Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 2

2752:, and as mentioned there I'm happy to elaborate on that if needed. As to "consensus can change" - certainly it can, but so far there is no indication that it has. Regarding the edit summary, edit summaries are not the place for extended discussion; directing to the talk page is appropriate in that case. The talk page is "such a big place now", in your words, because you've made a large number of changes, many of which have been objected to, and many of which you have restored without waiting for a consensus for them to form. And as already mentioned, the onus is on you to get consensus for your proposed 9000b of content, and at the moment you don't have it. 2637:– since Muziekweb has all external characteristics of a reliable source I don't see why we should lose any more time on this. Over-all I'm trying to figure what you're aiming at: above you write that a "user trying to add a new source" should not be met with all kinds of complexities and impediments: I've tried to add a new source ultra-simple way, then full blown, then something in between, and I see nobody putting up impediments to using that source here, but you... So please stop that MO, propose a format you can live with, and we'll take it from there. -- 1336:. The list of recordings is excessive and indiscriminate, with too many fussy edits that are at best parenthetic footnotes. On bach-cantatas, there is a forum where informed amateurs can document and discuss different recordings of BWV 53. The discussion there results from love of the music; might be slightly obsessive—the collector's instinct; but is conducted with courtesy and decorum. Knowledge, however, serves a different purpose. The 30+ recordings are an {{example farm}}. There is no 31: 1430:

repertoire "beyond JSB". Andreas Scholl has won prizes: awards like that are criteria for choosing between different recordings. Changing the subject a little, it's easier to judge the quality of countertenors/altos/contraltos by listening to something more substantial (e.g. arias from Handel operas or oratorios, which are not dissimilar). Unfortunately there are very few female singers who match up to the likes of

2284:, who is one of the best. Leisner omits the da capo repeat and has a portamento singing style which is a negative. When there are spotify options, I would reccomend listening. But in general the contraltos in the list are much slower and do not conform to historic performance. Another criterion is the pitch of the bells; personally those one octave below sound better. (I made a similar check for recordings of 2730:" (CCC) policy: "... Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed)." – I consider the edit summary of 1297:, Amazon is considered a "generally unreliable" source, so definitely "less reliable than AllMusic" and according to what I proposed "any source less reliable than AllMusic should not, not under any condition, be considered an acceptable source". So, no, you're still deforming my proposal, amounting to nonsense. Re. "given the size of the article" – I'd say 3411: 3395: 3375: 3361: 3354: 3334: 3313: 3294: 1301:, but since you've been, thus far, no major content contributor to the article (only a major content deleter), that would mean you'd have to make a complete change in your MO. I don't think that your "en masse" content deletions make you seem honest when you now assert that the article is too small for a normally developed Discography section. -- 1316:

you elsewhere on the page, 30+ recordings is well in excess of what is included in a "normally developed" Discography section. The appropriate solution here is not to wildly expand the page, but to adopt a more selective approach to the discography (and/or split the unselective discography to a separate page as already mentioned).

2431:, as well as extensive use of primary sources, not to mention repetition of content. Accordingly I have undone several of the latest series of edits, pending further discussion here in the hopes of reaching a consensus on the proposed changes. As a reminder, "more content" does not equate to "better article", which is why 789:

difference when giving somewhat more context on recordings (that is apart from a mere listing of the recordings), but I have not seen any intention (yet) to enrich the article in that sense, apart from what I added about the very first recording of BWV 53. Rejecting the claim that "better" sources are needed, apart from

1505:

Yes, I mentioned "original instruments". For this particular piece there are very few that are satisfactory. But generalt the recordings are in a like-minded album: cantatas that go "beyond JSB" are for example "Ach, das ich Wasser's g'nug hätte" by J. C. Bach, which is widely recorded, e.g. here on

1315:

Amazon meets your definition of "official" for "official international commercial distribution chain", and then a catalogue like Worldcat qualifies under your definition of appropriate sourcing. If this isn't your intention I can only again suggest you amend your criteria. As has been pointed out to

3533:

it is the person wanting to add the content who must gain consensus for its inclusion, not the other way around. If you don't agree with the above concerns, that does not mean that they may be freely ignored; it means discussions should continue towards building consensus on the proposed additions,

3061:

is to uniquely identify a specific source. The amended citation from my edit meets that requirement. The preceding version does not, as it indicates multiple sources - the citation is not the place to list all the versions of the source that may exist. Additionally the preceding version misuses the

2453:

is incorrect. As noted above, the previous edit reverted disputed changes, making this edit a restoration of same without engaging in discussion (not in accordance with BRD). Also the reversion was explained ↑ - if something is unclear I'm happy to elaborate. But continuing to restore this disputed

2435:

does not say that in cases of dispute we should keep whichever version has more content, but rather: in the case of a dispute, a lack of consensus results in retaining the prior version. In the interest of resolving some of the disputes above I am opening a formal RfC (below) on inclusion criteria

1904:

Timings are unwarranted and not usual for cantata articles. However, the full name of the singer should be reported (it's done for other solo cantatas); the record label should be included (ditto); and the colour code for "period instruments" should be indicated. Anybody is free to improve tables

1429:

is not a great idea. The use of period instruments is another criterion that is worth thinking about. Of course BWV 53 is now (usually) excluded from any complete collection of Bach cantatas. But top countertenors/altos/mezzo-sopranos like singing it; and there is an appetite for the solo cantata

788:

For a mere listing, this makes no difference. One is not "better" than the other in that context: both types are reliable sources, and whichever of such reliable sources has the information occurring in the list is as good as another reliable source holding the same information. It would make a

2053:

and Magdalena Kozena. In compiling lists/tables of recordings, the music should not be forgotten. Here, with only a short aria, there is no scope for writing lengthy tables. Articles on JSB cantatas almost always give information, which is accessible and helpful for readers. For BWV 53, with a

1843:

Holding on to the performance time, for the ones where it is documented, seems more than warranted, because these times are so wide apart (from around five minutes to nearly double that time), but all of them under ten minutes (which is the performance time given in one of the score editions –

1278:

Unfortunately not nonsense, in either case. Your proposal, given how you've defined "official" and the sourcing you propose, would allow any recording that had ever appeared in a library catalogue and been sold on Amazon to be included - which is effectively every recording. If that is not the

2598:

You replaced a citation that supported a particular quote, with one that did not. The question of sourcing standards for the Recordings section is under discussion above - where there has been opposition to the use of Muziekweb in particular and mere listings in general. So both the change in

973:

I've read the project guidelines as a whole; nowhere do they mandate indiscriminately including every recording. In this discussion as well you have two editors thus far arguing for selective listing, and only one (yourself) arguing for the extended listing of recordings that merely exist.

1116:("recommend more reliable sources when available"), but anyway any source less reliable than AllMusic should not, not under any condition, be considered an acceptable source. That being said, the information to be found about the recording in reliable sources includes at least: 2422:

is on you to do so. You've readded content that has been objected to here, and that so far no one but you has supported including. The content in the latest series of edits also poses a number of concerns with regards to policies/guidelines including but not limited to

2711:

The difference is the unexplained content deletions. Removing germane content "for the heck of it," as you apparently do, is quite disturbing behaviour. I've commented on your talk page on the behavioural aspect (which is not a topic for this talk page).

2005:

and I were in agreement that the total of possible recordings as far too much—30 or more recordings. I know of no cantatas which give timings for minutes and seconds. That is an arbitrary choice (not available on an LP) so presumably was taken from a

1477:

When you say use of period instruments is a criterion, do you mean you would want to limit the list to those that use them, or just that you would want it presented in the display? Agree that prizes would also be useful in determining significance.

1006:

That specific section provides no guidance on selecting which recordings to include or not in the work article. If you are not proposing to indiscriminately include every recording, then what specific means of selection are you proposing?

938:

For a list of recordings embedded in a "Reception" section, obviously the same formatting rules as for recordings listed in a separate section, i.e. a section only listing recordings, apply. These formatting rules are detailed at

2398:

Content about performance time added; images of singers normal size; intro of recordings section expanded; table simplified — thanks for your patience. Suggesting to take this up at the WikiProject talk page (as indicated in

2016:

At the moment, there is no consensus of how to select recordings: the presentation should follow those of baroque cantatas, especcially those of JSB. For JSB cantatas, the discography is selective. The featured article

2629:): my answer to the question was not disputed. It's not because a question has been asked, a decent answer provided, without retorts, that a permanent state of "opposition" or "dispute" can be imagined. At least the 1930:

You have again added timings, which as per the above you do not have consensus to do. You are also using primary sources for recordings, without having reached consensus above about appropriate sourcing standards.

574: 1828:

Making it a table versus a plain list does not absolve us of the need to be more selective in what recordings to include. I also agree with Mathsci below that things like timings do not warrant inclusion.

1279:

meaning you intended, I would suggest clarifying your proposed criteria, particularly with regards to acceptable sourcing. And given the size of the article, 30+ recordings would qualify as "extensive".

1071:

Too subjective, unworkable (what does "significant" mean? If "published reviews" is an "eg", which other can or cannot be accepted?). Not suitable for a mainspace list intro. Better criteria are needed.

3034:

formatted links to a "full" citation (per the request in the "full citation needed" tag), then the OCLC links, are, of course, preserved. Thus I reverted as an unexplained content deletion, which was

1200:(After ec) That definition of "official" is broad enough that we might as well say we're listing every recording. One possibility might be creating a separate discography article, as was done with 1186:

Re. "in allowing sources like Muziekweb and Worldcat that proposal is really no different from indiscriminately including every recording": no, and please stop repeating that nonsense. --

988:

Nobody is suggesting "indiscriminately including every recording" or "extended listing of recordings that merely exist" afaics – I suggest to follow applicable project guidance, that is,

59: 1158:"Official" defined how? Unless rather narrowly, in allowing sources like Muziekweb and Worldcat that proposal is really no different from indiscriminately including every recording. 3038:– again deleting part of the content, including the links to reliable sources. There were dozens of such content deletions, amounting to "massive unexplained content deletions" in 3014:

which deleted part of the content. For clarity: BnF/Gallica has afaik not been mentioned on this talk page before, and BnF is afaik unproblematic (a double BNF link present in the

3470:

has not given precise reasons for dozens of other content deletions. They have been wikilawyering with guidelines of which they obviously don't even grasp the intent (such as

841:

Exactly. Rather than "a mere listing" with sources that demonstrate only that a particular recording exists, we should limit the list to those with demonstrated significance.

920:

recordings and references is recommended, complete with links, so as to allow the reader to obtain further information if desired. See also below #Recordings and #References

1222:

Re. "That definition ... is broad enough that we might as well say we're listing every recording" – Again, no, and please stop repeating the nonsense. It is not helpful. --

944: 2280:

Thanks for your question. Unfortunately the list mixes a list 3 tables. The countertenors Lesne and Mehta should be there (Kowalski and Ledroit probably not). Definitely

1380:. I endorse having a short selective discography. Having a separate discography is a different issue: it should not, however, interfere with the editing of this article. 1237: 989: 956: 913: 895: 873: 856: 2095:

What are your thoughts on the list below? Anything missing, anything you would propose removing? (Obviously formatting to be cleaned up and instrumentation added).

47: 17: 3496:

The series of edits included a number of changes that had previously been objected to and had not received support. Thus it was known ahead of time that there was

2584:

None of them have actually been discussed content-wise thus far. Layout has been used as a lame excuse to attack this content. That is not a content discussion. --

774:

recordings that could potentially be included, but some have sourcing to support their significance rather than mere existence. That is what I mean by "better".

2022: 2013:

For male singers, alto and countertenor are interchangeable (e.g. René Jacobs for example). For female singers, it should be alto, contralto and mezzo-soprano.

1545:

That is the criteria for stand-alone lists, which this is not; that could be applied if a separate discography article were to be created, as I proposed above.

1205: 3261:

Which has five external links. The table below has an analysis of these links for the above-mentioned aspects "a" and "b" ("c" does not apply to the case):

1172:"Official" as in: a distribution chain that respects the copyright of the copyright holder of the recording (excludes, e.g., bootlegs posted at Youtube). -- 3024:

box at the bottom of the page remained untouched throughout the aforementioned edits). OCLC links occur in all sorts of citation templates: when expanding

2069:

is possibly not something that could be recommended. It is available on spotify, but probably should not be used for timing soft-boiled eggs ... I prefer

1844:

apparently missing the mark). So, no, the performance time of this piece is not straightforward, and it is thus best to include different approaches, i.e.

2376: 1559:

Yeah, sure, the same definition of "criteria", but then for embedded lists, is what we're discussing here when speaking about "inclusion criteria". --

948: 940: 2633:

content has nowhere been put in dispute. Not a single content argument raised against it. If that does not settle the case for you, please take to

1035:

Recordings for which sources are available demonstrating not only that the recordings exist but that they are significant - eg published reviews.

2734:

such type of terse explanation, not compensated by a precise link to a place where a consensus on the removal of 9000b of content was formed. --

2572: 955:, combined with a refusal to read the project guidance as a whole. For this article, the recordings are in a separate section, thus following 3524:

sources, that were not appropriate according to the documentation of the templates in use, and did not match the existing citation style.

3192: 2885: 880:

recordings" (my emphasis), and refers to that section for formatting only. References for mere existence do not demonstrate notability.

3517:

It introduced extensive duplication of information, particularly in a section that comments here had already expressed was unduly long.

2235: 139: 3514:

based on interpretation of primary sources to draw conclusions not present in secondary sources, or at least none that were provided.

1201: 531: 418: 1125:

when the performance was recorded, and that date clearly distinguished from other applicable dates such as when it was issued, etc.

308: 586: 754:"The CDR has no commercial objective; ... CDR has transformed ... to the national 'music library of the Netherlands': Muziekweb" 1586: 3447:

This is an interpretation of WHYCITE which is not consistent with our practices, nor with the correct usage of the templates.

3253: 2939: 3551: 3487: 3456: 3441: 3089: 3071: 3051: 2761: 2743: 2721: 2692: 2674: 2660: 2646: 2612: 2593: 2559: 2545: 2530: 2481: 2463: 2445: 2412: 2388: 2356: 2335: 2314: 2297: 2104: 2082: 1978: 1964: 1940: 1918: 1899: 1885: 1871: 1857: 1838: 1822: 1612: 1598: 1568: 1554: 1540: 1518: 1487: 1468: 1443: 1389: 1325: 1310: 1288: 1249: 1231: 1217: 1195: 1181: 1167: 1152: 1099: 1081: 1044: 1030: 1016: 1001: 983: 968: 933: 907: 889: 868: 850: 836: 802: 783: 765: 743: 727: 2436:

for the list of recordings; once we have sorted out what to include we can further discuss the issue of how to present it.

2288:

using spotify to make a list of selected recordings. There were more listed recordings, so it took longer to select them.)

2651:

I have resolved the Bartlett citation. The issue of sourcing in the recordings list in general should be addressed above.

1527:

Agree with Nikkimaria that "period instruments" is not likely a suitable inclusion criterion for a list. For clarity, see

2567: 2503:

As above: if you want to add content that is disputed, the onus is on you to get consensus for it. Failing that as per

2454:

content, stonewalling discussion rather than engaging in resolving concerns or building consensus, is not appropriate.

815:

Currently about 30 recordings are listed for this spurious cantata, a list longer than the article. The recording with

2177: 1756: 2121: 1955:

Per above, I'm going to say something about performance time of the work, thus, per above, the timings make sense. --

1138:

at least one independent reliable source outside that distribution chain picked up on the existence of the recording.

188: 2054:

spurious cantata and questions about the composer and librettist, even more care is required to keep things clear.

3483: 3437: 3085: 3047: 3018: 2739: 2717: 2670: 2642: 2617:

Re. "... opposition to the use of Muziekweb in particular and mere listings in general" – none of which applies to

2589: 2541: 2477: 2408: 2384: 1960: 1881: 1853: 1818: 1738: 1608: 1564: 1536: 1306: 1245: 1227: 1191: 1177: 1148: 1077: 1026: 997: 964: 903: 864: 798: 761: 723: 246: 38: 2061:

is acknowledged as a pioneer, performance practice on "period instruments" has evolved since the tinkling spinet (

2135: 198: 150: 1236:

Re. "separate discography article" – I don't think a discography list on a separate page is warranted here, per

270: 3139: 3110: 2536:

The content, in itself, is not disputed. Format it whatever way you want, but without deleting content. Tx. --

1603:... and back to wikilawyering: the description of what a criterion is, is the same for both types of lists. -- 471: 2807:

CANTATES Nos 170 (Vergügte Ruh') ; Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde ; Widerstehe doch / Johann Sebastian BACH

2281: 1431: 266: 3493:

I have given reasons above, and have offered to elaborate on any that may be unclear to you. To summarize:

2573:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121223153015/http://www.deccaclassics.com/html/special/scholl-bach/album.html

3231: 3184:

J.S. Bach: Cantates Nos. 170 "Vergnügte Ruh" – 53 "Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde" – 54 "Widerstehe doch"

3170: 2986: 2917: 2865: 2515: 1528: 3479: 3433: 3081: 3043: 2735: 2713: 2666: 2638: 2585: 2537: 2498: 2473: 2404: 2380: 2030: 1956: 1925: 1877: 1849: 1814: 1604: 1560: 1532: 1302: 1241: 1223: 1187: 1173: 1144: 1073: 1022: 993: 960: 899: 860: 794: 757: 719: 161: 3547: 3452: 3067: 2757: 2688: 2656: 2608: 2555: 2526: 2459: 2441: 2310: 2267: 2231: 2191: 2100: 1974: 1936: 1895: 1867: 1834: 1710: 1594: 1585:

No, the criteria for standalone lists are not the same as the criteria for embedded. As indicated at

1550: 1483: 1321: 1284: 1213: 1163: 1095: 1040: 1012: 979: 952: 929: 885: 846: 779: 739: 135: 3535: 3425: 3209: 2550:

I restored the appropriate citation, and you reverted me. Are you saying you will not do so again?

1994: 1906: 1373: 1337: 284: 280: 256: 252: 2377:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions

2205: 2111: 167: 3539: 3178: 3157: 3122: 2994: 2951:

addressing the "full citation needed" tags (which BTW were not placed correctly according to the

2873: 2221: 2152: 1589:, embedded lists are subject to UNDUE. For that reason a more selective approach is appropriate. 457: 2117: 1135:

the recording was or is distributed by an official international commercial distribution chain.

433: 184: 3382: 3341: 3174: 3098: 3077: 2990: 2869: 2831: 2824: 2352: 2331: 2293: 2156: 2078: 1914: 1742: 1676: 1514: 1464: 1439: 1385: 1298: 832: 546: 528: 524: 415: 411: 407: 276: 3062:

citation template, in order to jam in details that are not intended or required to be there.

1969:

Per above, nobody agrees with you that saying something about performance time is warranted.

3429: 3188: 3002: 2881: 2798: 2173: 2146: 2057:

Looking at some of the recordings, it's not clear how useful older recordings are. Although

2038: 1793: 753: 560: 496: 209: 115: 3543: 3497: 3475: 3467: 3448: 3246: 3063: 3039: 2932: 2753: 2684: 2683:

unless and until you get consensus for it the previous stable version should be retained.

2680: 2652: 2604: 2551: 2522: 2504: 2469: 2455: 2437: 2432: 2342: 2321: 2306: 2227: 2209: 2167: 2096: 2050: 2000: 1970: 1932: 1891: 1863: 1830: 1590: 1546: 1500: 1479: 1454: 1377: 1317: 1280: 1209: 1159: 1091: 1036: 1008: 975: 925: 881: 842: 775: 735: 520: 403: 298: 226: 131: 3303: 3195: 2888: 823:, however, is missing. Perhaps {{example farm}} should be applied. Famous cantatas like 157: 2801: 1459:

I was trying to communicate with you, but there was an edit-conflict. Sorry about that.

756:); and, afaik, one of the best, so, don't understand what you could mean by "better"? -- 563: 3530: 3521: 3504: 3471: 3150: 3118: 3058: 2419: 2271: 2248: 2201: 2062: 2037:, "Ach dass ich wassers gnug hätte", it's nowhere to be found on wikipedia, no hint of 1845: 1715: 820: 590: 451: 290: 1997:

has been sought for changes to the section on "Recordings" and their possible format.

3284: 3182: 3143: 3114: 3028: 2955: 2727: 2634: 2568:

https://www.deccaclassics.com/en/catalogue/products/bach-kantaten-andreas-scholl-1902

2058: 1341: 1294: 1113: 294: 260: 236: 219: 111: 3511: 2428: 2348: 2327: 2302: 2289: 2187: 2181: 2090: 2074: 2070: 1910: 1681: 1510: 1460: 1435: 1381: 828: 793:

standards, for a mere listing, as not supported by Knowledge policy or guidance. --

790: 490: 107: 103: 3322: 3199: 2892: 2805: 2418:

You're of course welcome to seek additional input there if you like. However, the

514: 510: 397: 393: 3138:

that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the

3135: 3109:

that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the

3106: 2665:

Rewrite not accepted: it was still, in part, an unexplained content deletion. --

2424: 2259: 2127: 2066: 1700: 1105: 816: 304: 242: 232: 194: 146: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1890:

I disagree that including or not including times has anything to do with NPOV.

1797: 2139: 1507: 437: 215: 202: 1862:

Disagree, and at the moment consensus seems to be against you on this point.

603:

Songs for courtiers and cavaliers / Helen Watts, Desmond Dupre, Thurston Dart

516:

Meilensteine der Bach-Interpretation 1750-2000: Eine Werkgeschichte im Wandel

399:

Meilensteine der Bach-Interpretation 1750-2000: Eine Werkgeschichte im Wandel

3529:

As to the suggestion that these objections should simply be ignored: as per

2630: 2618: 2577: 2131: 1780: 1773: 1426: 749: 702: 698: 686: 682: 670: 666: 654: 638: 622: 380: 364: 348: 332: 127: 3418:"a" if the information is contained in the body of the article; "b" if not 2049:, there are 7 recordings. And one of them is called "Lamento"—the one with 650: 634: 618: 376: 360: 344: 328: 3385: 3223: 2909: 2827: 771: 602: 3507:. Knowledge articles are meant to be based on reliable secondary sources. 2511:

you changed a citation from a web source that supports the content, to a

2285: 1109: 549: 3344: 3216: 2905: 2834: 635:

Cantatas: BWV 198 "Trauerode", BWV 106 "Actus tragicus", BWV 196, BWV 53

3204: 2897: 2812: 2726:

Complementary, I'd like to draw your attention to this extract of the "

2046: 2026: 2007: 1369: 1365: 1104:

For clarity, I don't accept Bach Cantatas Website, Discogs, Youtube or

894:

More detail on what is expected of a separate recordings section is at

824: 3542:

is not helpful towards that end; let's remain focused on the content.

945:

Knowledge:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section

3474:), and other quite disturbing proceedings. I propose to ignore their 2748:

It's not "for the heck of it"; I've mentioned some specific concerns

2603:

warrant reversion, unless of course you obtain consensus for either.

2042: 1909:

for three separate tables or 30+ entries (i.e. an {{example farm}}).

1361: 1357: 1353: 3057:

This demonstrates the principle that more is not always better. The

3428:

re-issues are likely more easy to find in North America, while the

3265:

Conformance of external links in Rössel-Majdan citation to WHYCITE

951:. So I don't know how we got in this "clutching at straws" type of 2621:(listing of the Scholl recording was never disputed). As for your 2018: 1349: 1345: 1332: 606: 345:

Johann Sebastian Bach: Kantaten – Cantatas BWV 53 – 82 – 170 – 200

3165:

I now propose an improved version of the Rössel-Majdan reference:

1340:

for indiscriminate list/lists, divided into subsections and then

3220: 3213: 2902: 2263: 2025:

which has no minute/second timings. That is to be expected. For

1705: 171: 3101:

guidance (as it is), the first paragraph of that guidance reads

2403:

above) if the principles of the foregoing would be unclear. --

25: 3134:

By citing sources for Knowledge content, you enable users to

3105:

By citing sources for Knowledge content, you enable users to

3478:

behaviour for the time being, and concentrate on content. --

2196:

Bach: Motets & Cantatas: "The Sacred & the Coffeine"

2029:, there are 16 recordings. If one takes a solo cantata like 1876:

You disagree with the NPOV approach? Nah, not acceptable. --

1587:

Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Lists_of_works_and_timelines

1240:, meaning, 30-odd recordings doesn't seem that extensive. -- 2190:(mezzo-soprano), Amor Artis Baroque Orchestra conducted by 1238: