Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force/Archive 1

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello to all those who have just joined this task force. Currently I am using AutoWikiBrowser to tag all the articles within our scope. This will take a few days so bear with me! Centy – reply• contribs – 06:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see this mess finally sorted out. I always wondered why "Classical Music" should cover compositions but not everything as if there was something wrong with a classical music person editing a composer article...but anyway I'm happy to do what (little) I can with compositions articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Music in popular culture

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

This topic is one of considerable contention, and I am one of the contenders on the wrong side. Here is my case:

"Such edits ... are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work." It is hard to know what readers of articles on musical compositions are looking for, but my own guess is that the use of a piece in movies and elsewhere would interest most readers. Who are some of these? High school students doing papers - the fact that Rite of Spring was used in Fantasia might be just the thing to catch their fancy. Casual radio listeners who have just heard a piece for the first time and want to find out more about it - it certainly might interest them. Serious music students studying a piece and looking for analysis and background - well, it may or may not interest them, but, on the other hand, they are probably going to look for the piece in Tovey or Cobbetts, not in the wikipedia.

But what most readers want to read isn't really the determining issue - after all, if the content of the wikipedia was determined by popular vote, there would be nothing in it at all. The main contention against popular culture sections is that they are "unencyclopedic". I don't buy this. There are plenty of serious academics - ethnomusicologists, people studying the sociology of music or the history of music - for whom derivative works of a piece are of great interest. And really the only place they can begin searching for this information is right here - in the wikipedia.

No, the only real reason for discouraging lists of derivative works is snobbery: people who learned their esthetics from Kant and Nietzsche don't like John Doe mucking up their articles with Batman and John Grisham. Well, they should read Didera and MacLuhan. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part, but we seem to be in the minority. I especially find it stupid that someone who hears Schubert's Unfinished Symphony won't care where they heard it, but that someone who watches The Smurfs will care what the normal Gargamel music was. It seems to me it should go both ways. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, our main page should say that PC sections should be rewritten and not reverted. That is what the policy says. If there is no further comment, I will make that change. Ravpapa (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My view (and I think the practice on most other projects) is that items in trivia/PC sections should be sufficiently relevant to be of (probable) interest to an average reader of the article, otherwise they are best deleted. After all we wouldn't include non-trivia if it was not relevant, would we? Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I agree. But we should err on the side of accepting rather than rejecting.

The real problem with these sections is not the information in them, but that they are so badly written - usually just barren lists. When a piece is used in a film, it says something about the piece as well as the film, and we should point that out.

Without trying to blow my own horn, I suggest looking at the PC section of the Grosse Fuge. There I tried to show how appearances of the fugue in derivative works says something about the piece itself. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The PC section of the Grosse Fuge is entirely different from the listcruft seen on other articles. It meets the 'sufficient relevance' criteria in my view. Maybe there isn't any real difference of opinion on this after all? -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with pages like Symphony No. 9 (Dvorak). Look back in its history to see the sort of uses in popular culture that is discouraged. Centy – reply• contribs – 11:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Or Pagliacci on 7 August 07. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, you see, I think deleting those sections was a mistake, a really bad mistake. One of the most important things about the history of the New World Symphony, and of Pagliacci, is that they have worked their ways into our collective consciousnesses, through their repeated quotation in popular culture. Now, that important aspect of these pieces is completely missing from the articles. You should have rewritten the sections - perhaps pruned them a bit of the irrelevancies, tightened them up, but certainly left at least half of them in some form or another.

Before you deleted those sections, someone who heard the Dvorak on the radio and thought, "Now where did I hear that before?" could have looked in the Wikipedia and found out. Now, that person may very well suffer from a consuming curiousity that grows into an obsession, that leads to his eventual suicide, and be it on your heads.

That was a joke. But, at the risk of being pedantic, I will quote from the relevant guideline:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

--Ravpapa (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we disagree after all. I don't accept your first premise - about "our collective consciousnesses" etc - but let's leave that aside, as well as the WP liturgical analysis, and get to the point. We are all volunteers. We can't expect editors to spend their time reworking listcruft into paragraphs of coherent information. It can be done, sure, but it takes a lot of effort. In practice very few people will be willing to try, meanwhile the listcruft continues to accumulate unrelated sentence by unrelated sentence. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created a compromise with which, I believe, everyone will be happy. I have created an article Classical music in popular culture. Whenever one of these offending sections crops up in an article, move it there, and put a link to it in the See also section. I promise to clean this article up when I get the time, pruning all the really, really irrelevant things (and I agree, there are many).

I think this is not only a compromise, it is also a better solution. This way, all the lists of music esoterica will be in one place, where it could actually be useful to someone doing ethnomusical research.

If I hear general agreement with this approach over the next week or so, I will revise the project page accordingly. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not a wise idea - indeed I shall move for AfD as per this AfD. That AfD set a precedence - lists of fancruft information is not what we want on classical music articles on Wikipedia. Centy – reply• contribs – 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also note the page contains numerous other pages entitled 'X in popular culture' which were all deleted due to WP:NOT#DIR Centy – reply• contribs – 11:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that such a page would end up being in the size range of mondo mega after a while. I believe the basic rule here outside of the dislike of so-called trivia is the "collection of losely related stuff" rule. I agree that it shouldn't all be just excised, as I've said before, but THIS way is one of the worst ways of doing it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ravpapa - If you wanted to produce an example you really should have done it in your own user space rather than creating a new article. I'm not happy to see material I referred to in this discussion being republished. I think the best thing to do would be a creator's speedy deletion (or whatever it's called). -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ravpapa - I think what we are trying to communicate is that we need a pretty hard line guideline on this otherwise, Wikipedia will do what the majority of editors seems best at (video games, TV shows, movies, pop music and other such topics with a large Internet based fan base), and will turn out a ever increasing list of instances Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven) has been used in popular culture. I, however, will concede that maybe we need to add that we should encourage editors to mention why a particular piece (eg Moonlight sonata) is used so much in popular culture rather than just a bullet point list.

Can you see the huge difference between edits such as those in Pagliacci and Große Fuge? You have used two literary 'pop' references in Große Fuge, one of which is a directly inspired poem, the other a demonstration of its difficult character. Whereas look at the list of useless trivia in Pagliacci? What do any of these uses say about the musical work? If they say anything why aren't they collected together into a section called Influences or Legacy explaining why its so popular in popular culture and what it says about the work. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that there is a difference between the PC section of Große Fuge and that of Pagliacci. And I agree that Große Fuge is better by far (well, of course, I wrote it, didn't I?). And I would have minimal objections to the deletion of the article I created if I had an assurance that these sections would not be arbitrarily deleted, but rewritten. However, Kleinzach's comment above that "In practice very few people will be willing to try" to rewrite, and will simply do a knee-jerk revert, confirms my already dismal experience in this area. Fact: the PC section of Große Fuge was reverted three times before I saved it by the rewrite.

If everyone agrees that PC sections are best kept in the articles on the works in question, rather than concentrated in one place, I can live with that, as long as I know they will not be arbitrarily deleted.

I am, furthermore, willing to make an offer of great magnanimity. I am currently off in India (of all places) studying Indian classical music, but I will be back in a month or two. After that, I am working on a rather large wikipedia article of my own, which should take a couple of weeks. Then, I am willing to take upon myself the rewrite of such PC sections a la Große Fuge, as you feel require it.

Deal? --Ravpapa (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The only person I represent here is myself, and representing merely myself the answer is no. Any rewriting that you do will of course be looked at on its merits, but IMO listcruft should be deleted. Thanks. -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now prodded Classical music in popular culture on the grounds that it should have been created in userspace. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ravpapa removed the prod notice - as he is entitled to - and I have now sent it to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical music in popular culture. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, a long and detailed debate followed at the afd. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article titles

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff) specifically, but it applies elsewhere: should this article title include "Six"? I suppose it was the convention to publish music with the number of pieces, but if so, then shouldn't pages like Preludes, Op. 32 (Rachmaninoff) be at Thirteen Preludes (Rachmaninoff)? (Note that "Six" is actually 6 in French) ALTON .ıl 05:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It all depends if the number is used commonly to refer to the pieces. For example the Chopin Nocturnes are very rarely referred to by # Nocturnes, Op. 9 etc. so their article name reflects that. Also Schubert's Impromptus are usually listed without a preceding number. But on the other hand Paganini's Caprices are usually called '24 Caprices'. I say it's your call, given you are more knowledgeable about Rachmaninov's piano music than I am. Centy – reply• contribs – 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use issues

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I have encountered a thorny problem with the article String quartets opus 20 (Haydn). I started including musical examples to illustrate different points in the article. I thought I was following Wikipedia guidelines for fair use of media files: the examples were of reduced fidelity and shorter than 30 seconds. They were, in my view, essential for an understanding of the article, and made points that could not possibly be made in text.

However, I got dinged on the grounds that "it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information."

Well, there are no freely licensed recordings of the opus 20 quartets, believe me, I searched high and low for them. When I addressed this problem to Graham87, he clarified the policy for me as follows:

The guidelines say nothing about how difficult a replacement would be; if it's possible to make a free recording of a work, because the work is in the public domain, then no fair use recordings of it are allowed. I think that's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Either get (or make) your own recordings of illustrative passages released under a free license, or use MIDI. The only time non-free recordings are allowed for classical music in the public domain is for illustrating the distinctive styles of artists, like the recordings at Glenn Gould.

Need I point out that, though it is theoretically possible to make a free recording of the work, in practice that is not an option. Hire a string quartet? Hire a recording studio? And what if the composition is not a string quartet, but a Mahler symphony?

Certainly under existing law in the United States, using a 30-second snippet of a commercial recording at reduced fidelity to illustrate a point in an academic article is fair use. So there is no legal reason for this policy. The desire to make Wikipedia a repository of free information is laudable, and one that should be supported; but disallowing musical examples in an article about a composition is pushing that desire ad absurdum.

Is there any way of changing this policy? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think anyone here is an expert on WP copyright policy. Is there a more specialized forum that you can take this to? --Klein zach 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Before taking it to another forum, I think we need consensus on the task force that this is a crucial issue. Do we all believe that musical examples are essential for an understanding of a composition? Is this something worth fighting for? Do I hear Yays? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the task force is basically inactive. IMO musical examples are desirable, but I doubt whether WP has the expertise to use sound files effectively and at the same level of authority as the text. (There have been a lot of problems at WP:FSC.) --Klein zach 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP's policies of fair use are often way too harsh, and a case like this is certainly so. I think the whole point of the "reasonably possible" is meant toward "could an average person make it" -- so in most cases, someone could take a picture of a living person...a string quartet recording doesn't hold that. Though I'll grant, there's the MIDI option, but even so, it's worth 'fighting' for, I agree. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if we could use excerpts from commercial recordings. But I kind of doubt that the policy can be changed - I mean, all those RIAA vs. P2P issues and other things make anything copyright-related a real problem to deal with. I remember a huge discussion about sound excerpts at Johann Sebastian Bach: see Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive_4#Unfree_audio_removal, and check the fair use debate mentioned there (I'm very sorry, but I don't have the time to look through the huge talk archive of WP:NONFREE, I'd link it otherwise). --Jashiin (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt that whoever you bring the issue to will agree with us on the necessity of lowering the bastion of fair use for a case such as this, and I agree with the potential opposition, simply because we don't have any more a convincing case than those who write tv serial articles and want to use screenshots left and right. It's not absurd once you put yourself in the position of enforcing such a policy: pnce you start making exceptions or making subjective judgements on what is 'really necessary', only then do you get into debates that could be avoided by sticking to the policy in the first place. I'm a big advocate for MIDI and if it's that necessary to 'illustrate a point' then you should be willing to go through the effort of sequencing it. I have found, and can think of very few, articles that absolutely need a recording to get the point across (Beethoven's fifth, Ride of the Valkyries) for identification purposes, but this is rarely the case in more esoteric pieces in the classical music repertoire, which is basically everything else. Chances are, your readers have already heard the piece and want to read more about it here. I can't think of any reason why you can't link to that recording, if a sample of it exists online elsewhere. ALTON .ıl 05:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Alton, I would agree with you if the complaint had been that the example was not really necessary. But that wasn't her complaint; rather, she said that a nonfree media would not be allowed because "a freely licensed media could reasonably be found." The operative word here is "reasonably". It is not reasonable to expect the author of a Wikipedia article to hire a string quartet and recording studio for a 30-second snippet of music.

I have continued this discussion at here. I would appreciate any support in that discussion. Though, as some of you have noted, the outlook is bleak. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, I totally missed the point. ALTON .ıl 11:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who followed this discussion, I have decisively proven myself wrong, by recording the music examples myself. They are out of tune, ensemble is bad, and tone is often excruciating, but the point of the example comes across. You can see them at String quartets opus 20 (Haydn). --Ravpapa (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone. Could someone please review the article Schubert's last sonatas for the GA review? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dated info

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Compositions_task_force

The following paragraphs under Article Guidlines -> Title are presently incorrect.

"Judgment calls will arise in works that have a famous nickname. For example, it would be clearly most useful to readers to label the famous string serenade by Mozart as Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and not Serenade No. 13 in G major for strings (Mozart). In borderline cases, consult other editors on appropriate talk pages before proceeding.

No matter what title you select, be sure to include redirect pages to help readers who search under different titles. For example, the link Serenade No. 13 in G major for strings (Mozart) given immediately above is in fact not a separate article, but a redirect to Eine kleine Nachtmusik."

The current title of the article is "Serenade No.13 (Mozart)" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenade_No._13_(Mozart) ) , which really contradicts what these paragraphs are saying. I have no idea how it would be preferred to address the issue, but I thought I'd bring it to attention. - James H. 98.16.119.246 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, guideline fixed. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Skies are Weeping

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Has anyone taken a look at this article? I happen to be familiar with this piece, as when the scandal broke, and the Alaska performance was cancelled, I wrote to Munger and got the music, thinking I might produce it here in Israel.

It isn't a bad piece, certainly not a great piece, and, if not for the surrounding politics, not worthy of a Wikipedia article. The article itself contains almost nothing about the music (I assume none of the authors has actually heard it), aside from a discussion of the lyrics, but concentrates almost entirely on the political dispute.

My personal opinion is that this article, far from being about a piece of classical music, is simply another attempt to inject inflammatory quotes about the Middle East into the Wikipedia. How do others feel about it? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any great problem with this article. It's well written and comprehensive and explains the content. It could have more about the music but that goes for many articles. If you think it's insufficiently NPOV, perhaps you can tag it as such? The London premiere certainly established notability. --Klein zach 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I listened the music, also provided publicly available links for anyone to listen them in the article, maybe you didn't read that part. But 2 issues for the piece, 1 the recording quality is terrible so cannot decide how well it is for certain, 2 I am a good listener but not a composer so I cannot make technical comments on the piece on musical composition side. Kasaalan (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For my part I can say tough recording quality is low and choir-solo parts could be improved, music is good, 7. Rachel's Words, especially 1. Psalm 137 and 2. Dance for Tom Hurndall, some lyrics are strong, and visual performances are great. Kasaalan (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Instrumentation Format Amendment

Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Klein zach and I have had a few skirmishes over the formatting of the Instrumentation section of select Strauss works (see Talk:Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks#Instrumentation section formatting. I believe that the standards need to be clarified because the specification for a large orchestra work is very vauge and, IMO, as it stands, a cluttered alternative to paragraph form. I agree, works with small orchestras (i.e. Beethoven through Tchaikovsky) should have the instrumentation sections in paragraph form. But massive works like Mahler's Symphonies and Strauss' Tone Poems, which use much more complex orchestras should be written in the "definition list" format that I have been promoting. See the full list of articles (that I am aware of) that use this format:

They are all massive works and looks much clearer with the list format. What should be the concensus on this ammendment? Justin Tokke (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a clear, well-written existing guideline about this, see Specifying the musical forces used in a work.

For complex works ('works employing particularly large orchestras, complex wind doublings, large percussion sections, offstage instruments, and the like'), the guideline recommends the bulleted style used for Symphony No. 3 (Lutosławski). This is what it looks like:

"The Symphony calls for a large orchestra, consisting of:

woodwind: 3 flutes (two doubling piccolo), 3 oboes (third doubling cor anglais), 3 clarinets (one doubling E-flat clarinet, another doubling bass clarinet), 3 bassoons (third doubling contrabassoon)

brass: 4 horns, 4 trumpets, 4 trombones, 1 tuba

percussion:
timpani

4 additional percussionists playing: xylophone, glockenspiel, marimba, vibraphone (without motor), bells, five tom-toms, two bongos, bass drum, side drum, tenor drum, three cymbals (small, medium and large), tam-tams (hign and low) and tambourine

celesta, 2 harps, piano four-hand

and strings (violins, violas, cellos and basses)."

N.B. this form follows normal capitalization rules.

This looks fine to me. I can't see any reason to change to a bold, capitalized, expanded list style. --Klein zach 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No comments? At all?! Justin Tokke (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Its kind of difficult to choose, both formats look more or less fine. Personally, I'd say I prefer the example Kleinzach provided: it is more readable and it looks better. This is because there are no large empty spaces between columns as in the alternative format, and, most importantly, nothing is bolded or capitalized. --Jashiin (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have any part in the creation of that format (shown in my message above of 27 May 09) but it's been recommended in project guidelines for some time. There's obviously no consensus for changing it. I hope Justin Tokke will finally accept and use it. --Klein zach 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Two people is hardly a concensus esp. when the majority of pages that would use either format are mine. I'm waiting for more opinions. Justin Tokke (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Justin Tokke: "when the majority of pages that would use either format are mine" — Please read the policy against Ownership of articles. Guidelines that have been written by the project and received support over a long period of time by all involved editors constitutes a strong consensus that can't be set aside by one single, unsupported, maverick editor making WP:Point attacks against MOS recommendations on paragraphing, capitalization etc. --Klein zach 09:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, thats just it. My version has been more wide spread and over a long period of time. This format has existed to even before this so-called "concensus" was established. No one bothered to enforce the new guidlines when they came out, so obviously something isn't clicking here. Is this just apathy or silent concensus? Either way, the articles are still unchanged. Justin Tokke (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This project has nearly 10,000 articles. Very few of them use the inflated, all words capitalized, formatting style. --Klein zach 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And VERY few of those 10,000 would apply in this situation, i.e. a large orchestra instrumentation. Show me a list of the articles that have used your bulleted format appropriately. I'm sure there will be very few; I've seen at most three or four. Justin Tokke (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I made some investigations. Justin, please forgive me for not assuming good faith, but I do think you're being more than a little dishonest here.

First of all, apparently some of the articles from the above list use your format because you edited those articles, a long time ago: Mahler's 8th, Mahler's 5th, The Rite of Spring, etc. This effectively cancels out the "most articles use it, ergo it is the format to use" argument, because the argument is pushed by the person who made sure most articles used his format.

Moreover, the guideline in question appeared on the project page in April 2007. The bulleted example for large orchestras was added on 23 April 2007: [1]; before, it read:

However, with very large orchestras, a large number of woodwinds, brass, and complex doublings, the last resort may be to list the instruments, for example many Mahler's symphonies. Consult other editors on the article's Talk pages to obtain prior consensus for such arrangements."

I checked talk page archives for this project and its parent project; you've never asked anyone's opinion on articles on Mahler's symphonies, neither before the guideline was introduced, nor afterwards.

Furthermore, there was a poll that same month, on how to format instrumentation sections, and the format you suggested was not accepted as standard: [2]. The format currently specified in the guideline was accepted by the majority of votes.

So, Justin, correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire situation seems to be this: you like a certain format and you've been using it for a long time. After other editors agreed that it is not the best format to use, you said nothing. The Mahler articles and others that used the format remained unnoticed for some time, and you've quietly kept using your format. Now that a member of the project noticed some of these articles, you're trying to defend your format again, citing as evidence the articles you edited yourself and neglecting to mention a previous discussion. I'm sorry, but to me this effectively destroys all your arguments. Consensus on formatting has been reached more than two years ago. --Jashiin (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few facts missing. Back in late 2006 I believe, I started editing articles with this list format because the instrumentation sections for many pieces were either missing completely (which applied to the majority of the large orch. pieces like Mahler's symphonies) or they were incorrectly listing instruments, OR they were using the block paragraph form which is very difficult to decipher when it comes to larger instruments. So I applied this format to ALL sizes of orchestra right down to the Beethoven symphonies just to be consistent, a misguided idea, I admit. Isolated editors supported it, but the majority came against the idea ergo the call for a consensus on the matter of defining instrumentation sections. (There was also a debate about "Orchestration" vs. "Instrumentation" but that's a whole other matter.) Previously, no such guideline existed. I did speak up on it and a poll was conducted to find an official consensus on the formatting since there were at least three or four proposals put forth. Mine of using the list format for every article was voted down. So be it. The editors have spoken.

Thus, I incorporated many of their concessions and used them in and updated list format for the "large orchestra" pieces just to test the waters to see if the guidelines would actually hold true and editors would revert them post-guideline. For some reason, the edits stood and were never reverted back or changed; a silent consensus, if you will. Assuming that there wouldn't be problems, I began spreading the format to other large orchestra pieces, namely, to make all of the Mahler Symphonies consistent. Even later, I added columns to the majority of the sections to keep the white space down (which, I believe, has made the format that much more viable). It’s easier to decipher the information that is presented.

Now, since this format has been applied to the majority of large orchestra pieces (which there are, I'd say at most, 40 or so,) and they have not been reverted or changed to appeal to the guideline (until now, that is), and the suggested bullet format offered by the guideline is used in, as far as I can tell, ONLY the example cited, I think that this silent consensus should be written into the guideline and become policy. That's all I'm trying to accomplish here. ONE editor (Kleinzach) did edit appropriately to re-format the sections to the guideline. He has shown the need for this silent consensus to become official. Either its editor apathy or consensus, take your pick, but the fact remains that the format has stood for over two years without being voted down or so much as argued over post-guideline. Justin Tokke (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. The guidelines allows flexibility. Orchestration/instrumentation sections for most articles do follow them, see for example numerous opera articles. Justin Tokke appears to have edited only a very limited subset of articles within the scope of this particular project. --Klein zach 05:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So it is just as I thought. And you obviously don't realize how wrong this is. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You saw the guideline changed, and you were supposed to change those articles, as a member of the project. That other people didn't notice may be accounted for - there are thousands of articles covered by the project, many members may have had no particular interest in Mahler, others may have had no knowledge of the guideline and/or seldom edit articles on orchestral pieces, still other people editing classical music articles may not be members of this project for whatever reason. Those who are members assumed that other members, those who care for Mahler articles, will take care of it. After all, what is the sense in participating in a project if you can't rely on other members? And for you, what is the sense of participating in a project if you don't care for the decisions it makes?

At any rate, I don't have time for this, and unfortunately not enough people are interested in the discussion. So apparently congratulations are in order, you've successfully managed to weasel your way in, by way of sabotaging the project, ignoring other people, and shamelessly pushing your agenda. I'm told this kind of attitude helps in life, eh? Don't bother to reply. --Jashiin (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what YOU don't realize is that noone has ANY obligation to edit. None. I really am not too sure who's on what side or where the actual issue is, as I'm one who "has no particular interest in Mahler", but one thing I hate seeing is the implication that anyone on WP has to be the person to carry out X fixes/changes/etc. If you think a current guideline shows something, and an article goes against it, fix it yourself or note it somewhere, don't bitch that noone else did it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Melodia, the entire discussion started when Kleinzach attempted to "fix it". The attempts were met with fervent opposition from Justin Tokke, who tried to argue against a guideline which has already been argued about two years ago, with his participation.

As for the "noone has any obligation to edit" notion, you're certainly right. But, like I said above, what is the point in participating in a project if you're not going to care one bit about its guidelines? Suppose all composer articles I create from now on will have "Works" first, "Life" second, "Books used" instead of "References", "notated music" instead of "classical music" because personally I prefer the former term, etc., and any attempts to explain to me that MoS and this project dictate totally different formatting norms will result in me saying "I don't care, I like this better"? Would you then remain neutral about my actions and suggest that other editors should simply clean up after me? --Jashiin (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help clean up these articles. I'd just prefer to do it without my work being reverted and my time wasted, hence I am grateful for confirmation that the guidelines still stand. If we have consistent styles, editorial standards etc. it makes everything much easier to maintain. --Klein zach 14:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I missed this discussion while it was active, but would like to add: I favor the more compact formatting specified in the current guidelines. When you over-format, it looks just like some Wikipedia editor is having fun with formatting for its own sake. Compact formatting looks more professional and is more reader-friendly. Opus33 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just reformatted Symphony_No._1_(Mahler)#Instrumentation. Please let me know if you can see any problems/possible improvements. Thanks. --Klein zach 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that you find this:

woodwinds: 4 flutes (flutes 3, 4 doubling piccolos) (flute 2 doubling piccolo in movs. 1 & 4 briefly) (flute 4 tacet in movs. 1, 2), 4 oboes (oboe 3 doubling English horn) (oboe 4 tacet movs. 1-3), 4 clarinets in B-flat, C, A (clarinet 3 doubling bass clarinet in B-flat and clarinet in E-flat) (clarinet 4, doubling clarinet in E-flat, "doubled at least" in mov. 4), 3 bassoons (bassoon 3 doubling contrabassoon)

brass: 7 horns (with "reinforcement" in the last movement)¹, 4 trumpets in F (trumpets 1, 2 "from a wide distance" in mov. 1) (trumpet 1 doubled in ff passages in mov. 4)², 3 trombones, tuba

percussion: timpani³, cymbals, triangle, tam-tam, bass drum (with a suspended cymbal attached to be struck by the same player in mov. 3)

strings, harp, violin i, violin ii, violas, violoncellos, double basses

¹ Mahler instructs that several "reinforcement" horns join the horn section for the last 76 bars of the last movement. He also instructs all of the horns to stand up to get the largest possible sound out of the instruments.
² Trumpet 3 doubles trumpet in B-flat "in the distance", offstage, for a brief passage in the beginning of the first movement.
³ 2 timpanists, using a total of 5 drums: For movements 1 through 3, there is one timpanist with 29" and 26" drums, occasionally muffled.In the last movement, the first timpanist plays the same drums. For the last movement, there are two timpanists, and the second timpanist must utilize three drums (29", 26" and 23").

easier to read than this:

Woodwinds: 4 Flutes (Flutes 3, 4 doubling Piccolos) (Flute 2 doubling Piccolo in Mov. 1 briefly) (Flute 4 tacet in Movs. 1, 2); 4 Oboes (Oboe 3 doubling English Horn) (Oboe 4 tacet Movs. 1-3); 4 Clarinets in B-flat, C, A (Clarinet 3 doubling Bass Clarinet in B-flat and Clarinet in E-flat) (Clarinet 4, doubling Clarinet in E-flat, "doubled at least" in Mov. 4); 3 Bassoons (Bassoon 3 doubling Contrabassoon)

Brass: 7 Horns (with "reinforcement" in the last movement)¹; 4 Trumpets in F (Trumpets 1, 2 "from a wide distance" in Mov. 1) (Trumpet 1 doubled in ff passages in Mov. 4)²; 3 Trombones; Tuba

Percussion: Timpani³; Cymbals; Triangle; Tam-tam; Bass Drum (with a suspended cymbal attached to be struck by the same player in Mov. 3)

Strings: Harp

Violin I

Violin II

Violas

Violoncellos

Double Basses

¹ Mahler instructs that several "reinforcement" horns join the horn section for the last 76 bars of the last movement. He also instructs all of the Horns to stand up to get the largest possible sound out of the instruments.
² Trumpet 3 doubles Trumpet in B-flat "in the distance", offstage, for a brief passage in the beginning of the first movement.
³ 2 timpanists, using a total of 5 drums: For movements 1 through 3, there is one timpanist with 29" and 26" drums, occasionally muffled.In the last movement, the first timpanist plays the same drums. For the last movement, there are two timpanists, and the second timpanist must utilize three drums (29", 26" and 23").

Especially with the wind and brass sections with thier complex doublings. Justin Tokke (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The compact, guideline version is easier to access and read as part of the article as a whole. Most readers will be using a 13 to 17 inch screen with a resolution of 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768. They won't be printing the page poster-size and sticking it up on the wall. --Klein zach 03:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kleinzach here. The compact formatting is preferable in terms of overall article navigation and anyone who cares enough to find out the details of orchestration will be indifferent to the manner in which it is presented. We have a guideline for this and it should be respected absent a larger change of editing preference]. Eusebeus (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So that's it then? Thats all the discussion we're going to have? It seems Wikipedia isn't meeting its goals of being a colaberative project very well then. Justin Tokke (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the rival formats, I realized another reason why I like the more compact version better. The intuition is that by emphasizing the headers so strongly, the longer version patronizes the reader, treating him or her like a third grader: "Ok, children, the instruments of the orchestra are the STRINGS, the WINDS, the BRASS, and the PERCUSSION." (We probably do have some third graders among our readers, but they are precocious and also deserve not to be patronized.) Opus33 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)