, philosophy of music, the current culture of classical music, how to find orchestral jobs or jobs as a musician—these things in my mind, are more practical. Aza24 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I do agree with the point of drawing attention to minority composers and the need to place literature by black, Hispanic, women, etc composers into textbooks is essential. But others have already been saying that for decades, and that is nothing new. Ewell’s work will hopefully help pressure textbooks writers on Western harmony to include examples in future publications. It’s not hard to teach traditional harmony with skillful composers like Florence Price.
Regardless, I personally disagree with you that formalized harmony is useless/non-essential outside of music composition. If we think about music as a language, harmony is the study of musical syntax and grammar. As a music educator and performer, I use formal harmonic analysis in my daily work in terms of understanding musical structures when approaching teaching and conducting, and making interpretative decisions as an artist. The applications of harmony are not just in composing, but also understanding the intention of a composer. Even applying a reductive analysis (such as Schnenkerian analysis but there are others) can help by providing the performer with a visual interpretive map of where there are clear structural emphases within a work to shape interpretation. Just like when we read prose or poetry and look at grammar and syntax to interpret meaning, we do the same thing in music. Likewise applying a narrative analysis or a musico-poetic analysis can also impact artistic interpretation. All of this to say, good theory teachers make harmony a useful tool for how performers approach playing music for the rest of their lives.4meter4 (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think Ewell's strength (and uniqueness) is recognizing that we've underrepresented certain composers not because they're people of color/women, but because they're not white men—a perspective change, if you will. In my mind, this seems like a more healthy (and accurate) way to own up to such a predicament.
It seems we've narrowed the topic down even further! Agreed, somewhat, but the focus on common-practice harmony is obsessive, and I'm not convinced that the pluses from the extreme focus on such material outweighs the time lost that could be spent on some of my aforementioned suggestions. Western harmonic structures can certainly be a tool for musicians, but, similarly, I'm not convinced its necessity aligns with the attention it is given. After two semesters of harmony, we can understand the basic forms for almost all common-practice harmony, is there really a valid reason to further this—for all music students, musicians, composers, conductors, musicologists etc.—to understand every exception for every chord, every progression and digression, modulation and permutation? It seems unnecessary, in my view. I think Ewell's suggestions are too extreme, but I suspect he is doing so on purpose, hoping people will meet him halfway. I could see benefits in removing a single term of Western music theory, and replacing with Jazz theory; there is certainly something to be gained from seeing music in an unfamiliar lense. And if such a perspective is considered unhelpful, then surely teaching the extinct figured bass or species counterpoint to every single music student is just as unproductive. Aza24 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I can agree with that perspective on Ewell’s strength in connecting critical race theory to music theory. I also could definitely see the value of swapping one semester of traditional harmony with jazz theory, although I will point out to you that jazz is Western (it’s American in origin, uses Western instruments, and uses Western modes as a foundation of tonality). Honestly, jazz’s harmonic language requires a strong grounding in traditional harmony as a starting point, and then it gets more complicated than 19th century harmony in my opinion. It certainly would be highly useful tool for all musicians. I have to teach jazz and never got trained in it outside of playing in school ensembles. I would also like to see theory classes teach musicians how to read session charts, because a lot of work in recording studios requires that. The goal of theory should really be to teach what’s useful out in the “real world”. We could certainly trim some of the more pedantic focus on 19th century piano literature. I personally don’t regret my time studying formal theory (although I never had to take counterpoint or form and analysis until grad school). I use what I’ve learned. 4meter4 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I write as someone far removed from this debate. Ewell is clearly worthy of an article as WP:NOTABLE. But the NYT article does not make Ewell's opinions enaging to me. Ewell's 'solutions' appear to be, not extensions of research, but intellectual cancellations. Schenker, however loathsome he was as an individual (or tedious as a theorist), should not therefore have his ideas cancelled - either the ideas have value or they do not. I fail to appreciate that Beethoven was "an above-average composer" who “has been propped up by whiteness and maleness for 200 years”; provocation is intellectually useless in itself unless it is put in an (at least potentially) constructive context. (Who are the composers who hae been suppressed by whiteness and maleness, as opposed to the quality of their music, in 200 years?; which composers are "good" as opposed to "above average"?; how can we evaluate non-European or non-American music of the last 200 years when he have, in reality, no clue what it was like?) Nor do I see that an “antiracist policy solution” at Yale would be “to require languages with one new caveat: any language — including sign language and computer languages, for instance — is acceptable with the exception of Ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, French or German, which will only be allowed by petition as a dispensation.” All this seems to me, rather than to expand perspectives, to seek aggressively to limit intellectual exploration - to substitute in effect one set of racially-defined exclusions for another. So whilst I would normally be drawn to appeals to create articles, for this one include me out. I am too pale, male and stale. And whilst I enjoy jazz of all colours and the music of Fanny Mendelssohn, Clara Schumann, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, Still, Ustvolskaya, Gubaidalina et al., my belief remains that all that will pass and - unless a Ewellian censorship prevails - Beethoven and Bach (and a few others of their kind) will survive the coming cultural Dark Age. Best,--Smerus (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You know I'm know realizing that, ironically, Smerus and I already took part in a conversation where this idea was being seriously abused (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 42#Looking For Help!). I will say this; Ewell provides perspectives on a lot of topics, so sometimes it's difficult for me to find uniformity in his thoughts or indeed understand many ideas that seem unrealistic. I think in general though, classical music has yet to properly adapt the modern world, maybe this a path to do so (and maybe not), but regardless I find these conversations worth having. It seems that, if we are doing everything right when it comes to our appreciation of Beethoven or Bach, we have nothing to be afraid of, and we should be willing to engage the topic. Otherwise, we create situations where no one wins—e.g. the most awkward response from the Schenkerian journal. By-the-way one of the articles in said journal cited a Wikipedia article! Though Schenker specifically I find difficult to sympathize with. I've never appreciated his theories (long before I knew about his extremely problematic opinions) which always appeared to me as the Freudian psychoanalysis of music theory—in other words, can equally be taken as genius or complete gibberish! I would recommend this particularly well-made video which showcases the issues (and briefly interviews Ewell) in a less sophisticated but perhaps more engaging way. In the end though, I've not truly made up my mind on most of these issues, but I don't think that, even if Ewell gains a wider following, Beethoven and Bach will be "cancelled" at any point. Maybe they'll do us a favor and cancel Boulez or Babbitt... only kidding... partially :) Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes! I had forgotten about Mr. Rodriguez! --Smerus (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hucbald.SaintAmand: - I don't know if you have any interest in starting this. - kosboot (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kosboot: — Certainly not, Kosboot. I fail to see what could make Ewell notable. I don't think causing a temporary uproar in the Society for Music Theory and in the University of North Texas is enough to qualify. As European (and other crimes such as being male, and white, and cisgender, and Schenkerian), I think i'd better remain outside. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Seachanges (with Danse Macabre)

Is Seachanges (with Danse Macabre) a notable composition? I can't quite figure it out. If it is, would anyone be able to add some sources to the article to reflect this? Thanks in advance! Lennart97 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't say enough about the piece to make any claim of notability. I notice it says it is for flute, piccolo, piano, violin, cello and percussion, and yet the sample score on the CMC page cited as a reference appears to show a work for an ensemble of guitars. --188.30.18.238 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
An earlier edit of the article [2] stated that "it is part of the Leaving Certificate Music syllabus". That might count as notability if we knew which leaving certificate was being referred to. --188.30.18.238 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This is something on the work from Encyclopedia Britannica which may indicate notability. Additionally, this Gramophone article mentions the work. It appears this piece is part of a trilogy of pieces entitled Macabre Trilogy, and they are meant to be programmed together. I would imagine an article on the Macabre Trilogy might be more appropriate, given that it has been recorded by the Schubert Ensemble of London which has a review in the Journal of Music. There's probably enough RS to write an article on the trilogy.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I agree that creating an article on the trilogy would make the most sense. I'm not able to do that, though, so if anyone else wants to take it on that would be great :) Lennart97 (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The above seem to be mostly passing mentions, and the movement alone seems demonstrably not notable. To address the 8 year old notability tag, what do we think of AFD for this one, Lennart97 and 4meter4? Aza24 (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s borderline. The fact that it’s a mandatory curriculum piece in Ireland’s schools (according to Encyclopedia Britannica) , has been recorded with reviews in major publications, etc makes a good case for passing GNG. I stand by what I said though about the trilogy probably having more RS overall to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. I’m not particularly interested in working on it, but if I were I would move the page to Macabre Trilogy and expand it accordingly.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I see a third party has already edited the article down. I would suggest a merge with the composer page Raymond Deane, and a conversion of the page to a redirect - --Smerus (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Good call, I've now redirected it. If anyone wants to (now or in the future) make an article on the trilogy, they would be welcome to, but it doesn't seem like that's happening anytime soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Fantasia for saxophone, three horns, and strings

In a drive to transform the deprecated harv referencing to sfn citation, I came across Fantasia for saxophone, three horns, and strings, created by Jerome Kohl in 2019. It looks to me like a model for an article about a classical composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Arrangements/Suites in lists of compositions

So this just came up at List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich. Basically, the question is -- should arrangements and suites that the composer did themselves be included in the workslist. I.E., for instance, Shotakovich made a two piano version of Piano Concerto No. 1, and extracted a suite from The Nose (as well as some piano versions). In Shostakovich's case, these usually have "Op. <X>a". In the case of other composers such arrangements often have a different Op. number all together (Beethoven is a good example), or at least are cataloged by a later cataloger with a different number (Villa-Lobos for example). My opinion is that in general as long as the composer did them (including even vocal scores) they should be included -- having to go to the article just to find the info (as User:CurryTime7-24 suggests doing) isn't optimal nor does it make sense to me that it shouldn't be in the list because of its existence there. What do others think? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. There's no question in my mind if people want to see the extent of a composer's output, arrangements would be included. - kosboot (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
No question here either. Sparafucil (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed as well, I see both of the The Nose pieces at the grove article for instance. Aza24 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey there. So a little clarification here:

1.) I am not suggesting to exclude Shostakovich’s own reductions, suites, etc. In fact, in List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich there are comprehensive sub-lists devoted to his work in this regard to which I have added. Rather, what I was suggesting was that mentions thereof in the “Notes” sections of the collapsable chronological list of works at the bottom of the article were redundant. He almost invariably always made such reductions and suites of his symphonies, concerti, film scores, and theatre music. Since they were already listed in the sub-sections, it seemed superfluous to keep mentioning these in the “Notes,” which I had believed were used to mention some sort of details pertaining to whether the work was lost, incomplete, unpublished, etc.

2.) While I had suggested removing piano reductions and suites from the collapsable “Notes” section, his arrangements of piano, vocal, chamber, etc. works for larger ensembles have been kept. For example, his Six Romances on Verses by British Poets, Op. 62, which was originally for bass voice and piano, had its accompaniment arranged by the composer for large orchestra as Op. 62a, then 30 years later for chamber orchestra as Op. 140—both mentions were kept in the “Notes.”

3.) As far as suites, Shostakovich typically made suites of his stage and film music. Again, these are all listed within the corresponding sections in the article. Furthermore, not all of the suites are by him. From the 1940s – early 1960s, most if not all these suites were made by another person, Levon Tadevosovich Atovmyan, with the permission of the composer. (The liberties which Atovmyan permitted himself, moreover, such as in the suites for The Fall of Berlin and The Gadfly are enough that these are not so much suites from, but rather based on their respective original film scores, but this digression is a bit outside the scope of the present discussion.) At any rate, given that these suites are not by the composer himself and diverge considerably from the originals, it seemed unnecessary to include them in the collapsable list. What I did keep were mentions of how suites made by the composer himself are notable in and of themselves for some reason or other. His suite from Golden Mountains, for example, does not merely extract cues from the original film score, but also includes an entirely new piece of music that was excised from the film, as well as include the coda from the Third Symphony which was also not in the original film score. These details were kept in the work’s corresponding “notes” section in the list.

4.) I didn’t mean to step on any toes and I apologize to Melodia for inadvertently triggering, if not an “edit war” then an “edit tussle,” shall we say. I was only trimming what I felt were redundancies that were already listed with the sub-lists in the article anyway. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as they are still in the actual list article, clearly, somewhere it's fine. By your edit summery it seemed as if you deemed them unimportant because they aren't separate compositions (which is an attitude I've seen before in this context), especially when you made mention of how they were 'in the articles'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Melodia, so where do we stand on this matter then? Just so I’m clear. Also, I think at least one of my edit summaries mentioned how my changes were made only to the “notes” in the collapsable list. Is this “attitude” you speak of something you’ve seen me hold or did you mean in general with other editors? Just one more thing: in the future, please do assume good faith for whatever edits I make. Having contributed extensively to List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich and having jumped in last year to defend you against that vandal which repeatedly edits that page, I would hope that my edits, especially to the above article, would be accepted as good faith. But please feel free to contact me on my page if you ever have any questions. I’m very cooperative and will be glad to amicably settle any disagreement that may occur. I’m not trying to win an ego battle or something here. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Kosboot, Aza24, and Sparafucil: as a courtesy since they are involved in this discussion as well and to ensure they understood my aforementioned explanation. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for tussles & misunderstandings from this end as well. I still think it would be better trimmed to trim the redundancy from the unsortable list instead. Subdivisions of Instrumentation:orchestra like "Suites" "Misc. orch." "Ballets" &c. could be added in another table column for those who like to browse by those criteria instead of another. Sparafucil (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I've also never understood why there is a separate "genre" section for some compositions lists, it's confusing and just takes up extra space. Just let people sort it in the table (that's the whole point of the them!). CurryTime, your explanation makes sense, it seems much of this was a series of communication misunderstandings. Aza24 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Re. "let people sort it in the table" – as you may know (or probably don't) not every device is sort-function enabled. This is again typical of the sort of fallacy I've seen before: if it works on my device, it surely works the same way on everyone else's. See also WP:CONTENTFORK#List formats and WP:NCM#Lists: this might be a way forward here too (although currently the WP:SIZERULE for Shostakovich's list of compositions is only marginally over the minimum for splitting, so keeping both formats on the same page would certainly be acceptable too). For clarity, Wikipedia is nowadays more often accessed on mobile devices than on computers with a separate monitor. In Wikipedia's standard mobile view there is no sort function for tables. So, please assume that the majority of Wikipedia users don't see a sort function when accessing a table. In Shostakovich's case I think that a bullet list by genre combined with a table by time of origin in its basic collation (as it is now) would probably work best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
So where do things stand: duplicated notes in duplicated lists? "See also notes in non-chronological list" in the table? readers of one or the other left in the dark? Sparafucil (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Where we stand I don't know (the communications continue to be somewhat confusing), I can only say what I'd do: If a Suite or transcription was made by Shostakovich and has a known date of origin (i.e. origin of the arrangement as opposed to origin of the original), then the Suite or transcription should have a separate row in the table, with in the note column "based on Op. <opus number of the original>"; and the notes column cell of the original composition should read "see also Op. <opus number of the arrangement>" instead of the convoluted explanatory notes that can be found now in the notes column. But that's just my suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I am aware of that (so please cast your pointless "or probably don't" aspiration aside). I was referring to having them in the same list. Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't help those who access the table in a non-sortable way and happen to be looking for a Shostakovich composition of a particular genre. You wrote "I've also never understood why there is a separate "genre" section for some compositions lists" – excuse me if I found it somewhat self-evident why such separate set-ups exists, and for that reason expressed it like I did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah OK—you're excused...? Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_75&oldid=1146018539"