![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on October 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this article up for deletion, yet no discussion has been made. Isn't it common sense to talk first on wikipedia? All other major composers as well as most minor or completely unimportant composers (to use the term loosely) have articles listing their work. I don't see any problem with this article that requires anything more than minor improvements. I am removing this notice and hope to discuss this like reasonable editors. Thank you, AlexanderLevian 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
With IMSLP down, a better source is needed (a better source was needed anyway than a sourceless list compiled elsewhere even when it was up.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is better not to include individual pieces in the articles. If one plans to make a whole listing of all individual pieces, like the 19 hungarian rhapsodies, the 3 series of 12 etudes, and the 12 christmas pieces, the purpose of this list will be lost since it will be impossible to take in the whole picture. The purpose of this list is not to show all of Liszt's overwhelming oevre, but to make it possible to easily browse through it. These kind of lists would be more appropriate to include in articles related to them (like the list of all 12 transcendental etudes that is available in the main article). I suggest that it should be as it was before. We should strive to make it remain a browseable list. -- Funper ( talk) 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
quick Google books search suggests "by 1848" for the first version of the song S. 306, from two different (maybe not independent) books, one of them Searle's - is there enough evidence for 1847 even with that question mark? Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know about these? I can't find any info on them, but I noticed on a new release that a second number is listed, and Naxos seems to have added them to other pages too (though it's possible it's been there for a while and I simply haven't payed attention). Various Google searches indicate a couple of books that use the number, and a bunch of sites seem to 'suddenly' have them, but I cannot find ANY reference to what the catalog actually is. Though this is unrelated to the Serle catalog, there's no "general" Liszt works page so I'm asking here. If anyone has any incites, they'd be appreciated (and certainly mention of it should be welcome in the article, to keep this on WP topic). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 06:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be begging for a humorous title. How about 'Liszt of compositions'? It would be funny!
J.Gowers ( talk) 01:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This article has topics similar to List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.351 – S.999) and should be merged into one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inyrface ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it correct that there's no space after S.? -- 77.0.249.20 ( talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Searle's catalogue is divided firstly into what he calls "Original works" (S.1–S.350) and "Arrangements, transcriptions, etc" (S.351 onwards). It would be very tempting for someone new to Liszt to believe that anything with an S number lower than 351 was an original concept by Liszt that did not draw on the works of any other composers. But that's hardly the case.
No less than 47 of the works in the first group are based on works by other composers, and these include Berlioz (S.120), Beethoven (S.122), Chopin (S.127), Paganini (S.140, 141), Rossini (S.149, 150), Bach (S.179, 180), Handel (S.181). Mendelssohn (S.257), Meyerbeer (S.259), and many others.
Full details are at Franz Liszt's treatments of the works of other composers#Index of S. numbers.
The Searle catalogue has been confusing me ever since I encountered it 45 years ago. For example:
The first Mephisto Waltz originates in the second of the Two pieces after Lenau's Faust S.110. In this article, S.110 links to the general Mephisto Waltzes article, where the section on the First Mephisto Waltz, discussing its origin, has a link back to this page. The S.110 link should go to a separate article on the original Two pieces after Lenau's Faust, or be removed, otherwise the links make us go around in circles. Zwart ( talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not knowledgeable enough to implement a TOC within the new layout of the list. I have read some section about tables and headers but my wikicoding skills are far too weak and I do not know where to begin. Is it do-able? Are there any relevant help pages to read? -- Funper ( talk) 01:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am planning to add composer names as headers in the work table, however I will not add those links to the TOC since I believe it will become unnavigable. -- Funper ( talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I took the liberty to delete most of the references that links individual pieces of the 12 early etudes and their respective Transcendental Etudes. The previous editor of that bit made an assumption that these pieces correspond by their respecive numbers. Looking at the pieces individually the correspondence is obvious from pieces nos. 1 to 5, 10 and 12, then exercise no. 7 seems akin to Transcendental no. 11, and that's where first impressions end, and from here on it is obvious that the connections between the pieces are not simple, and one shouldn't link them automatically. Since I believe in Wikipedia's primal principles, in that editors are not supposed to publish original research or, even worse, easy going assumptions, own interpretations of facts, subjective musical observations, even if they seem obvious, I left the space blank. With a question marks for place holder, because not sure how tables work. Please confer sources before completing the table again. Anapazapa ( talk) 17:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
See [ this link] for a discussion relating to the use of bold in the lead. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Without further ado, the columns "Forces" and "Notes" should be removed, although I have no issue with them being remade if they are substantially different. I don't mind keeping a copy of them on my user space if anybody would find those details useful for further editing. These notes are largely incomprehensible, at least in their current form. If they are to be refactored in a presentable way, they would likely take so much space to be completely untenable, and should probably be described in other articles instead. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Melodia: Please read my reasoning carefully, which does not mention the article being too long. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is currently 440k, and completely unwieldy to read and edit. It looks like both original compositions and arrangements can be easily split out into their own (still huge!) articles, which would at least help. pauli133 ( talk) 13:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Whoever FTD is, all the numbers and descriptions by FTD should be removed, unless wikipedia is doing a new S numbers.
MinkyuKim0204 ( talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Started a discussion at La Esmeralda (opera) over the authenticity of S 476 and S 477/477a. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 04:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on October 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
Why is this article up for deletion, yet no discussion has been made. Isn't it common sense to talk first on wikipedia? All other major composers as well as most minor or completely unimportant composers (to use the term loosely) have articles listing their work. I don't see any problem with this article that requires anything more than minor improvements. I am removing this notice and hope to discuss this like reasonable editors. Thank you, AlexanderLevian 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
With IMSLP down, a better source is needed (a better source was needed anyway than a sourceless list compiled elsewhere even when it was up.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is better not to include individual pieces in the articles. If one plans to make a whole listing of all individual pieces, like the 19 hungarian rhapsodies, the 3 series of 12 etudes, and the 12 christmas pieces, the purpose of this list will be lost since it will be impossible to take in the whole picture. The purpose of this list is not to show all of Liszt's overwhelming oevre, but to make it possible to easily browse through it. These kind of lists would be more appropriate to include in articles related to them (like the list of all 12 transcendental etudes that is available in the main article). I suggest that it should be as it was before. We should strive to make it remain a browseable list. -- Funper ( talk) 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
quick Google books search suggests "by 1848" for the first version of the song S. 306, from two different (maybe not independent) books, one of them Searle's - is there enough evidence for 1847 even with that question mark? Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know about these? I can't find any info on them, but I noticed on a new release that a second number is listed, and Naxos seems to have added them to other pages too (though it's possible it's been there for a while and I simply haven't payed attention). Various Google searches indicate a couple of books that use the number, and a bunch of sites seem to 'suddenly' have them, but I cannot find ANY reference to what the catalog actually is. Though this is unrelated to the Serle catalog, there's no "general" Liszt works page so I'm asking here. If anyone has any incites, they'd be appreciated (and certainly mention of it should be welcome in the article, to keep this on WP topic). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 06:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be begging for a humorous title. How about 'Liszt of compositions'? It would be funny!
J.Gowers ( talk) 01:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This article has topics similar to List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.351 – S.999) and should be merged into one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inyrface ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it correct that there's no space after S.? -- 77.0.249.20 ( talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Searle's catalogue is divided firstly into what he calls "Original works" (S.1–S.350) and "Arrangements, transcriptions, etc" (S.351 onwards). It would be very tempting for someone new to Liszt to believe that anything with an S number lower than 351 was an original concept by Liszt that did not draw on the works of any other composers. But that's hardly the case.
No less than 47 of the works in the first group are based on works by other composers, and these include Berlioz (S.120), Beethoven (S.122), Chopin (S.127), Paganini (S.140, 141), Rossini (S.149, 150), Bach (S.179, 180), Handel (S.181). Mendelssohn (S.257), Meyerbeer (S.259), and many others.
Full details are at Franz Liszt's treatments of the works of other composers#Index of S. numbers.
The Searle catalogue has been confusing me ever since I encountered it 45 years ago. For example:
The first Mephisto Waltz originates in the second of the Two pieces after Lenau's Faust S.110. In this article, S.110 links to the general Mephisto Waltzes article, where the section on the First Mephisto Waltz, discussing its origin, has a link back to this page. The S.110 link should go to a separate article on the original Two pieces after Lenau's Faust, or be removed, otherwise the links make us go around in circles. Zwart ( talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not knowledgeable enough to implement a TOC within the new layout of the list. I have read some section about tables and headers but my wikicoding skills are far too weak and I do not know where to begin. Is it do-able? Are there any relevant help pages to read? -- Funper ( talk) 01:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am planning to add composer names as headers in the work table, however I will not add those links to the TOC since I believe it will become unnavigable. -- Funper ( talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I took the liberty to delete most of the references that links individual pieces of the 12 early etudes and their respective Transcendental Etudes. The previous editor of that bit made an assumption that these pieces correspond by their respecive numbers. Looking at the pieces individually the correspondence is obvious from pieces nos. 1 to 5, 10 and 12, then exercise no. 7 seems akin to Transcendental no. 11, and that's where first impressions end, and from here on it is obvious that the connections between the pieces are not simple, and one shouldn't link them automatically. Since I believe in Wikipedia's primal principles, in that editors are not supposed to publish original research or, even worse, easy going assumptions, own interpretations of facts, subjective musical observations, even if they seem obvious, I left the space blank. With a question marks for place holder, because not sure how tables work. Please confer sources before completing the table again. Anapazapa ( talk) 17:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
See [ this link] for a discussion relating to the use of bold in the lead. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Without further ado, the columns "Forces" and "Notes" should be removed, although I have no issue with them being remade if they are substantially different. I don't mind keeping a copy of them on my user space if anybody would find those details useful for further editing. These notes are largely incomprehensible, at least in their current form. If they are to be refactored in a presentable way, they would likely take so much space to be completely untenable, and should probably be described in other articles instead. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Melodia: Please read my reasoning carefully, which does not mention the article being too long. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is currently 440k, and completely unwieldy to read and edit. It looks like both original compositions and arrangements can be easily split out into their own (still huge!) articles, which would at least help. pauli133 ( talk) 13:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Whoever FTD is, all the numbers and descriptions by FTD should be removed, unless wikipedia is doing a new S numbers.
MinkyuKim0204 ( talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Started a discussion at La Esmeralda (opera) over the authenticity of S 476 and S 477/477a. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 04:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)