Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Shortcut

A Flower

[edit]

Please source this stub, which has been unsourced for decades, with reliable sources. Some might be transferred from the Spanish language article. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or again, Bearian, they might not. They say very little. More interesting is part (pages 18–21) of a chapter of Jane Manning's New Vocal Repertory, doi:10.1007/978-1-349-18494-1 – a book available in toto from Springer via TWL. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can you please add it? Bearian (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bearian, I could simply add it under "References", but that would be to referencing what truthiness is to truth. I'm not going to sink to such blatant fraud. Far better, somebody could read these few pages, and add references to what within the article is backed up by it. But that somebody wouldn't be me, because I'm not competent to write about music. (So why am I here? Merely for "Maelzel", below.) ¶ Even I know that Cage is quite a celeb, so I'd guess that there exist books about his works that have the odd half-page or more about "A Flower". But the major contributors to the article John Cage, editors likelier than most to possess copies of one or more of these books, seem to have retired (or been chucked out) years ago. -- Hoary (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. No problem. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Please see Talk:Wolfgang Meyer, about which infobox to use for the oboist. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... or actually classical musicians in general. Project opera recommends infobox person for classical performers. Do we have project guidelines here? Should we have them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come and sing

[edit]

Could someone please add in some history and context to this stub? If you wish, you may even add it to WP:DYK. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maelzel

[edit]

Inventor of the panharmonicon, exhibitor of musical automata, co-composer (to a disputed degree) of a work normally attributed to Beethoven, developer of the metronome, Johann Nepomuk Maelzel deserves an article that's sourced to something sounder than de:Johann Nepomuk Mälzel (which itself has obvious oddities). And sounder material is legally downloadable (see also this). Anyone here up for the task? (No, not me: I've OD'd on the related article Mechanical Turk.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Rutter 80

[edit]

John Rutter is 80 today. For Joseph Haydn, there's a discussion which paramters of an infobox to fill. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn sonata nickname

[edit]

The discussion at Talk:String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn) § "Jack in the Box" about the inclusion/mention of a recent nickname has failed to reach a consensual conclusion and further input might contribute to a solution. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Reynolds (musician)

[edit]

Please add additional sources, or delete the unsourced information. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mozart family for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mozart family is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart family until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about groups of compositions

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a guideline for when to include an article on a notable group of compositions and when to relegate it to a section in their list of compositions; I think some kind of consensus would be helpful. There are some clear-cut cases to include (e.g. Brandenburg concertos or Ring cycle), but it's not clear where to draw the line. We have Tone poems (Strauss) but not Symphonies of Dmitri Shostakovich, for example. The general "music" criteria don't really seem helpful since the presumption there is that the album is more notable than the individual songs. What do people think? Should there be some guideline here? Should there be a consistent naming convention? I personally think Tone poems of Richard Strauss would be preferable over the current title, for example. A notability guideline might result in a large number of new articles, which isn't necessarily a problem. lp0 on fire () 19:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's necessary on Wikipedia that reliable sources provide some coverage on a subject before an article is viable. — Dissatisfaction with article names can often be resolved with redirects. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but it's often the case that groups of compositions have significant coverage as a collective, and that doesn't necessarily mean there should be an article on them as a group (significant coverage is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have an article). For example, there's no end of scholarship tackling Beethoven's symphonies collectively, but Beethoven symphonies is a redirect to his list of works. I think the distinction between this and Tone poems (Strauss) is pretty much arbitrary, so I'm asking here in the hope of some standardisation. lp0 on fire () 07:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think seeking standardisation is an achievable, or even worthwhile, aim here. I maintain that if WP:SIGCOV is satisfied, groups of compositions are suitable subjects for articles. Without a concrete proposal, this discussion is speculative and won't create any binding rules. — But as with all articles, someone has to get up and write them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Surely, a decent article on Beethoven's symphonies would be very welcome, likewise Symphonies of Dmitri Shostakovich. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this seems fairly clear. Thanks! If I ever have time I might make Symphonies of Gustav Mahler. lp0 on fire () 13:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For articles on groups of compositions, WP:Naming conventions (music) seems to be quite sparse. The closest recommendation given is that deviations from [the standardized format of article title] are only possible ... when the article groups several compositions of the series, but this doesn't cover group articles of a whole set, and gives no indication of how exactly to deviate. I agree that some sort of standardising would be good, but this isn't a pressing matter when we're discussing content that doesn't even exist yet. In the future, an adition to the naming guidelines could be worth looking into.
You're right that there are cases where both grouped and individual articles are viable. Ultimately it comes down to the golden rule of WP:GNG: how do reliable sources cover a composition? If it is as part of a group, we should cover it in a group article. If it is as an individual composition, a specific article should exist. If both the composition and the group itself are covered, this is when we should have both. In these cases, the composition article should focus on specific history, analysis, etc., while the group article should include short summaries of each composition while focusing on scholarship of the set per WP:SPINOFF. This approach will avoid creating an WP:RFORK. In all cases, even the group isn't notable, a works list entry should exist anyways as usual. I don't think a specialised notability guideline is needed as we can easily just apply GNG here as shown. For many of these articles, the reason they don't exist isn't notability – as with any writing on Wikipedia, the main limiting factor is volunteer time. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]