This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the
project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
That's what 1,000% of English-speaking people call it. There is zero case for calling it Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen - zero. Can it be moved asap, please? --
Jack of Oz[Talk]10:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I won't suggest a German title for the Mass because Bach didn't name the piece (not
h-Moll-Messe nor anything else). He didn't name the cantatas, but they still come under German titles (first line of text), - only the German names until I added the BWV #, remember? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
00:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I hope Gerda will trust the English native speakers on this point: the piece is always referred to in English language contexts by its English title. It would look very eccentric (indeed, very pedantic) to retain the Norwegian title here. Incidentally, this is not so for Bach cantatas: English speakers just try to cope with the German titles for these, so German titles for these works are appropriate on WP.]
Opus33 (
talk)
01:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, this is a pretty clear case where it should use the English title. The use of it is overwhelming in English sources about Grieg and his songs, and in recordings and concert programme notes.
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
My compliments on Gerda's inestimable contribution to this article, but I tend to agree with Jack on this one. I see no need for WP:RM either once it seems pretty clear by now which side this talk is leaning to. Thank you all
KrenakaroreTK10:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Just checked back and found it hadn't been moved yet, so I've added the requested move section below, which should be dealt with once the backlog has been cleared. --xensyriaT00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support - despite the specialist Grieg-biographical sources used in article supporting the Norwegian name, - which I've checked and expanded into full text refs, mainly "Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen (Wedding Day at Troldhaugen)" - this isn't a song/cantata with a sung Norwegian text, just the name of piano piece, and the majority of non specialist (i.e. not Grieg biography, simply books on piano music) sources use the English translation. No contrary specific guidance on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/GuidelinesIn ictu oculi (
talk)
02:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Major Work?
Hi
Cote d'Azur &
Gerda Arendt. Should the title be in italics or quotation marks? Does it match
MOS:TITLE's definition of a major work:
Non-generic names of major independent compositions:
Musicals, operas, operettas and other self-contained pieces of musical theatre
Named oratorios, cantatas, motets, orchestral works, and other compositions beyond the scope of a single song or dance
Symphony No. 2 by Gustav Mahler, known as the Resurrection Symphony ... (generic vs. non-generic name)
Stravinsky's Cantata is a work for soprano, tenor, female choir, and instrumental ensemble ... (unnamed cantata)
On an Overgrown Path (Czech: Po zarostlém chodníčku) is a cycle of thirteen piano pieces written by Leoš Janáček ... (named piano composition)
or a minor work:
Songs, instrumentals, arias, numbers in a musical, movements of longer musical piece, album tracks, singles, and other short musical compositions: The Beatles' song "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" appears on the album also titled Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
"Quotation marks should be avoided, except for the name of a theme in a set of variations in a generic article title"
Applies to the naming of articles (in the same way that short stories - even "stand alone" short stories - don't have quotation marks in their article title; e.g.
Blind Alley not
"Blind Alley";
Wedding Day at Troldhaugen not
"Wedding Day at Troldhaugen"), not the content of articles or templates. It's not saying that the styling the titles of minor works of music should be different from other minor works.
My thought: we want to show that something is a title of an individual piece, in this case: show somehow that we don't speak about a real wedding day. We distinguish two kinds of works: major (italic) and minor (quotation marks), with whatever falls not in minor is major. This falls not in "individual dances, songs, hymns, lieder and arias", so is a major work. Keep simple. If you see short stories without quotation marks, add the quotation marks ;) - The thing to avoid is quotation marks in article names, which is a completely different topic and doesn't apply here. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Wedding Day at Troldhaugen is a solo piano piece in a collection of 66 piano pieces, an individual piece, therefore title in italics.
Cote d'Azur (
talk)
12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Ok, thanks for the replies, I get where you're coming from now... do you mind if I open this up to see other editors via wikiproject, MOS, VP etc.? :) ‑‑YodinT
I still don't see how Lyric Pieces is a piece of which this would be a part (guideline: "movements of longer musical piece"). This will be performed individually. - What exactly does "instrumentals" man in the above quotation? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Don't ask me ;) - I think it's a collection, not a composition, and the pieces in it are individual stand-alone pieces which I would therefore have italic. We even render the movements of a Bach cantata italic, or is that wrong? - Anyway, the discussion is now at more general boards, not here. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
16:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
borderline, so I'd go with whatever gets consensus:
Re. "How can a musical composition have 66 parts": Mikrokosmos has 153 parts – number of parts is not the issue.
Sometimes opus numbers or catalogue numbers can help, one opus number or catalogue number usually representing one work: applied to the Lyric Pieces (piano version), that would mean ten works (each of the ten books has a separate opus number), with the six to eight pieces in each book subdivisions of the work. Many of these pieces have indeed names referring to dances or songs. However an opus number, or a "book" of compositions can contain individual compositions: six concertos or three sonatas or whatever.
In this case, I'd lean somewhat towards individual composition, so italicised: didn't he write it for his wife for an anniversary, only later adding it to one of his piano books? It doesn't have the look and feel of a movement of a larger work, nor of a dance or song as such. Also, as said, its orchestral version is afaik never organised into a Suite or whatever. If stressing the "part six of Op. 65" aspect, in quote marks would be acceptable too, so I'd have no problem whatever way the consensus goes. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
17:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach is a collection, yet it contains both italicized (e.g. No. 3 Wer nur den lieben Gott lässt walten) as non-italicized pieces (e.g. No. 1 "Applicatio"). In other words, the collection concept is not really an indication in either direction for the individual pieces.
IMHO, it more or less works like this: (first question:) is it a separate work? (I'd say yes for Op. 65 No. 6 – but close to no), then (second question:) is it a dance or song or some such short work? (I'd say no for Op. 65 No. 6 – but close to yes). So leaning towards italicized (in other words closer to Siegfried Idyll than to "
Ride of the Valkyries"), but could live with answering either of the two questions differently, leading to a different outcome. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
18:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I won't press the issue without reviewing the whole area first, but would be cautious of the definition of classical composition major/minor works diverging from the definitions of other media (e.g. literature, pop-music, etc.). The closest analogy I can see is of Lyric Peices being like a series of short story anthologies, with the pieces being equivalent to short stories... you could then argue that some of them might be the equivalent of novellas rather than short stories (and so major works), but with
Grieg's playing of Wedding Day at Troldhaugen coming in at only just over 2 minutes, there's very little case I can see for claiming it to be a major work, unless the only comparisons are with other, similarly atypical "major works", in which case classical music has diverged. If it's not the equivalent of a song when compared to, say, a modern album containing a number of songs (some of which are released as singles first, but all are considered minor works), then what is it? :) ‑‑YodinT18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the
project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
That's what 1,000% of English-speaking people call it. There is zero case for calling it Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen - zero. Can it be moved asap, please? --
Jack of Oz[Talk]10:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I won't suggest a German title for the Mass because Bach didn't name the piece (not
h-Moll-Messe nor anything else). He didn't name the cantatas, but they still come under German titles (first line of text), - only the German names until I added the BWV #, remember? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
00:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I hope Gerda will trust the English native speakers on this point: the piece is always referred to in English language contexts by its English title. It would look very eccentric (indeed, very pedantic) to retain the Norwegian title here. Incidentally, this is not so for Bach cantatas: English speakers just try to cope with the German titles for these, so German titles for these works are appropriate on WP.]
Opus33 (
talk)
01:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, this is a pretty clear case where it should use the English title. The use of it is overwhelming in English sources about Grieg and his songs, and in recordings and concert programme notes.
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
My compliments on Gerda's inestimable contribution to this article, but I tend to agree with Jack on this one. I see no need for WP:RM either once it seems pretty clear by now which side this talk is leaning to. Thank you all
KrenakaroreTK10:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Just checked back and found it hadn't been moved yet, so I've added the requested move section below, which should be dealt with once the backlog has been cleared. --xensyriaT00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support - despite the specialist Grieg-biographical sources used in article supporting the Norwegian name, - which I've checked and expanded into full text refs, mainly "Bryllupsdag på Troldhaugen (Wedding Day at Troldhaugen)" - this isn't a song/cantata with a sung Norwegian text, just the name of piano piece, and the majority of non specialist (i.e. not Grieg biography, simply books on piano music) sources use the English translation. No contrary specific guidance on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/GuidelinesIn ictu oculi (
talk)
02:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Major Work?
Hi
Cote d'Azur &
Gerda Arendt. Should the title be in italics or quotation marks? Does it match
MOS:TITLE's definition of a major work:
Non-generic names of major independent compositions:
Musicals, operas, operettas and other self-contained pieces of musical theatre
Named oratorios, cantatas, motets, orchestral works, and other compositions beyond the scope of a single song or dance
Symphony No. 2 by Gustav Mahler, known as the Resurrection Symphony ... (generic vs. non-generic name)
Stravinsky's Cantata is a work for soprano, tenor, female choir, and instrumental ensemble ... (unnamed cantata)
On an Overgrown Path (Czech: Po zarostlém chodníčku) is a cycle of thirteen piano pieces written by Leoš Janáček ... (named piano composition)
or a minor work:
Songs, instrumentals, arias, numbers in a musical, movements of longer musical piece, album tracks, singles, and other short musical compositions: The Beatles' song "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" appears on the album also titled Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
"Quotation marks should be avoided, except for the name of a theme in a set of variations in a generic article title"
Applies to the naming of articles (in the same way that short stories - even "stand alone" short stories - don't have quotation marks in their article title; e.g.
Blind Alley not
"Blind Alley";
Wedding Day at Troldhaugen not
"Wedding Day at Troldhaugen"), not the content of articles or templates. It's not saying that the styling the titles of minor works of music should be different from other minor works.
My thought: we want to show that something is a title of an individual piece, in this case: show somehow that we don't speak about a real wedding day. We distinguish two kinds of works: major (italic) and minor (quotation marks), with whatever falls not in minor is major. This falls not in "individual dances, songs, hymns, lieder and arias", so is a major work. Keep simple. If you see short stories without quotation marks, add the quotation marks ;) - The thing to avoid is quotation marks in article names, which is a completely different topic and doesn't apply here. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Wedding Day at Troldhaugen is a solo piano piece in a collection of 66 piano pieces, an individual piece, therefore title in italics.
Cote d'Azur (
talk)
12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Ok, thanks for the replies, I get where you're coming from now... do you mind if I open this up to see other editors via wikiproject, MOS, VP etc.? :) ‑‑YodinT
I still don't see how Lyric Pieces is a piece of which this would be a part (guideline: "movements of longer musical piece"). This will be performed individually. - What exactly does "instrumentals" man in the above quotation? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Don't ask me ;) - I think it's a collection, not a composition, and the pieces in it are individual stand-alone pieces which I would therefore have italic. We even render the movements of a Bach cantata italic, or is that wrong? - Anyway, the discussion is now at more general boards, not here. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
16:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
borderline, so I'd go with whatever gets consensus:
Re. "How can a musical composition have 66 parts": Mikrokosmos has 153 parts – number of parts is not the issue.
Sometimes opus numbers or catalogue numbers can help, one opus number or catalogue number usually representing one work: applied to the Lyric Pieces (piano version), that would mean ten works (each of the ten books has a separate opus number), with the six to eight pieces in each book subdivisions of the work. Many of these pieces have indeed names referring to dances or songs. However an opus number, or a "book" of compositions can contain individual compositions: six concertos or three sonatas or whatever.
In this case, I'd lean somewhat towards individual composition, so italicised: didn't he write it for his wife for an anniversary, only later adding it to one of his piano books? It doesn't have the look and feel of a movement of a larger work, nor of a dance or song as such. Also, as said, its orchestral version is afaik never organised into a Suite or whatever. If stressing the "part six of Op. 65" aspect, in quote marks would be acceptable too, so I'd have no problem whatever way the consensus goes. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
17:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach is a collection, yet it contains both italicized (e.g. No. 3 Wer nur den lieben Gott lässt walten) as non-italicized pieces (e.g. No. 1 "Applicatio"). In other words, the collection concept is not really an indication in either direction for the individual pieces.
IMHO, it more or less works like this: (first question:) is it a separate work? (I'd say yes for Op. 65 No. 6 – but close to no), then (second question:) is it a dance or song or some such short work? (I'd say no for Op. 65 No. 6 – but close to yes). So leaning towards italicized (in other words closer to Siegfried Idyll than to "
Ride of the Valkyries"), but could live with answering either of the two questions differently, leading to a different outcome. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
18:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I won't press the issue without reviewing the whole area first, but would be cautious of the definition of classical composition major/minor works diverging from the definitions of other media (e.g. literature, pop-music, etc.). The closest analogy I can see is of Lyric Peices being like a series of short story anthologies, with the pieces being equivalent to short stories... you could then argue that some of them might be the equivalent of novellas rather than short stories (and so major works), but with
Grieg's playing of Wedding Day at Troldhaugen coming in at only just over 2 minutes, there's very little case I can see for claiming it to be a major work, unless the only comparisons are with other, similarly atypical "major works", in which case classical music has diverged. If it's not the equivalent of a song when compared to, say, a modern album containing a number of songs (some of which are released as singles first, but all are considered minor works), then what is it? :) ‑‑YodinT18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply