Category talk:Composers

From ChoralWiki
Revision as of 17:26, 19 February 2007 by CHGiffen (talk | contribs) (comment, and comment on comments, and some formatting)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New subcateogry

How can I add a new nationality-subcategory for catalan composers? For example: Mateu Fletxa el Vell, Mateu Fletxa el Jove, Joan Cererols, Joan Baptista Cabanilles...

Thanks--CarlesVA 04:44, 15 September 2005 (PDT)

Catalan composers ...

I will add that as a subcategory. All composers listed as Catalan should also be listed as Spanish.

Rafael Ornes Manager, CPDL

Please add Ukrainian as a subcategory of composers by nationality.

Dmitri Bortniansky (actually Dmytro Bortniansky) was a Ukrainian composer, not a Russian, even though he spent much of his musical life in St. Petersburg. ~Chuck Giffen.

Why Shouldn't John Rutter have a composer page?

I am preparing an number of items by the Irish Romantic composer, Sir Robert Prescott Stewart, and in the process began a composer page. Someone else marked this page for deletion on the basis that there are no scores posted to CPDL by Stewart. The immediate issue of the scores by Stewart will be resolved and is in any event not a major issue, because I created the page off line, and it is trivial to re-load it.

However, to me, this begs a larger question: "should a composer with a significant output of choral music have a composer page if and only if there are scores on CPDL associated with that composer?"

Because it is pertinent to this thread, I excerpt this comment by Bobnotts from the page Talk:Robert_Prescott_Stewart:

"I suggest that the composer information belongs on some other resource such as Wikipedia."

I'm interested in what others think about this matter.

Noel Stoutenburg 1624 GMT 8 February, 2007

In my opinion, there is no point in having a composer page for a composer who isn't represented on CPDL. This resource is for choral works primarily and also for texts and translations of choral works. Again, in my opinion, extended biographical information and lists of choral works belong on a resource like Wikipedia. Bobnotts 16:13, 8 February 2007 (PST)
OK. You see biographical information and opus lists of choral compositions belong on Wikipedia [Big Wiki], instead of this ChoralWiki. So, I spent some time considering the advantages of listing biographical information and lists of choral works on Big Wiki for composers of choral music who do not yet have a score listed here. One advantage I perceived was that putting material on Big Wiki reduces the amount of storage space required for the Choral Wiki. Another advantage I perceived was that the standards for pages on Big Wiki ager generally higher than on Choral WIKI, so more of us posting regularly on Big Wiki, and up to the higher standards there, will improve the general quality of the editing on this Choral Wiki. Still, another advantage I perceived was, .... well, I really can't come up with a third advantage. What other advantages are there to having choral related material on BIG WIKI, instead of on this Choral Wiki?
Then I turned my attention to the disadvantages of putting material on Big Wiki instead of the Choral Wiki. One disadvantage is the lessened control over content that would be had by putting material on Big Wiki. Instead of a few hundred people being able to edit what is posted, the number who could edit pages is orders of magnitude higher. The second disadvantage I see is that the people on Big Wiki may not share the same priorities with respect to music. I note in the list_of_Herbert_Howells'_compositions that choral music comes after Orchestral music, chamber music, and keyboard music.
I argue that the concept of adding a page for a composer (or author, or arranger) who does not yet have scores in the Choral Wiki is a direct parallel to the concept of the stub that is part of the Wiki environment. A composer page for a composer who has no scores yet available on CPDL is a stub, and I think the possibility another CPDL user might find that stub, and subsequently find one or more choral compositions composed by the that composer, because of the existence of the composer page on Choral wiki investigate the composer, and set some of the that composers compositions and upload them to CPDL. The existence of the page thus helps to preserve the material created by that composer.
I do not agree with your assessment that CPDL is a resource for scores and texts / translations only. I understand that the Site is bigger than that, and is intended to be a portal site, where choral musicians--directors and singers--would stop first to find resources to fill musical needs, whether it is scores, or the name of a tour organizer. In support of this, I quote from the [page] which was to the best of my knowledge, authored by the site owner himself: "As well as scores, you can use CPDL to find texts and lyrics, translations, and information about composers -- all in the public domain and free to use." Raf does not say that you will find information only about those composers whose scores are on (or are link to from) CPDL.
Noel Stoutenburg 1018 GMT 9 February, 2007
I have previously been deleting composer pages with no scores listed that have been marked for deletion. For the present, I shall refrain from doing this at least if the page provides a list of choral works (even though CPDL has no editions). I do question just where a composer such as John Rutter belongs, since he is (1) alive and (2) has his works published through commercial music publishing channels (and the works are under copyright, not in the public domain). Also, Noel make cogent argurments for listing historic and other composers whose works are not (yet) represented on CPDL, especially when useful information on the composer is provided. On the other side, at present, we have no mechanism for distinguishing between composers that have at least one work availalbe on CPDL and those who don't - and this skews the number of composers count in the CPDL statistics listed on the Main Page. Since the number of "unrepresented composers" is not too large (yet), I believe there is an acceptable remedy, as follows:
I shall make a new category Category:Composers (unhosted) - specifically for composers who have no scores available through CPDL - and a link to the new category page from the Category:Composers page. It will then be necessary to search out and change such composers' category. At such time when one or more works become available through CPDL, then the category designation would be changed by removing the " (unhosted)" status. I hope this meets with everyones approval
ChuckGiffen 09:17, 12 February 2007 (PST)
A good solution, well done Chuck! Bobnotts 11:47, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Having given this some more thought, I can provide a reason or two in support of the proposition that a even John Rutter deserves a page. First, let us assume that there is a John Rutter page, and that it contains a significant fraction of his works, including a listing for a composition for which he composed lyrics and music, "Donkey Carol". [Included in Carols for Choirs III, published by OUP]. Now consider an individual amongst the legion of choral conductors there who has been drafted to the position, despite the fact that they have only moderate enthusiasm for the post, and even less experience, and even less willingness to tell the clergyperson in charge "no". Now, imagine this conductor receiving a phone call from the clergyperson, just back from some gathering of clergypersons somewhere, in the course of which phone call, the clergy person relates that another clergyperson spoke quite highly of a compostion "Donkey carol", but that the name of the composer, or source for the composition was not part of the conversation, but that the clergyperson is certain the choral conductor can locate the source.
Under the circumstances as I have outlined them here, the choirmaster would take recourse to CPDL, type "Donkey Carol" in the search bar, and immediately find that Rutter wrote such that compositions, and be able to respond to he clergyperson's request, "Yes, Reverend Sir, I found the work, but it is only in a book, so we'll need to increase the choir budget this year by a sizeable amount in order to purchase a sufficient number of copies for the choir."
Or consider a slightly different version of the illustration: the clergy person, instead of relating a conversation about "Donkey Carol", relates that the colleague instead spoke quite highly of am arrangement of his favorite English Carol, "I Saw three ships", by John Rutter; taking recourse to the CPDL site, our conductor will quickly find the information that while he found that the Rutter edition is copyright, the same text is the basis for an arrangement on the CPDL site, form which it can be downloaded and reproduced without restriction.
A third reason I would argue for allowing pages for choral music composers is that the copyright protection afforded their compositions is transitory, and will end at some point. If a page is built for John Rutter now, it seems to me that it is more likely that obscure compositions are less likely to be missed when the time comes that his works can be added to the site. And I know this can happen, because I found a choral composition by Albert Ketelbey for Easter in a volume, and when I sought more information on it, learned that the person most knowledgeable about the body of Ketelbey's music was completely unaware of the existence of the work!
Lastly, I have to say that while I like the idea of a catagory for composers who have no scores yet posted to CPDL, I'm having trouble generating much enthusiasm for a category, "composers unhosted"as the nomenclature seems to me too vague, and ambiguous. I suggest naming the category "biography only", or "no scores", or even "bio only; no scores". Which also suggests the complementary category, "scores only; insufficient bio".
Noel Stoutenburg 0816 GMT 13 February, 2007
After my post at 0816, it occurred to me that a further instance of ambiguity occurs with scores on external pages like those of Fr. di Marco, and Nancho Alvarez, where the scores themselves are external to CPDL. Taking this to account prompts me to suggest that there should be a three categories for composers. The current one (whether under the same, or a revised name) for composers who have scores (whether as notation files or page images), or audio files resident in the ChoralWiki for free download, a new category for composers who have scores or audio files available for free download which are linked to from ChoralWiki but which are not resident directly on the site, and another new category for composers for which there are as yet no scores or audio files available on line at all.
I've not yet come up with a satisfactory designation for the proposed categories.
Should attention be given to commercial sites? How, and how much?
Noel Stoutenburg 1253 GMT 13 February, 2007.
I wish to strongly support Noel's point here: having works listed for any composer really helps, even if no score is (or can be) freely available. His example with the clergyman and the reluctant choirmaster isn't just a case study; actually I experienced something similar myself: I'm the president of a musical ensemble here in Paris, and each year in June, we have to decide which pieces to put on the program for the coming year, so we discuss at length on the different proposals, and the board (which I'm leading, so I guess I would be the clergyman in Noel's analogy ;-) has to decide together with the choirmaster and the conductor of the orchestra (note there is a third character here, which makes thing even more complicated even under the best conditions with everyone's good will, because of course the choirmaster wants what's best for the choir, and the conductor wants what's best for the orchestra, and the board's treasurer wants what's best for the budget, etc.).
So, in discussing the choral works we want to know about score availability, and in this regards CPDL has always been a great resource (thank you, folks!), because, obviously, it provides us with free digital scores in some cases, and, just as importantly, it gives us a strong hint of whether a score is not freely available (of course it's not the only resource on the Web, but by far the most comprehensive); in any case, it helps to see an actual list of works which are not present on CPDL (because they are not present).
Actually, this year we even had a strong misunderstanding that could have been lifted if CPDL had been listing works without any score: at some point someone suggested to perform the Stabat Mater by Schubert in the second term of the academic year (that is, now), and everybody agreed with this and found it a great idea (choirmaster, conductor, everyone); but, when it came to actually order the scores some weeks ago, we realized the mistake... there are two Stabat mater by Schubert! Check on Klassika: one “small” one (D175, duration 5' approx.) and one much longer one (D383, duration 30' - 40'). Of course the choirmaster meant to perform the latter one because it's more fulfilling for the choir, and the conductor thought of the former one because it's less annoying for the orchestra to accompany. Only the “big” one is represented on CPDL, which is great, but had we seen the other one, we would have been warned of the possible problem (indeed, I'm quite sure someone mentioned “And the vocal score is on CPDL, so it's great” when we were researching six months ago). Of course I'm not blaming CPDL! On the very contrary, I think it can be all the more useful to choirs all around the worlds, and I'm suggesting it could be used as a resource to list available editions of choral works. I'm very much aware that's a lot of work, and I'm only saying it as a suggestion and a possible extensions of the goals of ChoralWiki.
In addition, seeing works without scores on a composer's page can encourage people to submit them; the few gaps in the list on Brahms' page was the very reason I decided to go on and upload scores in the first place (I had been typing the Schicksalslied for the other choir of my ensemble, and I decided to put it on CPDL because I felt it was a path to having all of Brahms' choral works as free sheet musics, which we're definitely close to).
I've probably been drifting too much there. So far for the rant...
Arthur 2007-02-17 03:59 CET (02:59 UTC)


This is proving to be a very useful discussion.
I don't believe, Noel, that scores which haven't been properly submitted to CPDL (have a score page, have a CPDL # etc.) belong on this site. In my opinion, the issue should be taken up with the user who posted these links in the first place so that the scores can be successfully submitted to the site. So in short, I don't think that your final suggested category (one for scores which are not "resident directly on the site") should be made. It is clear, however, that creating composer pages for composers which are not yet in the public domain or even for those that are still alive (such as Rutter) would be very useful for many users, as Arthur illustrated above. Is "unhosted" the best term?
Robert 05:19, 19 February 2007 (PST)
Although I wasn't totally satisfied with the term "unhosted", it was the best I could come up with. I didn't like such terms as "no CPDL scores" or "unrepresented" and several others all of which seemed too wordy.
By the way, using === === or selecting the " + " at the top of a Talk page without specifying a NEW TOPIC to comment on something already posted is in bad Wiki form ... just look at the TOC for the previous version of this page to see what happens. For commenting on something already on the Talk page, just use indentation .. ":" for first-level indentation, "::" for second-level, and so forth. Browsing a few Talk pages at Wikipedia provides a good guide as to the generally accepted style. I've taken the liberty of removing the empty headings and adding colons (: or ::) where it seemed appropriate, and apologize if I have misrepresented the intentions of those who have already posted in this interesting discussion.
One final note: many if not most Wikipedians sign their comments almost always at the end of the comment, but not on a new line or paragraph, thus. -- ChuckGiffen 09:26, 19 February 2007 (PST)