Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Underdeveloped pages

As per Antandrus' suggestion, I moved the list to a new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Composers. The talk that was here is now on the discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Composers --Sketchee 07:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Project Page

What do you all think of the project page? I'm not sure if it's outlining everything well enough or not. I tried to make it clear that the project is a guide and list of ideas, not a concrete template. There are so many ways and angles we can concentrate on a person's life and career. Even vary similar pages discuss things in the same way. I think the "How you can help" list is a decent start since it's concise. People can just pick one and go. Then, if someone wants to get in detail, the structure section gives a bit of that ... maybe too much though.

We could create subpages of the project to detail various aspects. When discussing a composers's style, influences, biography, etc. how do we present those sections? A guide could probably be made listing or detailing ideas for each. If you think it's good for the project, create a subpage style guide, tutorial or anything. The goals section might need more goals, so if you think of anything go for it. It is also suggested that WikiProjects choose a real example.

Also, I was looking at Wikipedia:Sound. What kind of header(s) can we suggest for including sound and images? The Chopin article uses ==Media===. That's probably okay. Maybe a note on including images or a link to the approprate Wikipedia namespace article should be here as the perfect article would probably include a picture of the composer if available.

If there's someone you think might be interested in contributing, it's probably okay to leave a note on their talk page.

I take no credit for the project, even though I set up the project page. :) This is something people have been already doing anyway. I've used samples from various composer pages as my guide so in reality there are already a lot of contributions to the page. That's the fun of Wikipedia. Feel free to boldy rip apart the project page as you feel necessary! :D --Sketchee 07:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts? --Sketchee 07:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at previous featured articles, a few composers have been featured: Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, Charles Ives, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Roy Orbison, Dmitri Shostakovich, and Igor Stravinsky. Some are better than others, IMHO. They all have a lot of information and use similar headers to the examples. The best of them tailor the format to fit their information.
The Roy Orbison article I didn't like as the information switching back and forth from his life story into long non-chronological asides. IMHO that works okay with small tidbits of information, but as it grows it becomes a bit more unwieldly and harder to tell what happened when. The information is there and much of the idea of the project is to make sure various aspects/perspectives are discussed so that's still a fair example.
The Johnny Cash article uses ==Samples== as an alternative to "media". Maybe both can be put onto the project page as suggested, if people have just a clip of music that then that is clear. Subheadings dividing the Biography is probably usually best left without suggestions. Bob Dylan as a songwriter isn't really discussed. That's largely the case with Miles Davis as a composer although he is listed in the composer category. Mozart's style section overflows to it's own article.
==Criticism== (from Stravinsky) looks like another good suggestion to add I think as a suggested discussion topic. Critics of a lot of composers are just left out and I think it's a good perspective for a NPOV. ===Further Reading=== might also be a good one. I never liked the idea of ===Notable Recordings=== but that's a common one. Stravinsky's page also is fairly comprehensive about his musical style as a good example of how this information can be expanded.
Of course every composer won't have everything discussed but where it's possible. The suggested headings just give organization as well as provide topics about the composer to look up so. I'm not sure how to make that clear that they are just examples in the "Structure" section on the project page, though, if I add all these though. I don't want people to think that if they don't have all the information that they shouldn't even bother. I'm afraid listing all the possible topics to explore on a composer might be intimidating.
Also, I probably should just link Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). It gives better examples for the opening paragraph than I came up with.--Sketchee 08:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I like the structure of something like the Charles Ives article as a basic template setup, to be detailed as necessary. For example, Stravinky's ==Music== section is split up into periods; Beethoven's probably ought to be, too. But Hovhaness' musical style could probably best be talked about in one big section. Similarly with criticism -- giving it a section to itself if it's particularly important to consideration of the composer, and otherwise mentioning it along with discussion of musical style.
One change I'd make from the sugeested structure is that the catalog of works be the last thing listed before external links/references/see alsos; I'd usually think of mentioning the most important ones in the body of the text anyhow, and the list I think of as stuck at the end for completeness. Also, where there is media uploaded, how about in/around the Music section?
Perhaps on the project page a basic suggested structure with the guideline to expand as necessary, and give (or link to) examples structures of articles following a basic and a more detailed version. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 18:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right about the Ives page; it's a good example of how to present the information inthe simplest format. It's basically just Biography - Music - Reception. Criticism is included in the last section briefly in the context of discussing how his music was received. It's clear and people can know what they want to know.
I guess the structure section would be best in trying to make it easier for people to "spiral out" the content, right? If an editor wants to write a long detailed article about a composer's style—like on the Beethoven page—hopefully it'll be in a place where readers (or even editors) who don't want to know all that will be able to understand the basics of the style. Hopefully the project page gives people ideas on what they can write about (Like "Oh, I could research Liszt's style more!") without making them feel like they have to write in that much detail or about all of these things. :)
The media could be in the music section. Should we make the distinction between music that is uploaded on Wikipedia and music that is on an external site? Which would we put WikiCommons music at if we did?
Maybe the example structure section should be left with just the basic guidelines like you say and the text that's there can go on a subpage? Also, linking a few of the examples would probably be helpful


I got this idea from the WikiProject talkpage. Other projects are doing this, but I thought it best to ask on the talk page first since I have all the stuff above posted here already. Should we post a notice on the Talk page of articles linking to the WikiProject? Should we place it at the top of the article, in a template, or in the regular talk page format? Would we want to "tag" articles in this category that hasn't been explicitly edited by us to ask for assistance from the usual editors? --Sketchee 13:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think you've made a great start on this Wikiproject. One thing I really like is that you're not trying to chisel a format into granite--something I have seen on other wikiprojects, something which tends to stifle the creativity of a lot of writers.
One thing I find very helpful is to have the last sentence of the first paragraph to be a summary statement of the importance of the composer--i.e. in the same position as the standard thesis statement of an essay. "Filetovich Sanovich (16xx-17xx) was a Russian composer and kazoo player of the late Baroque era. He was the most famous exponent of the newly developed Orthodox Kazoo concerto, and championed virtuoso kazoo playing in Russia as well as western Europe." I could put something to that effect in the project page if you agree. Antandrus 15:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea and example to me. Feel free to add it. :D --Sketchee 02:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Antandrus' suggestion (and praise :-)). As for tagging articles: why not? It'll encourage people who are editing composer articles anyway. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 18:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good! A basic template can be made or just writing a note on the talk page works. I guess it depends on what you want to say; if there's have an explicit concern about the articles content, it can just be said to see some of the project's suggestions. The template, if we want one, could just be an "alert" to the existance of the project. --Sketchee 02:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Incidentally, from what I gather on categorization, articles that can be put into a subcategory shouldn't be put into the supercategory. Category:Classical composers seems to be populated by people who should be placed into nationalities and eras (or in borderline cases, two eras). Also, Classical composer by nationality seems to be unused, with Composers by nationality being populated instead. Is it worthwhile to revive it and preserve the distinction between classical/non-classical on that front? Nationality and era seem to be the most useful way to break them down -- I'd like to see no one left stranded in a supercat. Also, I'm inclined to remove "musician" unless they were also known for their performance careers, since composer is a subcat of musician. Thoughts? Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 08:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It does get a bit complicated! A composer listed in Category:Composers by nationality under American composers could be in a Category:Classical American composers subcategory which would both be in Classical composers by nationality and under American Composers. The same composer would also go into the appropriate era category. The other composer genre categories don't seem to have as many people to make this distinction. Nationality is probably most useful in the classical category anyway. I do agree that we should get articles in the narrowest subcategory that makes sense. So you're right, pretty much everyone in the main Category:Classical composers is better off in the appropriate subcategories.
I don't think all composers belong under musicians as they probably will go under both Musicians by instrument and Musicians by nationality (which uses United States musicians instead of American). --Sketchee 09:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
As you've both noticed, categorization gets quite messy. Composers are resistant to the strict taxonomic classification that can be applied to things scientific. Sometimes (as you've pointed out) it's ok for a composer to be in two same-level categories (e.g. composers claimed by more than one nationality or genre or period: a composer could be a Jewish composer, an Austrian composer, a Hungarian composer, a Romantic composer and a Modernist composer) (point for who I am thinking of, LOL). I don't like the musicians categories much, since as Mindspillage mentions a composer is a subcat of musician. There's lots of gray area here and I don't think there is one absolutely right way to do any of this. I agree that no one should be stranded in a supercat: all composers should end up in a specific cat, even if it is a sparsely populated one. Antandrus 15:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I stuck a notice in Category talk:Classical composers hinting that if anyone had objections to a categorization spree, they should come over here and talk about it. Of course I stopped about a dozen composers into the spree before I figured I should do that... Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 02:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I approve of what you were doing. If you look through the histories of some of those articles, you will see that some of the categories have been changed back and forth a few times (category "Classical composers" in particular has come and gone). I certainly think you are safe in removing people from the supercat of "composers." Antandrus 03:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed talk page template

Also, I made a simple talk page template: Template:Composers. It's just a simple text tag informing people of the project:

WikiProject Composers/Archive 1 is related to the Composers WikiProject which has been provided as a place for editors of biographical articles of music Composers and Songwriters to discuss common issues, discover neglected composer articles and exchange ideas. All who are interested are invited to comment and contribute.

It's not something that is required on all talk pages under the category but may help people find a place to discuss. I just made it text so it could be places anywhere on the talk page that an editor feels comfortable. I didn't want it to be as obtrusive as say the Template:Album talk template. Feel free to edit it, make suggestions or use it as desired. --Sketchee 09:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Articles

This is a topic which some of us have discussed before (there's a bit on my talk page, as well as that of User:Opus33). These articles which Wikipedia has pillaged wholesale from the 1911 EB are very difficult to work with; they are pompous, heavy, and their German-Romantic-Era-is-the-Summit-of-Musical-Perfection POV is so tightly interwoven with the content that it is extremely difficult simply to filter out the POV and retain the factual information. In addition, the factual information is often wrong--there has been so much musicological research since 1911, that fact-checking can be truly agonizing. I for one would like to ditch them and rewrite from scratch, using more up-to-date sources, but I recognize others might see some value in these articles. Some that come to mind are Franz Schubert, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Carl Maria von Weber, Henry Purcell. (Most of the articles on composers before the 17th century I have already rewritten.) Any other thoughts on this? I think I'll go ahead and add them to the list of composers needing TLC. Antandrus 04:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for rewriting the articles from scratch. Scrap the current version to a subpage. Maybe list the Britannica in the references and take perhaps any bit of salvagable information. A lot of them seem a editorialized by modern standards... Of course this is up to whoever's watching over that particular article. We might post our own major revisions for review linked from the talk page of the article first. --Sketchee 21:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template Detail

In regards some of the template details that are inconsistent with how we have been doing things for some time (e.g., ==External Links== instead of, as you have it on the page, ===External Links=== — I never said my examples weren't picky) - however, when I was informed of this header2 standard, I went through quite a few pages I knew and edited them to conform to that template; should I now go through them again to rewrite them to the new header3 template, for example?? Schissel : bowl listen 01:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consensus on it here. It's a fairly loose set of guidelines. I like the See also/External links combo sometimes since it gets rid of some clutter after we have each of the sections developed. In most cases the article is saying 'See these links also' I think. I don't think References should be header3. That might be a typo. If there was no See also then I wouldn't put one just to put external links under it or anything. It probably doesn't matter too much either way I guess. --Sketchee 02:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

New to Projects

I'm new to Wikiprojects but would like to contribute to this one. I have a load of past essays I wrote from the Royal Conservatory of Music exams, and textbook material, but I'd like to know if I should get started right away, or wait for guidelines to come in. Some guidance on how to work with projects would help. Thanks. TheProject 07:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you can pretty much jump right in and learn by doing. The "how to help" section on this project gives a few examples of ways you can start editing composer articles off the bat. If you have any specific guideline questions or suggestions, feel free to bring them up here (like the examples above). Have fun --Sketchee 19:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Listing format

On the advice of Antandrus I'm bringing this up here, (I first mentioned it over at Talk:European classical music). Is there any consensus opinion on whether opus lists should be tabulated or non-tabulated. A couple of examples of the tabulated form can be found at List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin and the K number table of Mozart's works, whilst the non-tabulated form can be found in pretty much all the other lists (an example would be my new List of works by Purcell). If the consensus is reached against tabulated form, I'll be happy to revert the Chopin (I think the Mozart should be left as is regardless), and likewise if the consensus is for tabulated form, I'll be equally happy to tabulate any suggested pages (it's normally just a few replace alls with regexps, not as hard as it might first appear). Mallocks 15:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this discussion has moved to here - good move. I've had my say in the old place. To make comparison easier, look at a bullet list and the same information in tabulated format. --RobertG 13:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comparison, RobertG. It shows (IMHO) that not only does the bullet list look far nicer than the same data in tabulated form, it also shows the groupings of works under the same Opus much clearer. --Lambyuk 14:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I like it; in fact, I like it a lot. The bullet list is quite eye-friendly.
There is a scattering of nasty lists about, some of which we have begun to format or just forgotten about (List of compositions by Dvorak comes to mind); also there are some lists, or portions of lists, that may benefit by staying in tabular format (have a look at List_of_compositions_by_Schubert for an example: there are a lot of columns in that table). That Emerson chestnut about "foolish consistency" comes to mind--it may be indeed that there are exceptions to any general principle we may develop for using bulleted lists.
Thanks for bringing it up, and thanks Robert for the example. Antandrus 15:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Antandrus, or indeed anyone, how do you think the List of compositions by Dvorak should be arranged? There aren't enough pieces with Opus number to make arrangement by them tenable, as it is it's essentially arranged by the Burghauser catalogue, just without the B. numbers. I think it might be that the thing that makes it look most messy is the translations for each piece, would this look better in a table? I've created a page so that the two main possibilites can be looked at easily here Mallocks 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Good, and thanks for taking this on! I think this is an example of one that is helped by tabular format, since there are competing cataloging systems, each with its own number per piece. A while ago I had started formatting that list (mainly just piping the links to the correct English article titles). Really I think we can use either a list or table format depending on the situation. Antandrus 16:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
To which end I've done the basic untabulating of the Chopin, hopefully RobertG will be able to bring it up to the standard of his example. Mallocks 17:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

So I think this would be a rough sketch of what we're looking at for a system:

For listings with only 1 catalogue system: (square brackets signifying "if available")

  • Opus Number Composition title (year)[ - "popular name of piece (Moonlight etc.)"]
    • [No. # Composite pieces with same opus number (year [if different from containing opus])]

For listings with more than 1 catalogue system:

First system Second system Composition Year
First Number [Second number] Composition title[ - "popular name"] (year)
...

Improvements, suggestions and/or comments welcome. Mallocks 13:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the system for listing unnumbered works by a composer who otherwise uses standard opus numbers? I'm thinking of Saint-Saëns; several operas and ballets have no opus number. I found the existing list with the tabbed "Op. none" marking, and I've left it that way during my additions, but I don't like it too much. Mordant21 3:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC) -- On my Saint-Saëns list I've made sure to always list keys then instrumentation:
  • Op. 13 Élévation ou Communion in E major for organ (1865)
Well, this is very much a work in progress, so if you've got any suggestions, they'd be appreciated. I personally think that if no other option is available, by type of composition and year is ok (as in the Saint-Saëns), but as I say, any suggestions would be great. Mallocks 10:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind what the Manual of Style about not italicizing generic musical forms (eg Piano Concerto, Sonata) or liturgical terms (eg Agnus Dei) Mordant21 7:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I've updated the sketch (and it is just a sketch, not an authoratative system) to show that. Mallocks 10:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Lists of compositions: further issues

On a related topic, it looks like we either need a list of lists of compositions by composer, and/or a category for lists of compositions by composer, since the lists are rather hard to find (the naming is inconsistent too--List of works by Beethoven vs. List of compositions by Schubert. I'm at work now and can't tangle with it until later--but anyone let me know your ideas! Fun, Antandrus 15:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by Category:Lists of pieces by composer? Mallocks 15:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the list of lists is a bit incomplete; I'll work on it a bit over the next few days. Mordant21

Biography portal

I've created Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Biography to see if anyone else thinks it's a good idea and would be willing to participate. It's still just a rough sketch of an idea. Matt 01:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing encyclopedic articles

As a subproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics now exists with a list of articles taken from music encyclopedias (by Gmaxwell). If anyone is looking for something music-related to write, there's a list of ideas. Some of them just need redirects: there's plenty of low-hanging fruit if you're not up for a full article. (Plenty of the redlinks are composers.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... this ought to keep us busy for a while. Yikes! That's one scary set of redlinks (only about 40,000...) Gmaxwell, thanks for doing this. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Women composers

Hi, I just created Category:Women composers, since I noticed it was linked from severeal places and missing. I've also populated it somewhat, using List of women composers. Two questions though: 1) is List of women composers necessary at all, then? 2) I think I saw Category:Women composers on CfD for deletion some time ago, as an assertion of inequality, so maybe I did wrong? Karol 13:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

1) I think List of women composers is redundant, yes; 2) Personally, I think it would be a good idea to keep Category:Women composers from the POV that they are generally underrepresented, but I'm sure someone else out there could make a better, more cogent argument. --bleh fu talk fu 13:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
First: There was, previously, Category:Female classical composers (which I think was a subcat of Category:Women composers), which was deleted at WP:CFD about two days ago, following precedent in deleting categories like women scientists and women philosophers; most of the "women in X profession" were delted or merged with their parent categories. (I didn't see the discussion until it was over as a load of articles on my watchlist changed). Category:Classical composers, which I've asked a bot operator to change back, since that cat is meant only to be a parent to its subcats; all the composers there ought to be categorized by nationality and era already. (I spent a long evening once reconciling the list of women classical composers with the category and recategorizing as needed.)
Second, the biggest benefit of having lists over categroies (IMO) is that lists can contain redlinks, so that they can both comprehensive (even if the article coverage is not: we'll know what we're missing) and serve as a guide to what we still need to do. Another benefit is that lists can contain information that categories cannot: you can give dates, split by era, etc. The categories are useful by they link in articles in a structured way to the whole hierachy of knowledge that wikipedia covers, through the category system; ideally all articles would have one or more categories (again, IMO). At least, I love them, as a reader, especially when I'm browsing an area I don't know very well. So I don't believe they're redundant. However, precedent is against keeping the women composers cat; I suppose no one nominated that one for deletion along with its subcats because they just didn't think to. Thoughts? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree: funny, I was busy writing almost exactly the same thing and got an edit conflict! LOL. Lists are good for redlinks and for the possibility of annotation; categories have other uses, especially for navigation. Both are useful. Antandrus (talk) 14:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good points that I never thought about, but sure do benefit from! So thanks. As to women categories, there is a Category:Women scientists. Karol 15:24, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the list to the category. Karol 15:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • The reason for the deletion of the category is that, by separating composers (or indeed anything) into a 'male' and 'female' section, Wikipedia is asserting (or enforcing) inequality between the two. The bias that males would be inherently superior or inferior is an undesirable POV. Also note that this means that someone looking in Category:Composers would not find women! I've nominated the women scientists for deletion on the same grounds. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:41 (UTC)
Well, ideally, as I understand it, no composers should be found directly in Category:Composers, but in their respective specific subcategories. In my eyes, Category:Women composers would exist to distinguish women composers among others, just as every category does. Yes, that is bias, as every categorization, but not prejudice. Note also that there is a list - List of female composers. Are lists justifiable or does this anti-bias campaign relate only to categories? In any case, I think the policy should be global, whatever be it. Karol June 28, 2005 16:46 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Categorization of people, which does ask to not categorize by gender. You are right that all composers should be in subcategories, but a more consensual way of subcategorizing would be by country of origin. The aim is for categories to be informative - given one 16th century composer, arguably other 16th century composers would have a related style, and/or influence one another. The term 'female composer' is too broad for categorization, and implies a segregation that shouldn't exist (just as we don't categorize by skin color).
  • However, lists are a lot freeer than categories. This is because a list works one way (you can find all relevant composers from a list) but a category works two ways - and the more categories an article is in, the less meaningful any of them will become. So yes, lists are justifiable because they serve a different purpose. Hope that helps! Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 20:49 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand better now. Karol June 28, 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Lutosławski

I have taken the plunge and nominated Witold Lutosławski for peer review. I should be grateful for anyone interested in the composers project looking the article over and making or suggesting improvements to get it into a state suitable for nomination as a featured article. Thanks. I am taking a Wikiholiday end of July, so my plan is to have it peer reviewed until then, and if people think it's worth it I may nominate it for FA on my return mid August. --RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)

The peer review seemed positive on the whole, so I have now nominated the article for featured article status here. Any support or constructive criticism will be welcomed; I'll try and address any of the latter. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Greatness

This discussion after an edit scuffle at Johann Sebastian Bach prompted me to share what I perceive as a woolliness in articles about a few composers: namely the use of the word great. If someone contributes "X is [one of] the greatest composers…" the opinion-like nature of the statement leads other Wikipedians (even those sympathetic to the claim) to require its qualification because it is unverifiable: the qualification usually (reluctantly) adopted is either "X is generally considered [one of] the greatest composers…" or "many people regard X as [one of] the greatest composers…".

I contend that the problem with saying "X is the greatest" is not the fact that the claim is opinion, but that the word "great" is used inappropriately. In this context "great" can be taken to mean anything from "influential", "significant", "popular", to "intellectually challenging", "conveying great emotion", "using such deep concepts as to defy simple exposition", but what the word ends up conveying is either all (or any) of the above, or simply the contributor's own inarticulate adulation.

For this reason I propose that the word "great" is unencyclopedic, and should never (never say never?) be used to describe a classical composer on Wikipedia. It can always be replaced by specific verifiable meanings. In my recent edit of the intro of the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article I removed the word "great" and inserted three meanings that I thought were appropriate and verifiable: it now says "is among the most popular, significant and influential composers of European classical music." I think this was a forward step, it does not require any "people think" or "is regarded as" qualifications, and it seems to have been found acceptable there.

Respecfully opening a polite debate, and hoping others have a view. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Your initiative is great ;) Seriously, of course it is more encyclopedic, and plain clearer, to use specific descriptors over ambigous and vague adjectives. Cheers! Karol 10:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Yes: I agree: we should greatly strive to avoid the adjective "great"; it's insufficiently precise. There are, as you say, numerous more precise ways to say the same thing: this composer was widely influential, was an inspiration to composers of the next generation, was widely imitated, continues to be among the most popular composers of the period, and so forth. With composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, occasionally restoring NPOV after a drive-by anonymous adulation is something we will periodically have to do. Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a related discussion (copied from my talk page) at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Bach greatness where I defend the use of the word "greatest", which I think can be encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 14:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Quality of musical information is lacking

I've read a few composer entries, and am struck by the scarcity of technical information describing composers' styles in relation to their period, and the evolution of their styles through their career. This applies to both featured and non-featured articles. I don't think that adding technical information in a section dedicated to style will alienate the non-musician reader; the advantage is that it will increase the authority of Wikipedia in this area. At the moment, the emphasis is far too much on biography, in my view.

Tony 10:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think many of us don't have the access to the necessary primary sources which really analyze music in detail. Other encyclopias and books primarily discuss biographical information, while expert technical analysis is more rare. --Sketchee 12:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

So Wikipedia can distinguish itself in this respect. I think it's worth doing. Tony 13:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, and I can help in this regard. Maybe we could start a list, or sublist, of composers who have decent biographical articles but who need a better writeup of stylistic characteristics. In the composer articles I've been writing (mainly composers before about 1650) I try to include a section on their music and stylistic characteristics, but I haven't always gone into a lot of detail.
I'm also happy to contribute musical examples (i.e. score, not .ogg). Antandrus (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not immediately agree. Musical analysis is a controversial subject, there are several schools of thought on it (harmonic analysis, Schenker analysis, phenomenological analysis, and so on) many of them covered excellently in Nicholas Cook's A Guide to Musical Analysis, and, as Cook also argues, it's not even clear what such analysis contributes to the understanding of music or a composer. And Wikipedia is not a musicological encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia for the general reader. Do we want to get into having a whole set of such analyses, or analysis at the level of detail that would make it not superficial? Do we want to get into controversy about the "right" analytical style? The wikipedia musical analysis article already quotes Nattiez to the effect that "there is never only one valid musical analysis for any given work." Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's not have any misunderstanding here. We're not proposing a Schenkerian analysis of every piece the composer wrote; we're talking about a discussion of the composer's stylistic language and how it changed throughout his (or her) career. Look at how the composer articles are written in the New Grove: there is always a section on the composer's music, and it includes just the right amount of detail necessary for a general understanding. I propose doing the same here. Antandrus (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Antandrus. The main difficulty that I find in doing this is avoiding original research without just copying too closely the analyses published elsewhere. Biographical information is easy to reorganize and rewrite; analysis not so much so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, with this clarification I feel better, understanding that you mean a discussion of the composer's style in general. However, I don't agree that we can take the New Grove as our model, since that is a specialist's encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. The New Grove article on Mozart alone is 70 pages long, and just the section on "the composer's stylistic language and how it changed through his (or her) career" is 10 pages long. That may be just the right amount of detail for someone who would consult the New Grove, but I suspect it would be way too much for Wikipedia. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tony and Antandrus in principle. The list Antandrus suggests would be a good starting place. As well as drawing up a list of articles that are lacking, can we point to an existing Wikipedia article that gets it just right? Tony and I have been having exchanges on the Witold Lutosławski article which I am currently stewarding in FAC, and which he feels is considerably lacking in this regard. Igor Stravinsky? Charles Ives? What about Olivier Messiaen? What do others think? --RobertG ♬ talk 19:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Robert that we need a such a list; I'll add a category to the list of the status of composer articles on the main project page. Please add to it. And it was my thought exactly that we locate a few models of what we think is desirable. Far from going into as much serious technical detail as Groves does, I was concerned that we distinguish ourselves from, say, Word Book Encyclopedia and the like, which are superficial in this regard. Just as some of the scientific articles on Wikipedia are aimed at undergraduates of the area (e.g., cerebellum), we should dish up something that a music undergraduate would find useful, while not pursuing an intensive analytical line, as Mindspillage may fear. I'm about to write a 'Style' section for JS Bach. It will not be easy, but must be done; otherwise, the article is just a biography.

Tony 23:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't fear it at all; I've just gotten admonished for venturing into original research territory myself! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent FAC for Olivier Messiaen has raised this question again. I think we need a consensus. I think an article about a composer should include a brief (but comprehensive) overview of the composer's style, technique and influence. What do others think? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. Every composer article I wrote/worked on either has a whole section for style/works or, for less known composers like Giovanni Valentini, has at least some information on the style/works. I reckon that when someone is searching for an article on Johann Sebastian Bach, they're not searching for an in-depth biography text.. they're searching for a few basic facts about his life, some information on his music, references to famous works and general discussion of these works. Separate articles on "Style" and/or "Works" are needed for larger articles, and not to wipe out all information about those things from the main article but to make the main article shorter (look at Johann Sebastian Bach). In such cases the main article should have summaries.. at least some kind of information on works.
Besides, for instance, in Johann Caspar Fischer the "Life" section will always remain a stub because very little is known about his life. Yet a lot is known about his works. In Johann Pachelbel, the "Works" section will constantly have to mention biographical events (chorales composed as part of fulfilling the Erfurt contract, magnificat fugues and sacred concertos composed in Nuremberg, one of the published collections probably influenced by the death of his first wife, etc). The reader will be confused and will have to jump between articles all the time and I don't think thats good. A lot of other examples like these exist. Jashiin 12:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a false dilemma. Wikipedia should have information on composers and their works at every level, from idiots' guides to the ferociously technical. The composer articles are the entry points for all our articles on the composers and their music, so it makes sense to me to put our most accessible summaries there. We can then get progressively more detailed in further articles:Bach>Style of Bach>Late style of Bach>...>Harmonisation of Bach's later chorales, etc. Mark1 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand.. didn't you say that a composer article should have no summary of his work/style, only biography? I'm saying this because of what you said on the FAC page RobertG linked to; "This article should be about Olivier Messiaen the person; the musical content would be better off exported to Style of Olivier Messiaen, or some such (comparable to Albert Einstein and Special relativity, etc.).. If you do advocate this, I don't think we have a false dilemma, because well, the examples I gave prove that a separate article is not always possible/needed. And if you advocate a summary, a short section for style/works in the main article and bigger, more detailed style discussion in a separate article, then there's no dilemma at all. Maybe I misunderstood something? Jashiin 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)