Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Mannheim Steam?-roller

Hi all. I have raised a query at Talk:Mannheim school about the origin of the phrase "Mannheim Steamroller", and its relationship to "Mannheim Roller". (The query does relate to article content.) The page is tagged by this project, so I thought this the best place to ask for help. If you can shed any light on the matter I would be most grateful.

Thanks -- EdJogg (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Groves on the matter (Mannheim Style):

A style found in instrumental works, primarily symphonies, by composers active at the electoral court of Mannheim from about 1740 to 1778. A principal feature of the style is its tendency to exploit dynamic effects. On the small scale, this may take the form of either an abrupt or a graduated change in dynamic level within a short span of time, adding to the expressive and dramatic character of the work (exx.1 and 3). On a larger scale, Mannheim symphonies often incorporate an extended, thematically independent crescendo passage or Walze (‘roller’, sometimes anachronistically translated as ‘steamroller’; ex.2). Such passages, most of which contain a rising melodic line over a pedal point or oscillating bass pattern, typically reappear at important junctures within the movement, contributing a sense of profile to the form. The predilection at Mannheim for striking dynamic effects doubtless finds its best explanation in the superlative quality of the Mannheim orchestra; the renowned precision of execution of this orchestra, as well as its large size, served to foster such a compositional approach. This approach did not, however, originate with Mannheim (as claimed by Riemann, who published the first detailed description of the Mannheim style). Rather, it originated to a substantial degree in Italy, most notably in opera of the early Classical period and its associated instrumental music; Italian opera formed the core of the Mannheim operatic repertory and was thus familiar to the composers there.

As noted, the confusion derives from the standard translation of the German Walze as Steamroller; e.g. the terms Strassewalze and Dampfwalze are effectively synonymous in common usage and typically used in shortened form. So, yes, it is anachronistic, but fairly common practice. Eusebeus (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's interesting to know that the term 'steam roller' is still used in German to describe non-steam-powered rollers (as is also the case in UK/US). I'm fascinated by the way the terminology has persisted, especially, as I now realise, across more than one language.

Your answer goes some way towards understanding the problem, although I'd need a more concrete reference before I could feel confident about changing an article.

EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC on "Notable" Recordings Sections

Every so often I stumble across sections that well-intentioned editors have added to our composition articles listing "notable" recordings. (see this recent example). While there are certainly notable recordings of individual works (Gould's Goldberg Variations is one example perhaps), the vast majority that are added tend to be simply available recordings with little evidence of notability. Our Composition taskforce MOS suggests that such sections can be included in composition articles (Finally, notable recordings and references - with links, so as to allow the reader to buy or obtain further information), but I wonder if we should make what constitutes a "notable" recording rather more clear. As it stands, such sections are often a muddle of POV, arbitrariness and caprice, likely based more on individual enthusiasms for certain renditions than a widely-acknowledged standard of achievement. For the most part, it seems to me that we should probably not be in the business of recommending one version of a work over another. Any thoughts? (Apologies if this has been brought up before.) Eusebeus (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say we have to make it up as we go along. :-) Notability for recordings are going to differ from composer to composer, and piece to piece. For example, the Rachmaninoff Ampico recordings are obviously notable. Vladimir Horowitz playing Rachmaninoff -- probably, but maybe not. Gilbert Kaplan conducting Symphony No. 2 (Mahler) -- almost certainly, because of the unusual circumstances. Bruno Walter conducting - probably, but not certainly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with making it up as we go along. It will indeed vary from composer to composer and piece to piece. IN evidence of this, I offer this recent edit to the often-arranged Pictures at an Exhibition, where an editor thoughtfully listed several recordings of arrangements other than the original piano arrangement or the Ravel orchestration. Pictures enthusiasts are often interested in locating and listening to such arrangements; the fact that anyone recorded, for example, the original Tushmalov arrangement is worth noting. Pictures is perhaps unique in its lure for new arrangements. The same type of edit on another piece, or most pieces, might be inappropriate. I hesitate to hamstring ourselves with rules that do not emerge from actual experience. TJRC (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But that same edit just proves the problem -- while some of the arrangements have only had one recording, the Stokowski one for instance has had at least two others. I for one think it should be an "all or nothing" -- either list all recordings (on a seperate page perhaps for more popular works), or don't list any outside ones that may be specifically notable for reasons that could be listed in prose. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With operas we've been moving from so-called 'Selected recordings' sections to full discographies on dedicated subpages. Catalogue numbers are included (but not the Amazon ASIN numbers). There is a standard table format, see Category:Opera discographies. Maybe major classical works could be treated in a similar way? --Kleinzach 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot, and mentioned a few times before the Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) Discography, which hasn't changed in barely a couple a years and does use Arkivmusic.com links as "refs". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

David Hurwitz. Ben Ratliff. Rob Cowan. These are just a few of the distinguished music critics and scholars whose informed, published opinions can be and have been used to cite notable recording sections. A single lie from Norman Lebrecht is worth a million times everything ever uttered by any Wikipedia user, myself included. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. This is a non-problem. Notable recordings are easily cited with some major music critic or musicologist. If they're not, one can either find a citation or put on a citation needed tag. James470 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Adagio in G minor

The wikipedia articles on Adagio in G minor, Tomaso Albinoni and Remo Giazotto claim the adagio was written by Remo Giazotto alone, and not by Tomaso Albinoni without adequate references and in contrast to most reliable sources (see for example [1]).

Can this be addressed? 85.65.69.166 (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Albinoni in the New Grove makes no mention of the Adagio. Their brief article on Remo Giazotto includes this line, "His elaboration of a fragment supposedly from one of Albinoni’s sonatas has become famous as ‘Albinoni’s Adagio’." (By Carolyn Gianturco, who has written dozens of articles for them, principally Italian composers and musicologists.) "Supposedly" is the rub. Is "baroquemusic.org" a reliable source? Are they peer reviewed? We do have a citation on the Giazotto-only claim. Antandrus (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty easy to find this claim in a google book search or google scholar. Its universally agreed that Giazotto reconstructed the piece "from an Albinoni fragment" but its rarely spelled out how much there was to that fragment. Was it really just "a bass line and six bars of melody"? Anyone have access to JSTOR? I imagine a formal discussion of such a popular piece should be relatively easy to find. --DavidRF (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Trobairitz

I've found that the article doesn't longer meet the criteria. Could somebody nominate it to GAR? OboeCrack (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)