Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 16 October 2020

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

• WT:CM

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Discussion for removal of Music eras template

Sigh. Please join the discussion for the deletion of this awful template. Make sure you read through the conversation before voting. Aza24 (talk)

Discussion about[REDACTED] "Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)"

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump (proposals)#Deprecate parenthetical citations, which is about a[REDACTED] that is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may not know yet, parenthetical referencing has been deprecated. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Michael Hannan (composer) AfD

The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Hannan (composer). Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We have no article for concert hall (it's a redirect to List of concert halls)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of concert halls § Propose to split the article. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Voice type initialisms?

At the moment, the article SATB needs some improvement. It lacks references, and it seems somewhat confused as to what it should be about; it includes a lot of information on voice part initialisms in general (although an article for SSAA choir already exists) and very little on SATB choirs specifically. With this in mind, I propose that the article be merged with SSAA choir (which also cites no sources at the moment) into an article titled "Voice type initialisms" or something along those lines. That way, SATB and SSAA choir (maybe in addition to TTB choir, TTBB choir, SA choir, et cetera) could simply be redirects to one page, which could explain the topic of voice type initialisms much more clearly, simply, and efficiently. Alternately, SSAA choir could simply be redirected to SATB, and we can accept that the article simply explains voice parts in general, but I think that in any case these topics probably ought to be consolidated into one page. I'd love to hear thoughts on this. Thanks, Noahfgodard (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Re.

1. Merging content of both existing articles: proposed, see and
2. Renaming to "Voice type initialisms" – you'd need at least a few sound sources that indicate this to be a common name for the concept. If so, please initate a WP:RM, which I'd more than likely oppose (I'm not the only Misplaced Pages editor having an idea about this of course) for SATB being a much wider used name for the concept.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I could support a merge, but I would also have to oppose a name change. "Voice Type Initialisms" sounds like it would be the title of a list of different voice types, not a discussion of the history, use/purpose of them imo. Either way SATB has a huge dominance over the others, at least from the common practice period onwards, so it wouldn't make sense to remove that as the title. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe renaming SATB to Mixed choir might be an idea that could garner more support? – other types, which fall outside the "Mixed choir" concept might then be redirected to, and explained at, Choir#Types; Or, another idea, initiate a "Choir types" article, to which the content of SATB and SSAA choir are merged, which becomes the redirect target of other types too, and which is linked with a {{main article}} template under the Choir#Types section header. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  The proposed rename doesn't work with the present content. The same kind of abbreviation is also used for choirs not mixed, men's choirs (often TTBB) and women's choirs (often SSA), and for instrumental choirs such as saxophones, so "mixed" is too narrow, and "choir" in the sense of vocal groups also. Why not keep simple and as used in almost 1000 articles? The abbreviation is just practical for things such as SSATBB, - how clumsy would that be in words? - I support a merge of all other initials of voice types, and redirects of all kinds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Agree that status quo for the SATB article title would probably be the best option (that's why I wouldn't change it without RM that would show a, thus far unlikely, consensus otherwise). But there is a point in the OP that the content is somewhat wanting, that it is not well-organised (with e.g. the SSAA choir satellite which doesn't give a satisfactory overview of choirs with exclusively high voices), and in any case under-referenced. So I was just thinking out loud about what a better organisation of the content might be, without prejudice about the other two aspects (i.e., content & references) that need to be addressed anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Noahfgodard makes some good points. I also think this is a classic example where what is required is: 1. to decide the topic covered by the article, then 2. decide the best name for it. (WP is not a dictionary, and does not have headwords.) I think there is clearly a useful topic here which can indeed be described as something like "Voice type initialisms" (or perhaps just "Voice initialisms"), being the generic expression of the parts in a choral work by the obvious string of letters. "SATB" is certainly not a term that describes this concept (AKAIK); it is the archetype of such expressions. But unless participants in the discussion are prepared to discuss both 1. and 2. (which is from past experience sadly unlikely) then this is all a waste of time. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Another point is that the S, A, T and B abbreviations are not exclusively used for choral singers, e.g. "vocal quartet" and "SATB soloists" would in most circumstances be understood as synonyms. Maybe "vocal ensemble" (which is not a synonym for "choir" although it currently redirects there) would be the right place to explain all the acronyms and other terminology relating to vocal forces, together with substantive content on ensemble formations? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Italicization of various Medieval movements

Francis Schonken said I should bring this here rather than doing it myself, frankly I don't see why but if the answer is as obvious as I think then it can't hurt. I am suggesting that we should italicize all mentions of Ars antiqua, Ars nova and Ars subtilior because of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC that states "foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English" should be italicized – these three latin terms clearly do not fall under words that "do not have everyday use in non-specialized English". The four Medieval music books I have on me at the moment also italicize all mentions of these terms:

• Abraham, Gerald; Hughes, Dom Anselm, eds. (1960). Ars Nova and the Renaissance 1300-1540. The New Oxford History of Music. Vol. III. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-316303-4.
• Reese, Gustave (1940). Music in the Middle Ages: With an Introduction on the Music of Ancient Times. Lanham, Maryland: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-09750-4.
• Yudkin, Jeremy (1989). Music in Medieval Europe (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-608192-0.
• And Hoppin's 1978 Medieval music Aza24 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If they're italicised in Misplaced Pages (I'm not convinced they should) it would probably be best to use the designated template ({{lang|la|Ars antiqua}}) instead of italicisation by accents (''Ars antiqua'') in most cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're "not convinced" – Misplaced Pages doesn't work off your opinion, it works of reliable sources and the guidelines. Any admissible disagreement should reflect that. Aza24 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I intended my "not convinced" as an invitation for others to comment. For the time being it can also be read as "no preference either way, while I had no time yet to look into this more profoundly" – the basis of my revert was mostly because of the haphazard implementation (italicising some, not italicising others), in which case de-italicising by two reverts seemed the shortest road to uniformity (and to what had been stable for a long time) – and because of the failure to use the {{lang}} template when this was partially implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Understood, I appreciate the clarification. Aza24 (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just bumping this thread... Aza24 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if italic or not if borderline "English term", but if italic then per the {{lang}} template, as Francis said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Derek Paravicini

Is Derek Paravicini a child music prodigy? Please comment here. Axl ¤ 08:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sad news: Jerome Kohl

Link to obituary at The University of Washington

Most of you are familiar with Jerome Kohl's work here, as for years he has tirelessly fact-checked, edited, and watched over many of the articles our project covers, particularly 20th and 21st century composers and their works. I'm probably speaking for many when I say I will miss him a lot. Ave atque vale. He was a wonderful guy. Antandrus (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry to see this. I held Jerome in the highest respect: a learned, courteous, witty editor, whose contributions to articles were of the finest quality, and whose thoughts on discussion pages were the voice of scholarly sanity. He will be sadly missed here. Tim riley talk 10:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Navigation boxes

There is a discussion on this topic at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers#Navboxes etc to which contributions are most cordially invited from readers of this page. Tim riley talk 09:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing in music-related articles

As you may know, Misplaced Pages:parenthetical referencing has recently been deprecated (see WP:PARREF RfC). At Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 17#Template:Use Harvard referencing someone wrote: "I have seen that the inline Harvard referencing tended to be used more in musical articles. Currently, those predominate the nearly 600 at Category:Use Harvard referencing from May 2019!" I have reason to believe that the concerned "musical articles" are in fact mostly, if not all, articles in the classical music sphere of interest. So, two things:

1. Please participate in the TfDs at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 17#Template:Use Harvard referencing and the related one at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Template:Use shortened footnotes;
2. More importantly: all help in converting parenthetical referencing systems to a more acceptable referencing format (see WP:Citing sources for the acceptable alternatives) would be very welcome. I already did a few, but more help would be vastly appreciated.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would like to help with converting the parenthetical references into other ones, but I'm not sure about some points and navigating WP:PARREF is beyond tedious, while Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing remains outdated. Looking at your edit here, what was the issue with the wikicites moved into the text? Was it the "Anon" part, a lack of repetitions, or something else? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest! Regarding your question: that was an editorial choice. Before the conversion, the article contained Harvard references such as

(Anon. & n.d.(b)) harv error: no target: CITEREFAnon.n.d.(b) (help)

Converting that to a numbered footnote would have looked like this:

References

1. Anon. & n.d.(b). sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnon.n.d.(b) (help)

...which is not very reader-friendly (and not even a correctly formatted short reference). Thus I converted all references which had no author name and/or no date to direct references, as an editorial choice to avoid confusion and unnecessary complexities. Other conversions would have been possible, I suppose, but if you know a better solution that would probably best be discussed at the article's talk page.

Re. "navigating WP:PARREF is beyond tedious" – the closure section, WP:PARREF#Parenthetical citation closure may suffice to get a workable grasp of what was decided.

Re. "Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing remains outdated" – feel free to update it, and/or discuss the updating at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I will try and convert some of the Medieval/Renaissance articles... Aza24 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Scale degrees

Not sure if this is the place for this question but what is the standard for scale degrees on articles about scales? Some articles use numbers, others use C as the default tonic. For example, the top of the Hexatonic scale article lists the blues scale as C E♭ F G♭ G B♭ C, but the blues scale can also be A, C, D, E♭, E, G, A. The Hungarian minor scale article refers to the scale in terms of a step pattern (W, H, +, H, H, +, H), and the Romanian major article describes it as 1, ♭2, 3, ♯4, 5, 6, ♭7, and gives an example of the C Romanian major scale. I couldn't find anything in the Music Manual of Style but would love to know if there's a consensus on how this should be. Shakuran13 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of scale degrees (as in, 1, ♭2, 3, ♯4, 5, 6, ♭7) is quite clear in certain circumstances, but because it is based on the Western major scale, it is not particularly useful as a means of describing scales from other cultures (except as a means of comparison), and is almost useless for describing scales with more or less than seven notes. How, for example, would one write out a whole tone scale or an octatonic/diminished scale using this system? Using C as a default tonic is perhaps the most clear to the average reader, but is also far from ideal, since the given scale could start on any note, of course. Moreover, this system is not particularly well-suited for scales like the whole tone scale and the octatonic scale. Personally, I am in favor of using the whole/half step patterns. They are easy to understand, very versatile (even for scales with quarter tones, for that matter), and fairly unambiguous. Written scales using C as the default tonic could perhaps be used as supplementary examples in certain contexts, but I personally don't think they should be the default. Another option is the use of set notation, but this would likely be unfamiliar to the average reader, and would not accomodate microtonal scales. Noahfgodard (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon further thought, it occurs to me that the whole/half(/quarter, where necessary) step system works very well until you have a scale which includes intervals larger than a major second, like the Romanian major scale. Moreover, in the description of scales like this (and the blues scale, for example), it may actually be best to describe them in relation to the major scale, using the "1, ♭2, 3, ♯4, 5, 6, ♭7" system. Perhaps a standard system of writing scale degrees would be somewhat counterproductive, since the effectiveness of each system depends on the scale it's being used to describe. That being said, I still think we should move away from the "start on C, go from there" system, except for use in examples in addition/supplementation to another system. Noahfgodard (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree with most/all of this. C as the tonic is certainly useful and illustrative since many people will recognize it as a familiar "do" - but maybe better for a supplementary description. Shakuran13 (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Compare also the method used at Gamut:

T–S–T–T–S–T–T

where "T" is a tone and "S" is a semitone – this method defines the intervals instead of the notes. Compare also the Eastern Slavic Church Gamut defined at http://ecmr.fi/Scanned_Books_etc/AnnalesB340Harri.pdf page 165 (§ 4.1): this scale has a B natural in the lower octave and a B flat in the higher octave, meaning that defining this Gamut can not be done by running from one note to the same note an octave higher (more than one octave is needed to define the scale). If other intervals than tones and semitones are used, the abbreviations used at http://www.bach-chorales.com might come in handy:

• semitone = minor secund → abbreviated as m2 (e.g. at http://www.bach-chorales.com/BWV0267.htm )
• whole tone = major secund → abbreviated as M2 (e.g. at http://www.bach-chorales.com/BWV0004_8.htm )
• minor third → abbreviated as m3 (e.g. at http://www.bach-chorales.com/BWV0073_5.htm )

Or ½, 1, 1½ for the same three intervals, in which case, for example, the major pentatonic scale could be written as:

M2 – M2 – m3 – M2 – m3

or, alternatively, as:

1 − 1 − 1½ − 1 − 1½

In other words, "Perhaps a standard system of writing scale degrees would be somewhat counterproductive, since the effectiveness of each system depends on the scale it's being used to describe" is maybe the wisest approach. I'd say, choose whatever that can make the issue as clear as possible for a wide audience. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sergiu Celibidache

I reverted a new user who added substantially to Sergiu Celibidache, was reverted back. Anybody familiar with the topic (Abbie Conant) which has dominated the talk page since 2017? I explained WP:BRD, and try not to revert the same thing twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Konstantin Scherbakov

Someone appears to have deleted the article on pianist Konstantin Scherbakov, asserting that he is not notable. Obviously he is notable, but now the article is deleted it is not possible to see how well written it was. There are several pages linking to the deleted page, and these links now lead to an unhelpful statement that the page has been deleted. He is covered by Wikipedias in other languages, and in fact the article in French fr:Konstantin Scherbakov states that it was translated from the English article. What can we do to restore this page? Thanks in anticipation. --94.196.234.146 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ask for undeletion, at WP:REFUND. Given the circumstances you describe, and that the deletion was via an uncontested PROD, this should be granted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have attempted to do that. Hope I've done this correctly. --94.196.234.146 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Move request

There is a move request at Talk:Trio (music) that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  23:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)