Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Music and music periodical publisher

I am having trouble getting approval at AfC for Draft:S. Brainard Sons. I would be happy to have help. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it into article space, FloridaArmy. A clearly notable topic. Frankly, if I were you, I'd avoid the vagaries of the AfC process. I've rescued dozens of classical music-related articles from their clutches. The reviewers often lack the expertise and knowledge to evaluate pre-21st century topics. Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Heritage Orchestra

Hello. I know it says "non-classical" but I still think this might be the right place to ask. I would be grateful if someone with experience of orchestral articles would please have a quick look at Heritage Orchestra. It seems recently to have become somewhat POV-ish in parts of its language, and has acquired an unfeasibly (perhaps just in my opinion) lengthy chronology. For reasons too boring to recount here I don't want to get into editing it and indeed I don't have much that experience with orchestral articles per se. Just as a reader/observer I am unsure that its recent direction is wholly appropriate, though I certainly do appreciate the editor's efforts (pinging Luxemotor for transparency) to make it more current. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DBaK. Even though they claim to be "non-classical", they do perform some contemporary classical music, e.g. John Cage, Vangelis, etc.. That article was an appalling piece of blatant advertising. I have removed it, along with their plug for a tour later this year. The Chronology of live performances and collaborations section is largely unreferenced and contains multiple non-notable or marginal performances and "collaborations". I have tagged it accordingly. After 7 days, all listings which are unreferenced will be removed. This is an encyclopedia, not the auxiliary website for Heritage Orchestra or free storage for their archives. A chronology like that belongs on their official website not here. I have elaborated on these issues at Talk:Heritage Orchestra and cautioned the editor involved. Nevertheless, the article needs more eyes. Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Voceditenore – I just had a quick look and it is a much much better read and feels much more appropriate in terms of its view and our voice. I really appreciate your help. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Gee, no reviews. I look forward to that chronology being deleted. - kosboot (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The irony of this, kosboot, is that they are quite notable in their niche with multiple articles/reviews in the Financial Times, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph etc.. But they seem to be more interested in promoting themselves than in writing a decent encyclopedia article. Alas, for them, I'm not going to help them. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Flummerfelt

Hello. I was bold and re-created Joseph Flummerfelt after reading his obituary in The New York Times.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Move?

A move discussion which comcerns naming of classical music compositions is held at Talk:Trois Chansons (Ravel). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Odd

Talk:Three Songs, 1926. Wouldn't this in fact be Three songs (John Ireland, 1926) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Likewise Three Songs, 1926, Two Songs, 1916, Two Songs, 1917–18, Two Songs, 1920, Two Songs, 1928 ---- it's as if John Ireland is the world's only song composer. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

General question

The question is how to treat titles that are the combination of a numeral and a generic name. Trois Chansons (or 3 Chansons) is only one example. IMSLP has standardized names: numeral in digits, name, + in brackets composer's surname and full given name. While I don't support to adopt that (imagine Bach cantatas with the added long name of the composer), I think to have no dab is bad in these cases. We have 3 Songs and Four Songs for a good reason. (No idea why different style.) - For the above, it could be Three Songs (Ireland, 1926), and perhaps Three Songs (Ireland) for the one people will think of first, if one of them is, - compare Ave Maria (Bruckner), although he set it three times, and all have articles. - We should capitalize what follows the numeral, therefore we have Trois Chansons (Ravel (not Trois chansons). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I like that naming convention. I would also suggest moving 3 Songs to Three Songs. I thought it was the manual of style to write out any numbers less than ten. oncamera 10:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• I have not particular preference, but something like Three Songs (composer name, year) would seem to be most Wikipedia consistent In ictu oculi (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• It should certainly be Three Songs (Ireland) (as '1926' is not part of the title), and I am going to be WP:BOLD and move it there.--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• except that I completely f***** the move, so I'm now going off to down a large vodka......--Smerus (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that a case for Graham who does all page moves I can't handle (but will be asleep now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Do I understand it right: the three entries from the present dab page "Three Songs (Ireland)" should go to "3 Songs" which should go to "Three Songs", and "Three Songs, 1926" should replace the present dab page? And care should be taken, that links work as planned even after the moves? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It all seems good to be now. Graham87 04:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, what we now have is had was Three Songs (Ireland) being a redirect to Three Songs, which is wrong. What we ought to have is Three Songs (Ireland) being the main article, and Three Songs (1926) being a redirect to Three Songs (Ireland). And then a dismabig entry for Three Songs (Ireland) in Three Songs. But as I am so cack-handed I had better not venture on this myself.--Smerus (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact I took my courage in both hands and have done the deed. Also put headers in all 3 articles about Ireland's sets of 3 songs.--Smerus (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Monumentum pro Gesualdo

Monumentum pro Gesualdo is, of course, a work by Stravinsky. I was rather surprised, therefore, to find that our article Monumentum pro Gesualdo is almost entirely about a Balanchine ballet and barely mentions the Stravinsky work that it is based on. How should this be redressed? Separate articles? If so, the Stravinsky should surely be at the base name. Or is it better to try to cover both in one article? --Deskford (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)