Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 6 September 2007

Archives
2006 Jan – Mar 2007 Apr 2007 (incl. Instrumentation) May – Jul 2007

Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

I'm going to take Górecki's 3rd to FAC in a week or so. However, I dont have training in music theory, and as I synthesized the text from a number of sources I would appreciate if someone could take a look at the "Instrumentation and score" section. I am concerned that it still makes sence. Thanks. Ceoil 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Just some comments.

The "Instrumentation and score" is quite cluttered and dense. Information such as length, titles of movement and the list of instruments should be clear and instantly readable. (See Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn), the only non-opera/ballet piece of classical music that is currently a GA or FA). Also use something like LilyPond to make some excerpts of the piece, they are far more useful than say the CD cover. Finally I've put the media at the end of the article, as per most other classical music articles and corrected some formatting. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input at various places. Now at FAC. Ceoil 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, for making it a Featured Article! ALTON .ıl 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sibelius symphony description?

This is my first post to this area, so I hope I am not out of line in asking the following. Another user and I are going back and forth over his/her description of the middle movement of the 5th Sibelius symphony. I am not happy about the state of the article generally...it seems to me an uneasy juxtaposition of A) over-specific theoretical stuff better suited to a scholarly journal, and B) the kind of fluff that turns up in CD liner notes. Specifically regarding the middle movement, I don't see that just two sentences are sufficient, and I especially disagree with what those sentences say. See the talk page for some more. How to proceed? My thanks in advance! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to link to the page in question somewhere. Anyway, the whole page needs some work -- not as bad as a lot of pages, granted, but the entire second half is barely linked, it's HUGELY weighted on the first movement, and there seem to be few refs relative to the text. Theres plenty out there written about this work, it's just a matter of finding it and putting it into good article form (alas, not something for me). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have edited in Wspencer11's talk page. We should find(or wait) more Wikipedian to discuss. If your views get more support, you can correct the sentences or simply delete the original and rewrite it. I also see that a Wikipedian also edit the SECOND MOVEMENT section later than me . May be Wspencer11 can ask for his/her opinion. Thanks!(Addaick 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Popular Culture

Given pages such as The Planets in popular culture have been deleted, I think we need to come to some sort of policy regarding trivia and popular references in classical music articles. This is especially true for popular pieces such as Adagio for Strings and Dvorak's New World Symphony. My own opinion is to remove ALL trivia as they say nothing about the piece except its popularity (or overpopularity). Centy – reply• contribs – 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been discussions around Misplaced Pages in general against trivia sections and "popular culture" sections. Perhaps it would be adequte to just mention the Misplaced Pages page against trivia sections on this page. Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections. — Andy W. 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Centy. I suggest we put wording such as the following into the Wikiproject page:

Use of works of classical music in popular culture

Often Misplaced Pages articles on works of classical music get edited along the following lines: "Work X was used in Y". Such edits should be discouraged: they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing.

Contributions of this sort should be politely reverted. It may be useful to encourage the contributor to include the item in the article about the movie, TV show, or electronic game, if this has not already been done.

See also: Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections

Comments welcome. Opus33 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. However, I can think of one exception to this rule. Some classical composers are so universally known for the use of one of their works in a film that a person with now experience in music might still recognize their name in connection with that film. The example I’m thinking of is György Ligeti, who is probably known best in America and Brittan for the use of his music in 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut. I would suggest that a clause be inserted in you paragraph to allow for exceptionally notable circumstances. (And of course the information should be integrated into the article. I don’t think there is ever any need for a popular culture section.) --S.dedalus 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I somewhat disagree with the logic. Someone might easily hear something on the radio and wonder where they heard it before -- I'd think someone who heard Adagio for Strings is just as likely to want to know that it's played in Platoon as someone watching or remembering said film is wanting to know what was played in that scene. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but what about references in electronic games, TV shows, popular songs, commercials etc. For instance the 1812 Overture must be used in dozens of popular applications. Would a casual reader want to know that? Perhaps we could just use the standard notability guidelines to decide what pop culter references deserve inclusion in an article. --S.dedalus 04:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that, if left unchecked, the pop culture references would take over the entire article. Pop Culture references are fun and a wiki-style way of entering them is cool, but what Misplaced Pages is saying is "not here". There are "classical music in pop culture" sites out there, someone should upgrade one and then wikipedia can just add a single external link at the bottom of each relevant pages rather than maintaining these lists themselves. DavidRF 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We should agree to a wording of the policy and then enact around WP:CM articles. We should start with the 9th symphonies of Beethoven and Dvorak, both of which are getting a lot of edits to their popular culture sections. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure problems of articles

Recently, I have rearranged the format of Symphony No.53 (Haydn). But this have been reverted later. The reason why I have rearranged is because when I gone through other Joseph Haydn's symphonies articles, most of them have a standard format. For example, Symphony No.82 and Symphony No.54, which there is a section called "DATE OF COMPOSITION AND SCORING" and "MOVEMENT". When I edited the article of Symphony No.53, I followed this format and the result is being reverted.

Non-standardized articles also appeared in other articles, for example, Symphony No.9 (Dvorak), there is not a section called "STRUCTURE" and the information of movemnts are put in the top paragraph instead. Same case happens in Symphony No.4 (Mendelssohn). However, most articles have this section and movements information are clearly shown there. It is interested to see that the articles which have the "STRUCTURE" are relatively having a longer contents.

Non-standard structure problem also appear in information about instrumentation. Some are havng a section and some are not.

Are there a standard format for music articles, if so, why there are different format appearing among music articles and I made something which is inproved the structure of articles would be challenged? (Addaick 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Hello Addaick, Sorry if this sounds mean, but I think User:Anton Mravcek was quite right to revert your changes to Symphony No. 53 (Haydn). The article is quite short and therefore doesn't need to be divided into sections (which are more appropriate for a longer article). That's one reason we should not rigidly dictate the form of articles; each one is different and has different requirements. Sincerely, Opus33 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Another reason why Anton Mravcek reverted might have been that your edits had bad English grammar and diction.

If you look at Symphony No.2 (Sibelius and Symphony No.9 (Dvorak) you can see there are a section called ORCHESTRATION and a long paragraph respectively. What I have seen is that even in a single article, the formats are incopreate and this appears in some of the articles.

P.S. I admit my English is not very good, but I didn't not make any mistakes on grammar and somehow on there. (Even this, this is not good way to delete it.) (Addaick 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Need help!

Last night, I emailed John Mitchel, professor of Music at Central Washington University. He has agreed to release a huge amount of music for use on Misplaced Pages. All the recordings at:

• http://www.garageband.com/artist/cello
• http://www.garageband.com/artist/cellolive
• http://www.garageband.com/artist/encore and
• http://www.garageband.com/artist/violinist

I'm still finalizing the arrangements, but I think in the very near future I will be uploading a lot of music files (to Commons). Each of those files needs to be added to my master list at Misplaced Pages:Sound/list, and added to the composer's article and the song article (if extant). I need a *lot* of help on this one. Raul654 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)