Talk:List of conductors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't say "leading orchestras" (in UK English anyway, don't know about others) in this context. "Leader" is a reserved specialized word meaning the principal first violin. To say that Bernstein or Karajan led orchestras just does not sound right. Nevilley

You're right, "leader" has an additional technical sense which makes using the word in this context confusing or misleading.

Do we need "Sir" Colin D, "Sir" S Rattle etc etc? At the moment we are not consistent, and I am not sure the Sirs add anything. It's tempting just to whip them all out. Thoughts? 15:41 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

I'm going to take them all out - we ought to be consistent, as you say, and it's tricky to know just who's a sir and who isn't sometimes. If anybody wants to put them back in, then fine, but please note that we don't include honorifics in article titles, so an entry like *Sir [[Adrian Boult]] is OK, but *[[Sir Adrian Boult]] isn't. --Camembert
and quite right too! :) Nev

This page is looking rather complete now, but what happens about some less famous conductors, or marginal ones? They may deserve a place in Wikipedia, but should not be in this list. Should they be put in a list of "rather ordinary conductors", or "less famous conductors" - probably not? But this then gives rise to isolated entries - which could still be useful - how does Wikipedia sort this.

I could put a list of less important conductors in my "private" area - but since it is not really private that could be useful for others to edit, though whether anyone who felt they should be on the famous list would be able to complain (OK - they can can complain ... but what would be the effect...?) I don't know. User talk:David Martland

I have spoken about this below, but to add here: I recently added many names of conductors who have made recordings on prestigious labels. - Abstrator (not logged in at the moment, although I am registered) 216.19.218.72 19:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Philippe Herreweghe is not a famous conductor

Philippe herreweghe was a student in medecine ( psychology I think ). I don't know if he was graduated like his father !? But he never studied music ! ! ! He can't sing and he doesn't know anything about singing, but he can explain, and explain, without making any sense...

But it is true that he tries to make "old" music with throat-cryers ; every person that doesn't know anything about music and singing tries to make succes with so-called ancient music : it's totally disturbing and makes no sense !

I won't make any further steps or cooperation in this encyclopedia if you leave this name in the list.

I for one am not going to take a stand on whether Herreweghe is a "good" conductor or not, but in the part of the world I live in he is a famous one. Being listed on this page is not a qualitative judgement. As for your antipathy for ancient music, it has been noted.
Your closing "threat" is out of place in a collaborative environment such as this one. Moreover, it is completely meaningless as you did not bother to sign your post. -- Viajero 12:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] On alphabetic order

Hi all,

I agree with the above; no titles, honorifics etc.

One small point: the following are listed under V. But shouldn't they be listed under B, D, K and M resp.? In Germanic countries, they would be. It is hard to explain: vons and vans are not really part of the name, although they are ;-) In a phone book, they be listed like this: Beinum, Eduard van

  1. Eduard van Beinum
  2. Christoph von Dohnanyi
  3. Herbert von Karajan
  4. Lovro von Matacic

In any case, I don't think they belong after W. I didn't want to make the change without consulation. -- Viajero 12:17, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree completely - I'd always thought it was a bit odd they should be listed under V, but sort of assumed there must be some reason for it I didn't know about. I'll move them now. --Camembert

I thought we already had a discussion about titles/honorifics... I vote -- again -- not to have them. -- Viajero 18:55, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd also rather they weren't in (as I said above), but I don't feel strongly enough to take them out again (especially as JackofOz just went to the trouble of putting them all in). I certainly won't object if someone else removes them. --Camembert


I find no problem with using titles if they are known as such. - Abstrator (not logged in) - 216.19.218.72 19:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Being a very new Wikipedian, I'm still "failing my way to success" when it comes to certain agreed protocols. If you have strong feelings about removing "Sir"s etc, please feel free to do so.

With regard to alphabetisation, I'm very strongly of the view that the order that applies in the person's principal country of residence or association should generally apply - I say "generally" because there are always exceptions. Wernher von Braun was born in Germany but later moved to America. In Germany, he would have been listed under "Braun", but in the USA he would be listed under "Von Braun" because "von" is foreign to English speakers' ears and is not recognised as anything but a part of his surname. Frederica Von Stade was born in the USA. She should everywhere be listed under "Von Stade", even if her forebears were plain "Stade". Christoph von Dohnanyi is, I understand, an American ctizen, so he should be listed as "von Dohnanyi", even though his grandfather the Hungarian composer Dohnanyi would come under D. Vincent d'Indy is always listed under I, not D, because in France the "de" is a nobiliary particle like the "von" in German or the "van" in Dutch, and not part of the surname as such. But Edward de Bono, being a Maltese-born UK citizen always gets "de Bono", not just "Bono". But as I said, exceptions abound. Charles de Gaulle is always listed under D not G (although many works show his "de" with a capital D to justify this, but some others do not). Vincent van Gogh is always listed under V not G, probably because in the English speaking world he is known as "van Gogh", and not just "Gogh". On the other hand, Ludwig van Beethoven gets B not V despite the fact that the "van" was Dutch in origin and would have sounded just as foreign to German speakers as "von" does to English speakers. This whole subject deserves a far longer treatment than I can provide here. The late much-lamented Nicolas Slonimsky has an always entertaining discussion in the preface to Baker's Dictionary of Music - a must for all serious encyclopediographers. Cheers JackofOz 22:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In some cases, if a person is well known for the Van, De, etc., the name could be listed in both spots. It shouldn't be confusing because the link would send us to the same place. - Abstrator (not logged in) 216.19.218.72 19:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that some countries (as China) use the reverse of our system of given-name then surname. I find this confusing, but I have tried to conform to that. However, I know there is some inconsistency on this list. I don't know every country that uses that practice. I hope someone will go through the list and find the errors. Abstrator 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for "Famous"?

To say that these conductors "are famous" seems very subjective, and some of them have very limited fame (some may be self-promoting here). Some were famous in their lifetimes, others' work and fame continues long after their deaths. Are their criteria for being on this list? And, although it's a list, should the person's primary claim to fame be listed after their name (limited to one line, perhaps), so that, for instance, George Szell gets "Music Director 1946-70, Cleveland Orchestra" after him? etc. QwertyAZ, 29 July 2005

I think anyone who is/was a verifiable conductor is a valid entry. The actual title of the page is List of Conductors. The famous part is only a redirect, presumably because some people may choose to enter that. There is no way to draw the line on fame, importance, or any other qualification. Hopefully, there will eventually be articles on every listing, so people can investigate whomever they choose and discover how important they are. If the list comes to seem too long for general purposes, we could create a short list of an arbitrary number (100, 200...) of major names. That would seve as a guide to those with no education on the subject. (Then people can bicker over who does and doesn't belong on that list.) - Abstrator (not loggrd in) 216.19.218.72 19:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone would like to compose a list to be called 100 Famous Conductors or 100 Important Conductors, we could make a new page with a link from the List of Conductors. That way there is no problem being as comprehensive as we want to be in the main list. Abstrator 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alternative to "more famous as a..."

The word "famous" is a problem all around. I propose to change this to "also a...Fame is relative. Someone may be famous among any percentage of people. What percetage constitutes famous? Some people regard Bernstein as important as a composer. So, to be consistent and accurate, and avoid arbitrary or subjective judgments, I intend change these in a day or two if no one offers a good reason not to. Abstrator 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC) edited Abstrator 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Better might be to eliminate the relativity judgments and simply say "also a composer" or whatever, allowing the article or further investigation to inform of the relative importance of their talents. Abstrator 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


It has been several days, so I will make the changes. Abstrator 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Revising Introduction

Considering the editing I have done on this list, I will revise the introductory remarks. When adding names, I was careful to select those who conducted classical music (or modern "composer music" considered in that genre). However, if they usually conducted pop-song arrangements, for instance, but also conducted symphonies, I did include them. I have not checked all of the previous listings, but if there are any who are exclusively conductors of jazz, pop, movie sound-tracks, etc., I would recommend their removal to different lists. I found that such non-classical conductors were included in several other conductor lists (as: Category: Conductors by nationality, and Category: Conductor stubs). I have left them alone because the intent of those lists is ambiguous. Also, adding all these names to other lists is too much for me.

Because many articles on conductors were written without their names being added to this or the other lists, there are probably many missing from this list. If anyone knows a practical way to locate those, please do so or let me know. It would be good to index all conductor articles here. Abstrator 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on this list, or any list...

Seems I'm alone here in this little corner of the Wikipedia, performing a silly task to ease the stress of my life. Some people in my situation would play video games, or solitaire, or do crossword puzzles .- I am entering the names of classical music conductors into this list - a great service to mankind...

In doing this, there is the usual problem of where to draw the line on who fits the category. Some of the other conductor lists include leaders of jazz bands or orchestras, conductors of scores for film and television, conductors of back-up music for popular singers, and others. There are also those who conduct arrangements of popular tunes or their own 'light" compositions in such styles. I chose to exclude these and stick to what is broadly called "classical". At times it seems unreasonable to make a distiction, as in the case of conductors of movie scores, but it then becomes a slippery slope to inclusion of anyone who conducts anything, and the list becomes too large and inclusice to be very useful. So, I hope someone {if not I) will create a list of "non-classical" conductors. I think two lists would suffice. Some will need to be in both lists.

The other issue is where to draw th line on who is "important" enough to include. I determined that to try to draw such a line is virtually crippling to the effort to compile. Must we determine that any addition is at least as important as the least important existing listing? Or that no addition less important than an as-yet omitted one? It becomes absurd. So, I determined that any person who fits the category is a legitimate listing. If it has an article in Wikipedia, fine. If not, then it is merely a harmless listing that can possibly be worked up later. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, that there need be no such limitations. As I've said elsewhere, I think it would be a good idea to create also a special limited list of 100, or 200, "famous" or "important" conductors, and provide a link to the main list for "more".

The list is long, and I expect someone will eventually divide it up into paged alphabetical sections. I kind of hope it doesn't get done right away, because it would sure be a drag to have to bring up separate edit pages for each entry. Perhaps divide the list into three or four sections, not 26 or 20...

Of course, all I've said here would apply to the lists of composers and musicians, and any other category of almost anything. Abstrator 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this an article?

Why is this an article? Since this is little more than just a big list of links to other articles, wouldn't it be better if it were just a category? --Miken2005 09:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_conductors_524a.html"