Talk:Xaver Scharwenka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manual of style on flats and sharps deprecates (at least!) use of b for flat and # for sharp- use of flat/-flat, sharp/-sharp, or the unicode equivalents ♭ ♯ are recommended instead. Ways I'd suggest improving the page in substantial ways (since that's what a talk page is for?) Discussion of style, how it differs from Chopin say (this was a topic briefly in the Raff.org forums but those are under construction and can't be accessed- the way he uses development in the first movement of the concertos was discussed. It's a point to ponder, especially comparing it with concertos written by composers who were and weren't virtuosos at the instruments the concertos were for- his are a little bit more "serious-minded" in intent- form, I mean, not always mood- and with some music examples or otherwise, here or in articles devoted to the pieces in question, one can consider whether intention succeeds. Just a - lengthy - thought. (The analysis section in the Bartók article is to be avoided at all costs- pseudo-intellectual gabble is not what I'm speaking of, but rather Donald Francis Tovey-ish explanation and revelation.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for pointing to the manual of style for music. Although it still doesn't resolve issues concerning opus, number, dates, and commas, it helps.

Second, I agree that anyone who has the knowledge and writing impulse should include historical and analytical examinations of works. Comparisons with contemporaries, or previous and subsequent composers of influence, would certainly help.

Finally, I'm not sure I wholly agree with your assessment of the Bartok analysis. It's much too narrow for such a prominent 20th century composer but is at least a start. Explanations using theory and form should be included because they are the lingua franca of musical analysis. Comparing different composers' use of sonata form is as informative as commenting on the scales used (octatonic, 12-tone, etc.). Important too is that Bartok was on the cusp of modernism and so employed techniques that may not fit a specific style. Expounding on those techniques is helpful. Scharwenka (from what I've heard of his music) rests very comfortably in the romantic style and so may need less pure theory to communicate his uniqueness.

Sstrader 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that I should be taking some of these concerns there, but I did. I should take them again there better phrased, it's true. I do agree that you're right about some of that being needed in the Bartók analysis- but here it's not, I believe, guidelines but rules- the authors before, now and later of the section (and also of the corresponding sections on the Arnold Schoenberg page, and elsewhere) should introduce the intelligent and attentive "average reader" to terminology used, use it sparingly and not as a shorthand when you could be writing something else... etc. I didn't mean avoiding the use of advanced terms but I certainly did mean making their use comprehensible, gradually introducing them, to people who hadn't encountered them five minutes ago, when one did. It's not a talent I have (even the untechnical descriptions I've given works such as String Quartet No. 2 (Borodin), Cello Sonata No. 1 (Brahms) and String Quartet No. 15 (Schubert) attest to that. Especially the first of them which, as noted on the talk page, needs a whole lot of rewriting.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)