Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
|
How much info do we need really?
I've been under the impression and have been told that general reasers and casual listeners would not be interested in moderate-to-large amounts of musial analysis or blow-by-blow descriptions. However, several articles listed on "to do" lists have considerable detail in this regard. Some of it has been flagged NPOV or needing verification; some of it has not been flagged in the article itself but has been flagged as such on the list. Some suggestons or guidelines would be helpful, as I have already had one case where virtually all of my clean-up efforts were reversed by other Wikipedians. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Are you thinking of Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov? --Kleinzach (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's one: Piano Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev). I was actually the one to put the tags on, because although it is a wonderfully artistic description by Livedevilslivedevil, it is, regretfully, all OR. Our much-cited FA Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) is probably the example on which to base your future contributions. The entire symphony is summed up in less than 20 sentences. Also, consider that a portion of the readership comes from people who, after hearing a piece, want to know more about it. Personally, I would like to read more about Piano Sonata No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), and find out what the heck the main theme is (although it will probably be me that adds that info :/). A blow-by-blow is next to useless to me, but a summary that outlines where the movements begin (darn post-romantic sonatas) and other important structural information is orders of magnitude more helpful. ALTON .ıl 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've found a good starting point is always taking some programme notes and removing all overly descriptive peacock words from the text and just keeping the short musical analysis. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think that "Blow by blow"/analytic description of a work is very hard to do well, but the best authors seem to be able to do it in a way that genuinely helps listeners appreciate the work better. In think in particular of Charles Rosen and Antony Hopkins. So my opinion on "blow by blow" description is, don't try it yourself, but look around in a library until you find something really good. And if you don't find anything very good, say very little. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've found a good starting point is always taking some programme notes and removing all overly descriptive peacock words from the text and just keeping the short musical analysis. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't thiking about Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov since there's no musical analysis there. Piano Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev), which Livedevilslivedevil, already mentioned, was one; two more were Piano Concerto No. 2 (Shostakovich) and (this one not tagged) Symphony No. 7 (Shostakovich). Thanks for the suggestions and reminders! Jonyungk (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's one: Piano Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev). I was actually the one to put the tags on, because although it is a wonderfully artistic description by Livedevilslivedevil, it is, regretfully, all OR. Our much-cited FA Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) is probably the example on which to base your future contributions. The entire symphony is summed up in less than 20 sentences. Also, consider that a portion of the readership comes from people who, after hearing a piece, want to know more about it. Personally, I would like to read more about Piano Sonata No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), and find out what the heck the main theme is (although it will probably be me that adds that info :/). A blow-by-blow is next to useless to me, but a summary that outlines where the movements begin (darn post-romantic sonatas) and other important structural information is orders of magnitude more helpful. ALTON .ıl 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Crone. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hoax?
Is Vocal theory a hoax? "Vocal theory is a framework for understanding the interrelationships between vocal registration and societal angst that is increasingly common in younger segments of the population of developed countries." Huh? If it’s real it really needs sources to prove this isn’t OR. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I’m also asking at WP:WPO.
- Be bold. I've added some tags (original research, unreferenced and essay-entry) to the article in question. If you believe that it is a hoax, you can add the {{hoax}} tag to it. --Bardin (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven)
Hello. Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles needs your help. Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven) has been without any references since June, 2006. Could you please take a minute out of your busy day to help add sources? Thanks for your time. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
