Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a little late on this, but on 14 September I proposed Solfeggietto be merged into Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. I put notices on the pages and even notified the creator of the former, but forgot to notify Wikiprojects! Anyway, feedback welcome. Eman235/talk 23:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! According to the bio, this musician has been there done that, but I can't find much about him.. Are there perhaps references in French? He has a page at the French Wikipedia which is pretty well unsourced. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like self-advertising - and is also written oartly in French (Japon, septembre)......--Smerus (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. It reads like an advert because it's virtually verbatim from his website. Ditto the French WP article. I've stubbed the draft to remove the infringement and left a note to that effect at the top. The French WP can sort out their own mess. A cursory search shows no indication that he passes either WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO at this point. Meanwhile, the same COI editor who created the draft also created an advertorial article for his music festival/school, Musicalta, which had somehow slipped under the radar. I've just tagged it for lack of notability, lack of references, and written like an advert. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Smerus and Voceditenore. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was alerted to this free ebook by Musicweb International. The author (Tobias Broeker) claims to have compiled a fairly comprehensive listing of 20th C works for Violin and Orchestra. All the usual warnings and disclaimers apply. This could prove to be a useful resource for expanding coverage.

The link is [1]

Graham1973 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear classical music experts: This article is about a variety of genres of music, but I decided to post a notice about it here because I know that this page is watched by editors who take music seriously. Not knowing what a "critical edition" is, I can't tell from reading the article if the items listed are books, sheet music collections, record albums or something else entirely. Two of the four references are written by past presidents of the publishing organization. The list of publications is all full of external links. Does anyone here have an opinion about how this article could be improved, or, if not, can point me to another Wikiproject which may be more suitable? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: for an explanation of "critical edition", see our article on Textual criticism. The lede is probably useful, but the Publications section duplicates their own listing, with links to each publication's listing on the MUSA site (linked through sites.google.com, for some reason). It isn't copyvio, but I think it fails WP:NOTCATALOG. The "(publications)" in the article title reinforces the impression that it's intended as a catalogue. I think the Publications section should be deleted and the article title should have the parenthesis removed. HTH --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Stfg, but shouldn't the title be in italics, (as the name of a publication?).--Smerus (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. italics: not necessarily imho, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Neither —— might be an application of generic/descriptive title not needing italics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the criteria are copied from https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/musa/about-us, and two of the sources are COI) Would there be much of an article left? I agree about the WP:NOTCATALOG; usually an article will have some book reviews or something similary to show that the items on a publication list are noteworthy and not must there because they exist. The "Music of the United States of America" appears to be as series title. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If something like this is notable, then the criteria should be described, shouldn't they, and the best source for this is the official statement. This is a correct use of a primary source, isn't it? But if they are copied, they ought to be blockquoted and properly attributed. Come to think of it, though, wouldn't whatever is retrievable of this content be better merged into the American Musicological Society#Publications, which currently mentions MUSA with an in-line external link? --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started searching for sources to be used to expand this article. To date I've found several primary sources (newspaper articles) from Australia and New Zealand from the 1890's which I've linked to the talk page for the article.

I've not been so successful in turning up scholarly works. It seems that Everist's book dominates the search engines at the moment. If anyone can turn up good sources, especially as it relates to the attribution issue I would be very appreciative. Graham1973 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Grove 1907 (linked from the sources section) gives a status questionis over a century ago. The Pajot article names a few sources, but haven't looked yet whether they would be easily accessible. See also User talk:Graham1973#Twelfth Mass. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

General question: Mozart Forum / Pajot: do they count as WP:RS? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit difficult. Den(n)is Pajot is certainly widely cited on Wikipedia (>100 times), not only here but also on CA, DE, ES, FR, GL, HE, HU, IT, JA, SV – probably mostly copied from articles here, but still... He's also cited by Naxos, the Mutopia Project, and many classical music sites. So, yes. — OTOH, I've never seen anything published by Pajot outside the Mozart Forum, so no (although I now find an article by him in The Double Reed, vol 30 (2007), on "Two Mozart Vocal Movements Rearranged by Johann Adam Hiller".) Judging by the quality of his writing, I think there's much to be gained from his articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity of your answer (it was clear in the sense that you feel ambiguous about the source). Posted the question here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pajot / Mozart Forum (only available through Archive.Org) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite the many qualities of Pajot's work seems like we have to start thinking of replacing Mozart Forum sourcing, with e.g. references to the sources Pajot mentions, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pajot / Mozart Forum (only available through Archive.Org). Who's on board on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

After adding my article on the Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest it occured to me that when/if I complete articles on Violin Sonatas attributed to Mozart, it might be worthwhile creating a category to link them with other articles on the forum covering works that have also been attributed to Mozart such as the Adélaïde Concerto or Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major, K. 18, but I would not like to do so without obtaining a consensus first. Opinions please?

Graham1973 (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this. Opus33 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• support, here's another one: Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Category:Compositions attributed to Mozart capitalization-wise? Maybe better Category:Compositions spuriously attributed to Mozart (is that OK? or would that rather be "doubtfully attributed to..."?) Anyway, the over 500 he actually composed are also "attributed to Mozart", which would not be the objective of such category. Other idea for the naming: Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works or Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution to Mozart (we could have a similar for Bach I suppose, see below)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• How about Category:Spuriously attributed compositions (or would that be: "Wrongly attributed..."? "Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution"?) as a supercategory for that (which could e.g. also contain Adagio in G minor, Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53), and place that category in Category:Compositions by composer (where there is already Category:Anonymous musical compositions, but nothing for these "spurious" works that aren't always "anonymous" once the real composer has been more or less identified)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several compositions wrongly (but is it spuriously?) attributed to Bach, some in different colour here, and there's a mass by father Mozart for a while attributed to the son (well, our conductor says that several of the early ones rely heavily on fatherly advice), K 115 [2], --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

... Toy symphony, another injustice to Mozart senior.

For the naming I'd rely on the native English speakers I suppose. Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution to Mozart and Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution seem correct to me, though somewhat long for a category name. Is there a more suitable alternative? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Great idea for a category. I prefer "doubtfully" over "wrongly" or "spuriously", since it's difficult to be definitive about these things in many cases. --Stfg (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There are the doubtful works (not ultimately proven they're not by the composer) and there are the spurious or wrongly attributed works. Composition catalogues can make such distinction, e.g. the original Köchel catalogue Anh. 185-231 = "Zweifelhafte" (doubtful), Anh. 232-294 = "Unterschobene" (spurious). For example, the Adélaïde Concerto is not "doubtful", it is "spurious". While indeed for some of these there is some discussion whether they are really "spurious" or only "doubtful" I'd like a category name that doesn't lead to taking sides (downside: longer category name, however unavoidable when we want to do this the NPOV way). I think even the Köchel successors ultimately opted for this approach, this is what I read in the Adélaïde Concerto article: "in the sixth edition of the Köchel catalogue, ... Anhang C designated for spurious or doubtful works" (bolding added). While one can't say "spurious or doubtful works by Mozart" (contradictio in terminis isn't it?), I think this might work: Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works if we want a shorter title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• How about a mother category with all these (doubtful, wrongly, spuriously), but having the "children" relatively simple, such as Category:Compositions attributed to W. A. Mozart. We need to distinguish the Mozarts and the Bachs. Some are not doubtful at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, the over 500 compositions Mozart wrote are all "attributed" to Mozart, rightly attributed as it happens. So "attributed" without a qualifier misses the point (at least lacking WP:PRECISION). I'd go for Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works, as explained above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood (sorry about lack of language, I would not have thought that "attributed" would ever be used for compositions he composed), - but how about the ones that are neither spurious or doubtful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Spurious" and "wrongly attributed" are synonyms afaik.

"the others"? We have "composed by" (=category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart nothing needs to change there), "not composed by" (=spurious) and "not sure whether composed by" (=doubtful)

Here are all the chapters of the original Köchel anhang:

I. Lost works ("Verloren gegangene"): or, belonging in "Composed by" category (although maybe not so probable we'd ever have separate articles about these, but compare e.g. Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius), no problem to have that article in Category:Symphonies by Jean Sibelius, there's no problem with the attribution)

II. Incomplete works ("Unvollständige") Similar, e.g. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert) → Category:Piano sonatas by Franz Schubert. Although Schubert with his Unfinished Symphony, and many other unfinished works, might merit a category:Unfinished compositions by Franz Schubert subcat. For Mozart I don't know whether there would be much more than K. 427, K. 626 (note: neither of these in this Anhang!) and K. Anh. 104

III. Reassigned compositions ("Uebertragene"): First thought to be an independent composition, but e.g. a "concert aria" that appears to be just an aria of one of his early operas, so gets assigned the K. number of the opera (nothing category-wise there I suppose, just things that sometimes might need some explanation in the article)

IV. Zweifelhafte and V. Unterschobene, as explained above, I'd have these in Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works

Other thing, I'd definitely avoid "W. A." in a category name either "Mozart" or with given names unabbreviated. I'd prefer the former, not like there's any confusion with F. X. W. when we only use the last name is there? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for more diligence. I thought not of F. X. but Leopold, mentioned above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

True (to some extent: there aren't that much with a wrong or doubtful attribution to Leopold afaik), but it's rather about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, like Bach's church music in Latin, which is not about C. P. E., W. F., P. D. Q. (etc.) while J. S. is the primary topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree on this:

• Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution (placed in Category:Compositions by composer)
  • Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works (placed also in Category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart)

? Or are there still other names for such categories in the running? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree to these names, but would not know if a work should go in that without doubt is not by the one, but was attributed in history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Francis's proposed terms are helpful, and support. Don't get Gerda's point - could she rephrase it?--Smerus (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes: examples BWV 53, K 115: a work was attributed to a composer (Bach, Mozart), then firmly and without doubt, but now we know without doubt that someone else composed it (possibly Hoffmann, Leopold Mozart). Does such a work fit the category, or should it stay out? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Such issues can be tackled by the category definition, a bit thinking aloud (open for all suggestions) something like this?:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's spurious and doubtful works are the works indicated as such in the latest version of the Köchel catalogue, or in any previous version (unless when moved to the main catalogue in more recent versions of the catalogue). Also works for which there has been a persistent attribution to Mozart, traceable in other reliable sources, without any mention in any version of the Köchel catalogue can be included in this category. Also compositions not removed from the main catalogue in its latest version, but with reliable sources doubting or disproving the attribution to Mozart, can be included in this category.

E.g. The London Sketchbook, K. 15a–ss, once "Anhang", now main catalogue should not be included in the category.

Does that cover this issue sufficiently? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is fine by me.--Smerus (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Expanded a bit to include K. 115 (see table at List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for those not knowing what this K. 115 is about). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, started

• Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution
  • Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works
  • Category:Bach: spurious and doubtful works

(see also category definitions included there, improve if necessary)

→ some hands to get these properly filled? Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Like to help, but today is national holiday and concert day. I just fixed Bach's Magnificat a bit, for the comparison to make sense. Please feel free to improve, it's just a draft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

All the symphonies from the list of Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity have been added to the category.Graham1973 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several works attributed to the wrong Mozart and reassigned from W. A. M. to L. M. Category:Bach: spurious and doubtful has the same problem. Sparafucil (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't see a problem per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bolding what I just added to WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title:

...use the numbers as in the original 1862 version of the Köchel catalogue in article titles as they appear the most recognisable, unless for numbers that moved from the Anhang (Anh.) to the actual catalogue (use oldest version where the number appears in the main section of the catalogue in that case). This does however not apply to compositions in Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works: these are preferably disambiguated by nickname, Anhang number or (attributed to Mozart), not by ", K. Deest". In this case the (Mozart) disambiguator is only possible for series integrity.:

• Adélaïde Concerto (nickname, OK)
• Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 (nickname and Anhang number, OK)
• Symphony No. 11 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
• Symphony No. 2 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
• Symphony No. 3 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
• Symphony, K. 16a (Mozart) → Symphony in A minor, K. Anh. 220
• Symphony, K. 45b (Mozart) → Symphony in B-flat major, K. Anh. 214
• Symphony, K. 74g (Mozart) → Symphony in B-flat major, K. Anh. 216
• Symphony, K. 75 (Mozart) → Symphony in F major, K. 75
• Symphony, K. 76 (Mozart) → Symphony in F major, K. 76
• Symphony, K. 81 (Mozart) → Symphony in D major, K. 81
• Symphony, K. 95 (Mozart) → Symphony in D major, K. 95
• Symphony, K. 96 (Mozart) → Symphony in C major, K. 96
• Symphony, K. 97 (Mozart) → Symphony in D major, K. 97
• Symphony, K. 98 (Mozart) → Symphony in F major, K. Anh. C11.04
• Violin Concerto No. 6 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
• Violin Concerto No. 7 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
• Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest (Attributed to Mozart) → Violin Sonata in D major (attributed to Mozart) (Deest redundant; "attributed" not capitalized)
• Piano Sonata in B-flat major, K. 498a (Mozart) → Piano Sonata in B-flat major, K. Anh. 136
• Piano Sonata in F major, K. 547a (Mozart) → Piano Sonata in F major, K. Anh. 135
• Coronation Mass in C major (attributed to Mozart) → Così fan tutte pasticcio Coronation Mass move to Carl Zulehner and make it an article about that person (see first entry at de:Zulehner; see also #Phasing out the forum below, which makes a reworking of the article necessary anyhow)

(note that category sorting still needs to be looked at, but that's the next step) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Renamings for Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution:

• Gertrude's Dream Waltz (Attributed to Beethoven) → Gertrude's Dream Waltz (attributed to Beethoven)
• Sonatina in F (Attributed to Beethoven) → Sonatina in F (attributed to Beethoven) → Sonatina in F major (attributed to Beethoven)
• Sonatina in G major (Attributed to Beethoven) → Sonatina in G major (attributed to Beethoven)

-- Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help me to understand why F but G major. I would understand in F and in G major, if part of a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, nice catch, amended --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Beethovens renamed, Mozart list updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Updated 05:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in earlier messages I'm currently working on cleaning up some of the "lacunae" in the chamber music section. To date I have completed the following articles to what I'd term "preliminary" status.

• Piano Quartet (Carmichael)
• Rondino for Piano Quintet (Czerny)
• Violin Sonata in D major (attributed to Mozart)
• Piano Quartet in E major (Saint-Saëns)
• Barcarolle in F major (Saint-Saëns)
• Serenade in E-flat major (Saint-Saëns)
• Rondo in A major for Violin and Strings, D 438 (Schubert) (Technically scored for violin & string orchestra, but scoring is for Violin/String Quartet and I have found one live recording in this form on youtube.)
• Adagio and Rondo concertante in F major, D 487 (Schubert)

I've left notes on the talk pages of some of these outlining points that need clearing up or expanding upon.

As soon as I have the information I will be working on the Lalo Piano Quintet.

My next planned project is the Saint-Saens Piano Quartet in B-flat major, Op. 41. The planned title will be "Piano Quartet in B-flat major (Saint-Saëns)" rather than "Piano Quartet No. 2 (Saint-Saëns)" because up until 1992 (At least as far as I can tell), the earlier E major Piano Quartet was unknown, therefore using Piano Quartet No.1/No.2 would be anacronistic.

I would like to know everyones thoughts on the above before I proceed though.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work; I suggest a passing admin give you WP:Autopatrolled status. I you're comfortable doing so, please also create a Wikidata entry for each new article. Let me know if you'd like me to show you how. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am planning to search up some additional sources for the String Quartet No. 1 (Dvořák) article, when I do this I plan to change the referencing format to match the articles I've created so far. Does anyone have any objections?Graham1973 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has been completed, but I've had to leave the linkage to the score/critical report in the NMA because I don't understand exactly how to sort out the links, if anyone reads this and understands how to do so could they please add the links to the article. Graham1973 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Michael Bednarek for sorting that one out. Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning to tackle the Lalo A flat major "Fantaisie-quintette" composed around 1862 as my next chamber music article. From an intial websearch I've found that the work was in manuscript up until very recently and in fact the first recording was only released this year. Thankfully the label in question, Continuo Classics does make their liner notes available, so I should be able to write a basic article. But I would like to ask if anyone has access to biographical information/scholarly articles or even knowledge of online theses in English discussing the work to let me know where I can find them. I want to make the article as comprehensive as I can. Graham1973 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am currently accumulating information on this work, but my usual sources, dissertations and liner notes seem to be scarce on this piece. All I've so far been able to find out is that it was allegedly found amongst Beethovens papers after his death, was dated to the 1790s but was not published until 1906, but many of the intervening steps are missing. Can anyone point me to something online that I could use.

Planning to move on the Flute Sonata next, if anyone can find more details feel free to add them to the stub article when it is up.Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Have added Lento for Strings to this project after discovering one of the references is a page number without the details of the book(?) it came from. Will be linking the liner notes mentioned once I have located them.Graham1973

I've converted the references to the Chandos CD liner notes to Harvard ID formatting with a link to the notes at the Chandos website. I cannot do anything about the reference given as "Harris & Meredith, p.411" as the author of the article never bothered to give any details about where this comes from so I do need help on finding the book this comes from.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The unspecified source could be Malcolm Williamson: A Mischievous Muse by Anthony Meredith and Paul Harris, but we probably shouldn't assume this until someone can find a copy and check. --Deskford (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I'll see if I can find that book.Graham1973 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear classical music experts: Since no one else was doing it, I started fixing up this article. I have rewritten a lot of it to avoid copy-paste, and removed a number of closely connected sources. My question is, should the names of the many musicians whom she has commissioned to create works so that she could perform them be included in the article? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so, and I did it. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded a little more copyvio text, replaced a dead link, and moved it to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Would any members have a problem if I changed the name of the article of the incidental music composed by Schubert for this play to Rosamunde, D 797 (Schubert), to conform with the naming convention proposed for the Schubert sonata articles.

I do not propose to make this move unless there is a clear consensus.

Graham1973 (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal is I think incorrect, (as indeed is the present title). 'Rosamunde' is the name of the play, not of the music (which is 'Incidental music to Rosamunde ' - see e.g. here). If the article is to retitled, as I believe it should be, I think it should be [[Rosamunde (incidental music)]]. The 'D 797 (Schubert)' is not necessary or appropriate here; the D number and composer's name are used to distinguish works (e.g. sonatas) which could otherwise be confused. No confusion wlll arise in this instance since there seems to be only one set of incidental music to Rosamunde. The D number should be simply mentioned in the lead to the article. But, if there were more than one set of incidental music, then (for example) [[Rosamunde (incidental music) (Schubert)]] would suffice. Remember Occam's razor - "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Rosamunde is OK, the article is also about Helmina von Chézy's play. Compare Der Erlkönig, about the poem as well as about the various compositions based on it. In both cases the literary text stuck in the collective memory most of all through Schubert's composition, but the article is about both the composition and the literary text. That Goethe is more famous than Von Chézy doesn't alter that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As the article is about both the play and the incidental music, perhaps the title shouldn't refer to just the music? --Stfg (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

? The title doesn't refer to "just the music", Rosamunde is the name of the play too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the proposed new title, Rosamunde, D 797 (Schubert). I agree the existing title, Rosamunde is fine. --Stfg (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to leave as is, per the above. But I would point out that, if you beleive one article can deal with the play and the music, in that case the article needs extensive rewriting. The article scarcely mentions the play. The lead is all about the music.--Smerus (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

--Smerus (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

True, agree with that suggestion, we can agree the problem is not with the title, but some modification to the article text (mainly the opening paragraph I believe) is necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now rejigged the text and added the play's storyline.--Smerus (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Was able to resolve some of the missing sources/unclarity tags. The one that still boggles me is "George Grove and Arthur Sullivan rediscovered Schubert's music in 1867.^{[citation needed]}" - any help on that one or should we just remove it? Also the vagueness in the "performances" section might need some further help. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Found the info on Grove, (in George Grove), have included this in article.--Smerus (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if each article about a particular public-domain composition had an external link to the relevant IMSLP hub (e.g., http://imslp.org/wiki/Le_Carnaval_des_Animaux_%28Saint-Saëns%2C_Camille%29). IMSLP is a great resource, but can be tricky to use for people who don't know to try "Bach Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" as well as "bwv 302" or "bach mighty fortress god". FourViolas (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

BWV 302 is a chorale harmonization listed at List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach. The list is sortable (alphabetically, by BWV number etc, however not by English translation while the list provides none). At the bottom of that list article there is:

• Chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach: Scores at the International Music Score Library Project

You'll find the score there easily, when memorizing the number you're looking for from the table.

I think all Bach cantatas have their separate Wikipedia article by now, with a link to the score at IMSLP at the bottom of the page (including Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80). Bach's chorale harmonizations don't have separate articles yet afaik. The chorales themselves do, including A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, mentioning the BWV 302 harmonization in the "Arrangements" section. Yes, an IMSLP link could be provided at the bottom of such articles too I suppose, feel free to go ahead, I suppose I gave all the info needed for such updates.

PS: also The Carnival of the Animals already has the IMSLP link listed at the bottom of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the template {{IMSLP2}} exists for this purpose; see also Wikidata property P839. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! WP continues to impress me. FourViolas (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in earlier messages I'm currently working on cleaning up some of the "lacunae" in the chamber music section. To date I have completed the following articles to what I'd term "preliminary" status.

• Piano Quartet (Carmichael)
• Rondino for Piano Quintet (Czerny)
• Violin Sonata in D major (attributed to Mozart)
• Piano Quartet in E major (Saint-Saëns)
• Barcarolle in F major (Saint-Saëns)
• Serenade in E-flat major (Saint-Saëns)
• Rondo in A major for Violin and Strings, D 438 (Schubert) (Technically scored for violin & string orchestra, but scoring is for Violin/String Quartet and I have found one live recording in this form on youtube.)
• Adagio and Rondo concertante in F major, D 487 (Schubert)

I've left notes on the talk pages of some of these outlining points that need clearing up or expanding upon.

As soon as I have the information I will be working on the Lalo Piano Quintet.

My next planned project is the Saint-Saens Piano Quartet in B-flat major, Op. 41. The planned title will be "Piano Quartet in B-flat major (Saint-Saëns)" rather than "Piano Quartet No. 2 (Saint-Saëns)" because up until 1992 (At least as far as I can tell), the earlier E major Piano Quartet was unknown, therefore using Piano Quartet No.1/No.2 would be anacronistic.

I would like to know everyones thoughts on the above before I proceed though.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work; I suggest a passing admin give you WP:Autopatrolled status. I you're comfortable doing so, please also create a Wikidata entry for each new article. Let me know if you'd like me to show you how. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am planning to search up some additional sources for the String Quartet No. 1 (Dvořák) article, when I do this I plan to change the referencing format to match the articles I've created so far. Does anyone have any objections?Graham1973 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has been completed, but I've had to leave the linkage to the score/critical report in the NMA because I don't understand exactly how to sort out the links, if anyone reads this and understands how to do so could they please add the links to the article. Graham1973 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Michael Bednarek for sorting that one out. Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning to tackle the Lalo A flat major "Fantaisie-quintette" composed around 1862 as my next chamber music article. From an intial websearch I've found that the work was in manuscript up until very recently and in fact the first recording was only released this year. Thankfully the label in question, Continuo Classics does make their liner notes available, so I should be able to write a basic article. But I would like to ask if anyone has access to biographical information/scholarly articles or even knowledge of online theses in English discussing the work to let me know where I can find them. I want to make the article as comprehensive as I can. Graham1973 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am currently accumulating information on this work, but my usual sources, dissertations and liner notes seem to be scarce on this piece. All I've so far been able to find out is that it was allegedly found amongst Beethovens papers after his death, was dated to the 1790s but was not published until 1906, but many of the intervening steps are missing. Can anyone point me to something online that I could use.

Planning to move on the Flute Sonata next, if anyone can find more details feel free to add them to the stub article when it is up.Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Have added Lento for Strings to this project after discovering one of the references is a page number without the details of the book(?) it came from. Will be linking the liner notes mentioned once I have located them.Graham1973

I've converted the references to the Chandos CD liner notes to Harvard ID formatting with a link to the notes at the Chandos website. I cannot do anything about the reference given as "Harris & Meredith, p.411" as the author of the article never bothered to give any details about where this comes from so I do need help on finding the book this comes from.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The unspecified source could be Malcolm Williamson: A Mischievous Muse by Anthony Meredith and Paul Harris, but we probably shouldn't assume this until someone can find a copy and check. --Deskford (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I'll see if I can find that book.Graham1973 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, this project is still active.Graham1973 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)