Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 79

1126:-I agree with your comment about the Euphonium Repertoire page. I hadn't found it, but it's a good article that discusses not just repertoire, but how the solo and orchestral repertoires have changed and come to form. For instruments, I think there's a bit too much to talk about for all of this to be included on the instrument's main page itself, so I certainly think the overhauling of these repertoire pages to be more "encyclopedic" would be good. For piano, it might be the history of the instrument, its origins as a solo instrument, its place in orchestras (both for concertos and just in the orchestra in general,) and how it's been a pioneer of many different styles of music, all along the way including 'examples' so that it still has some repertoire. If that's not a project that can be done, the articles should probably be deleted (they shouldn't exist in their list forms.) It would be a long project, with lots of difficulties (like,what about Percussion Repertoire? All the instruments? Drum kit? Parts in how many orchestras? Its presence in so many genres? Lots of questions.) It wouldn't be a quick thing. 1490:- " Knowledge (XXG) articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. Knowledge (XXG) treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works". As comparisons, I suggest, we don't (and won't) have a "List of books written in English" or "List of paintings in oil". So the topic under discussion here might benefit from being raised in one of the wider WP discussion pages - I'm not sure however which one would be best for this. -- 2563:

with works that have been recorded multiple times (how many?), and/or performed (in what kind of venue) and reviewed (in what kind of source). We'd need to be able to distinguish between say Rachmaninov piano concerto no 2, which would be on everyone's list of best-known piano concertos, and Espresso Addict's (fictional) piano concerto no. 1, which (perhaps) has been performed by Espresso Addict with a couple of amateur/youth orchestras of their local area and reviewed in the local newspapers -- and probably very many shades between. Thoughts, anyone?

2468:. Our list criteria should more clearly weed out lists like this. I see several problematic issues. We should not be creating lists when it is clear that the size of the list would be impractical if/when completed. We should not be creating lists where most or all entries will have little or no meaningful encyclopedic content, and lack an article to link. And we shouldn't be trying to build or replicate an indiscriminate database or catalog. In such cases we should be linking people to proper searchable catalogs and databases. 2226: 3057:, nor is there any reason to assume for that matter that 90%+ of the stuff in the WP viola lists are notable. (Lots of stuff from composers own websites etc.). For these reasons I believe that this entire discussion is a waste of time. The only thing that would be valid in WP terms would be an article on viola repertoire that discussed its history and variety in a properly cited context, which could if appropriate refer to (referenced) notability of some of the works. I now exit this thread. 2545:. Categories won't suffice - you'd probably want to include Rachmaninoff's 2nd (both of them, really) on a list of clarinet repertoire, but if you just tag it with the category, it will either be removed, or all the other instruments will get added. If neither the composer or the piece is notable enough for an article, it shouldn't be on the list, but a piece like "Clarinet Candy", by Leroy Anderson, might be worth mentioning, even if it can't truly support an article of its own. -- 1976:. So what is the problem here? I am not seeing anything option 1 would accomplish other than for mass-nominating these lists. These lists should be dealt with individually and can we really decide that a list is never helpful? I will note that some have voted for option 1 just because the other options weren't encyclopedic, so in reality this RfC is just drawing editors toward the option that the nominator wants to see happen. The nominator has already been 31: 131:, although he does not conform to the description of modernism in the article. The article is itself very confused, conflating modernism in art music history with modernism in pop music. Imo no composer should be included in the template unless there is citation somewhere (e.g. in their own article) that they are considered a 'modernist' - thus confirming to Knowledge (XXG) standards. Perhaps the real answer here is to clear up the article 1917:. I like the repertoire lists and have used them personally as a reader. There are many many sources that write about repertoire for piano, and I'm sure there are others for other instruments. If every entry either has a (sourced) article, or at minimum a reference that indicates it is a significant work for that instrument, I don't see the problem with being indiscrimate. Additional discussive material would also be welcome. 1320:

is excellent. For middle-of the road composers Grove is often not as good. Sometimes I need to go to Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart whose worklists of lesser composers I think is better than Grove. In short, these sources do not give me the information I need. That's why I think WP should aspire to be as complete as possible, especially with lists that may not appear in the leading music encyclopedias. -

2088:. If we're talking about a list of compositions or repertoire, then there needs to be selection criteria to prevent the list from being indiscriminate. This is what Option 2 tries to achieve, although I have received pushback from removing unsourced entries in such lists. And I'm the one deeming Option 3 unencyclopedic. As per above, some people genuinely want this for the project; they think it is encyclopedic. 241:, in The Modernist World, edited by Stephen Ross and Allana C. Lindgren, 273–81. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-84503-8.' I don't have access to this book and no extract is in google books. However I have to say that any categorization of Grainger as a "modernist" must border on the absurd - his music does not exhibit any of the qualities decribed by Dahlhaus etc. in the article 319:, 2022) persuasively makes the case that her subject was a better and perhaps more surprising composer than many give him credit for. That may be true, but she goes overboard in her final chapter wherein she argues, based on highly specious ideas about the composer's character that have nothing to do with his music, that he was in reality a "modernist"—a conclusion that is probably making 2207:)? Sure, there's no doubt that repertoire is the subject of study, but is a plain list of compositions the best mode for discussing them? And don't pieces of actual importance to the instrument need at least a minimum of a source? If you were to source every single entry in each list with a reputable citation showing the work's importance, I'd be fine. But that will likely never happen. 2317:

should all be individualized. These articles are all very similar. There's not a single instrument (from even marimba and euphonium) that doesn't have repertoire discussed in-depth somewhere. However, whether or not Knowledge (XXG) should break down those discussions into simple, ill-defined lists (either about repertoire or more broad compositions) is a different question. I say no.

2050:

which are in my opinion, neutral. Option 3 may not seems encyclopedic because it isn't. Yet, there have been people genuinely arguing for it and aiming for the completion of such lists as venues for instrumentalists to discover new works. That can be arguably count towards building the "sum of human knowledge", but it also is not compatible with established Knowledge (XXG) standards.

1034:: You said Option 2 is covered by... what? Personally, I think categories can fill the role of lists, but there's always some notable pieces that are mentioned in the literature yet don't have pages. As for Option 3, this seems to be an actual option a couple users have wanted for the list of viola compositions (which, as I mentioned, consisted of 10,000 entries across eight pages). 1191:

that by adding unknown compositions to the list, it will help promote research and foster the creation of new pages. That's a worthy belief, but that would mean at the bare minimum, there has to be at least one source naming it notable repertoire for the instrument (which I made a requirement for the updated list). Not every viola piece will be able to have a Knowledge (XXG) page.

1292:. For point two, I'm also unsure of what you mean. Verifiablity and referencing is the core nature of Knowledge (XXG). For your example, it literally conforms to one of the main points of Option 2 (entries must have a Knowledge (XXG) page). For option three, is this not what you wanted based on prior discussion? How would you like to see these lists develop? 1444:

such narrow restrictions solely for instrumental repertoire lists on Knowledge (XXG) does not seem useful. I, and other users, can derive benefits from articles in a variety of formats, and rather than attempting to enforce limitations on all lists, I would prefer to let editors use their judgement to create the most appropriate article for the subject.

1692:, to avoid trying to catalog these inherently vague concepts. (To interject with my own opinion, the reason these lists often fail readers is because they aren't written with them in mind -- they are written for the editor.) None of this is to discourage someone from trying to cover some of the most notable repertoire, but even there, the standard is 3079:

in published bibliographies or have been reviewed in reliable periodicals (not meaning websites), that should be enough criteria for inclusion. I'm even willing to "be bold" and exclude such list articles from WP:Classical until the time when the project's active editors recognize that such lists are worthy additions to WP and the project. -

2640:

either more than one source that explicitly lists the piece as standard repertoire for the instrument, or reliable sources that demonstrate that the piece has been played and reviewed (not just concert listings) at at least three different high-quality venues, and/or recorded more than once on mainstream labels?

693:- "Bed Majestical" - for the coronation of Charles III. As Sir William is no longer with us, perhaps members of this project might suggest how his idea might be realised, and by whom. Forgive the frivolity, but it's been a bit heavy in here recently, and I thought it might be good to lighten the mood briefly. 3443:

states, "The term score is a common alternative (and more generic) term for sheet music, and there are several types of scores, as discussed below. The term score can also refer to theatre music, orchestral music or songs written for a play, musical, opera or ballet, or to music or songs written for

3071:

When I think of Grove and MGG I have to admit that they don't have extensive lists of repertoire for particular instruments (although articles on specific instruments talk about major examples from those instruments' repertoires). To which one could close off the discussion with a typical Wikipedian

2942:

I am committed to adding necessary citations for all items currently on the lists (I trust that the Knowledge (XXG) community recognizes this will take some time and will not do any trimming without allowing appropriate time). Like Gerda, I would welcome thoughts on the best way to handle these in an

2660:

the standards that every Knowledge (XXG) page should strive for. I don't approve of the "recorded more than once on mainstream label" criteria. A reliable source clearly calling a piece repertoire? Sure. An editor calling a piece repertoire because it happened to be recorded three times? Nope. I also

2371:

How do you determine whether anyone wants the lists? For that matter, how do you determine whether anyone wants a Knowledge (XXG) article? That's an unanswerable question, although clearly most of us believe certain topics deserve Knowledge (XXG) articles. Your next steps sounds like Option 4 (i.e.

1443:

I personally do not believe that such constraints should be placed on these lists (mandating that they all adhere to one of the options above); all articles on Knowledge (XXG) do not need to be consistent. Similar articles, including discographies and bibliographies, exist in many formats, and having

1190:

I have thought that way about many pages, including many of the drum corps articles of which ended up being deleted. Unfortunately, the idea that pages should kept if they have people wanting to read them doesn't work when they are simply not suitable for an encyclopedia. Another thing is your belief

273:

template. There are well established figures by now—Boulez, Dutilleux, Crumb, Ligeti, Carter etc.—who are frequently grouped together as the Post WWII generation, but do not have a central template. The issue here, I see, is how easy such a template would be to get overwhelmed; perhaps we could limit

3078:

than an encyclopedia; they are seeking a reference resource to supply information they can't obtain elsewhere. I am willing to compromise and say that a list of instrumental works should not include every work ever written for the instrument. But it seems to me that if instrumental works are cited

2958:

A WP-appropriate citation doesn't just include link to the piece verifying that it's real. If the mere existence of something was justification for including something within large lists such as these, we could have pages that list the thousands of people named Bill or a list of every game on Google

2404:

I don't agree. Knowledge (XXG) has biographies with great detail, and others that are stubs. Making them similar would mean to shrink the detailed ones. Not all articles are created equal, especially not those written long ago. You wouldn't change the style of a Baroque palace, to make it similar to

1630:

See Option 2. If you mean to include every piece listed in a bibliography, then I am opposed. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia and such large scale bibliographies just aren't part of that. (Although an idea of a WikiBibliography is something I'm toying with.) For just a list of notable pieces, I'm

1319:

I go for this one (in part because I know I'm in the minority but in the hope that it will influence a more inclusionary approach to Option 2). If one is consulting an encyclopedia, one wants to see near-complete coverage of the subject. I often compare WP to Grove. For well-known composers Grove

1068:

Not sure. The idea of a 'Piano repertoire' list is a thoroughly cohesive topic in which there are numerous studies on. As I understand it—these studies, however, do not simply list the works. I would assume such a Knowledge (XXG) article would cover the subject with lengthy prose, rather than simple

987:

to only include notable pieces (including those that have a Knowledge (XXG) page or are well sourced by literature) rather than keeping the over ten thousand pieces that were listed. My issue is that the pages tried to list every piece written for the viola ever (as seen in this "comprehensive" page

302:

The problem is how to define "modernism" and "contemporary." The latter, for example, means "today," "happening right now," "current," "modern," "up-to-date," etc. But all those composers you listed are dead and the aesthetic movements they championed in academic music are now history. How could any

2705:

Indeed, that's why "played and reviewed (not just concert listings) at at least three different high-quality venues". Maybe some timelag would be useful as new pieces are often played on tour at multiple venues. And while featured articles at least theoretically represent the best of the 'pedia, in

2639:

is a featured list, which are held to higher standards of sourcing than appertain to articles in general. Personally I think it's very thin, and would probably be much more interesting if it had a wider range of compositions, but I don't edit in music outside classical. Perhaps for repertoire lists

2562:

Attempting to initiate a more forward-looking discussion... On the assumption that we agree to keep at least some selective lists of repertoire, what kind of references do editors think are helpful? There are books of repertoire, which are exhaustive to different degrees. Alternatively one could go

1876:

being complete is pretty clearly violating NOTDIRECTORY. I don't even understand how option 3 would function--if an entry doesn't need an article and doesn't even need a reference, how is there any possibility of quality control? Lists of this size are also perfect promo/vandalism targets, since if

1508:

and later years). Some could argue that this is indiscriminate, since its aim does seem to be to list all Hindi films ever, which will ultimately be a large list. I don't agree with this attitude, preferring to let the fans of Hindi Cinema design pages that meet their research needs, which might be

1458:

Not all articles need to be consistent, but the reasoning behind having such articles on the platform does. If editors like such lists, great; if they don't, then they need to go. As it stands, having lists that try to include the thousands of pieces written for that instrument go against Knowledge

2896:

In response to WIA's ask for a chime or two. The list articles (for viola or any other instrument) should be cut of every entry without a WP-appropriate citation. For the viola list articles, that would, at present, result in wiping them out. I have headed each of these articles with a request for

2863:

cover "X repertoire" as a distinct topic, delete. If multiple reliable sources don't significant cover certain pieces as "standards", delete the entire list. Very few of these lists actually belong on Knowledge (XXG), and it's time we clean out the cruft so people can focus their efforts on actual

2348:

I mean, the first step is deciding if the community wants these lists and the basics of how they want them (either as full indexes of works or specific sources entries). Specific list selection criteria, if needed, can be sorted out later. (For example, for "repertoire" something could be done for

2091:

The purpose of the RfC is to decide if we should even have lists of this type on Knowledge (XXG) and, if we do, what should the inclusion criteria be. I can discuss specific lists all you want, but others thought that it would be best to have a discussion about all of them, and I agree. So here we

2000:

I don't really like your accusations. Options 2 and 3 could easily be considered encyclopedic by some (Option 2 literally meeting the set requirements for lists on Knowledge (XXG)). And you're absolutely wrong on the last point. I was recomended to drop the stick on the deletion review. The actual

310:

With "modernism," the problem is that the term is often loosely applied, even by good scholars, with the well-intended, but erroneous intent to ascribe "greatness" to their chosen 20th-century composer. This seems to especially occur when they set out to right some perceived slight to a composer's

2927:

got some references. General question: If there's a composer with an article, and the article lists pieces, with a reference, should we duplicate such reference to all occasions where the pieces are mentioned? Isn't that a waste of space? Another method would be to give the pieces a redirect to a

2285:

but I doubt that would matter to you. And again I ask, how are you defining "guidance"? I understand that you'd rather have each list looked at individually, but doesn't that also defeat the purpose of creating consensus on Knowledge (XXG)? If one list isn't fit for inclusion, then really none of

924:

Recently, I have been looking through Knowledge (XXG)'s lists of instrumental repertoire and have found that some do not comply with the project's guidelines. As such, I have either merged the article to its parent page or started an AfD discussion depending on what I best felt was needed for the

2331:

But still, we aren't determining a selection criteria for the list entries. You argue that these lists have too many entries and look like indiscriminate collections of information, so why not try to establish a consensus for selection criteria of those lists? Several editors have said that they

2049:

So would you prefer an entirely new RfC or what? I think there are people above that would agree an RfC is necessary before mass-nominating such articles for deletion/merging. An RfC will generally cast a wider net to help build a general consensus. I'm also unsure of why you dislike my options,

378:

are not in great shape either. They, however, have the benefit of much scholarship to make reasonable templates of composers easy. I think it's safe to assume that the modernism template will continue to receive additions of more recent composers, with the only real way to stop this either being

2316:

And after nominating an article for deletion, I was told a wider discussion about all of these lists was desired. Do you see the roundabout nature of this? If I nominate an article of this type for deletion, then people would say that a wider discussion is needed. But now you're arguing that it

714:

Hmmm, when I think of leading British composers at the moment, Adés comes to mind (particularly because of his established Shakespeare association), but I fear that the relentless modernism of his style would probably resurrect the dead rather than celebrate the living. Who else? Ferneyhough is

642:

Lots of stuff on Newspapers.com, including hundreds of mentions in papers published in New York State and a few from Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Missouri. If I were contemplating writing an article I'd feel happier if there were mentions of the orchestra from outside the US, but I'd say

2589:

for a complete overview), people that just want the latter (to avoid becoming a directory for compositions while still listing notable pieces and repertoire), and people that want neither (because the selection criteria would always be lacking, maintaining such lists would become an impossible

1660:

Giant lists that cannot be completed, even if you limit them to notable entries, are time sinks that don't actually serve readers that well (modern users of the web aren't drilling down hierarchies—it's why the whole concept of outlines and portals on Knowledge (XXG) are likewise obsolete.)

2114:. It talks about musical works only in the context of discographies and says that such lists should be separate articles. It doesn't say anything about complete or incomplete. I'm one of those editors who is an anti-deletionist (a point of view which has been endorsed more than once by 2260:

Liz suggested an RfC to provide guidance, you opened an RfC to ask for outcomes. These two are different things. For this RfC, it is clear that it is either "delete everything", "remove all unreferenced entries", or "keep everything". This isn't guidance for future AfDs, this is an AfD

1941:

patchy; it's hard for someone without formal education in musical terminology, such as myself, to interpret sources to write articles even where abundant non-paywalled sources exist. Lists need to include something other than the usual suspects to be useful to readers; I mean, I could

2390:. And I don't get your next point. These all have the same subject: instrumental repertoire. They should be dealt with the same. The instrument doesn't randomly change what should neutrally constitute repertoire or if there needs to be a source for an entry in a list of compositions. 2897:

citations. If they don't appear I assume it will be in order to trim them accordingly. These articles simply don't meet WP criteria. For 'repertoire' articles - they should be 'proper' articles giving an overview of the history and nature of the repertoire - not a random list as per

1830:

Nothing was said about your user conduct. If you look at the indentation levels, I was replying to Why? I Ask, rather than to you. That can be tricky, and if I'd indented one more level, then yes, you would be correct in reading my reply as being directed to you... but it wasn't.

1679:

with maybe a dash of Option 2. David Fuchs is right that certain lists are just misconstructed. Not that "completeness" needs to be the standard, but we end up with problems when a list is a combination of long, subjective, and simultaneously incomplete/over inclusive. It becomes

1631:

not completely opposed, but am hesitant because such lists typically require a very large amount of overhead due to spammers. I'd prefer the "Option 2 Hybrid" where there is prose discussing the important pieces instead. The only thing I'm vehemently opposed to is Option 3.

2580:

The first step is clarifying what is mean by "list of compositions" and "lists of repertoire". The former is very broad while the latter is defined as "being played often". From the arguments listed above, I think there are people that would want articles for both (i.e.,

2482:

I do not understand why we should keep this RfC open. If anything we should close this RfC as no consensus and reformulate the proposal to better achieve consensus. It is apparent that the current RfC as phrased will never generate any meaningful result.

127:, in which article the term is defined. The term relates to music mostly of the period of c. 1890 - 1925 (but not of ocurse to all composers of that period). Some composers are still included on what seems to me to be a very dubious basis: for example 3477:

Well, you don't always in English have to use 'full score' (in the sense that you might in German if you were writing 'Partitur'). It's perfectly OK to say (for example) 'In Beethoven's score of the 9th Symphony, he included bass drum, triangle and

2597:) tries to ensure there's due weight per entry by citing a minimum of five sources that name the song as a standard. I think that could be a good example of what is required for repertoire lists. Even the euphonium could potentially achieve that 2001:

RfC was recomended to be had at another deletion discussion if you had actually read my post. Two other editors voted to procedurally keep one of these lists as there was no formal discussion done on this yet, proving that this RfC is necessary.

2770:

I see what you mean now. Three performances and a review for them each. Is that correct? I honestly think that would be a harder task than simply cross-examining what the literature says (i.e., if three reliable sources list it as repertoire).

2749:

Hall not so much (even though it hosts some really high-quality concerts). And yes, in an ideal world, all articles would be sourced to featured standards, and personally I never add anything that isn't sourced, but in the real 'pedia, we have

2332:

would like to retain list items that are mentioned in a source. Couldn't that be an option as well? It is still verifiable. You also argued that it should be about the development of repertoire, yes, but lists are not used for this purpose.

509:

In the absence of action by my namesake (no relation as far as I know) or anyone else I have bunged in a lot of referenced material. If anyone looking in thinks the "notability" tag at the head of the page can safely be removed, pray do so.

2722:

And how do you define "high-quality" venues. I'm sure that you can find at least three performance of a piece at any post-graduate student recital (as most programs are saved online by the college for these), but then that delves into

1768:. Even though the majority voted in favor of deletion (6 – 4, if one includes the nominator), it was still closed as "keep." The closing editor didn't deem the "delete" arguments good or expansive enough, but the "keep" reasons were 2673:, will often review newly published or premiered pieces as part of each issue. Can we really say a piece from 2019 is part of the repertoire simply cause it was reviewed or played once? For example, I came across many reviews of 2727:. And my perspective is that if none of these subjects have the framework to become GA or FA, then there is something lacking. Not every list or article will reach that status, but it should be at least given the framework to. 1546:: Do you think this is something that needs to go to Village Pump? Not this RfC, but a new one dealing with how "indiscriminate" lists can be for an encyclopedia? Honestly, I feel that the guidelines that have been mentioned ( 1251:, for example, although not every work in it is referenced, and referencing them all would ask for much work, and lead to hundreds of references. The works serve the purpose of saying in a short way what a composer stands for. 980: 2068:. Option 3 is "keep everything." All three options do nothing, and there is no way we can reach a consensus if we don't discuss specific lists. If you don't know what the problem is, then there an RfC is not going to help. 1176:. Why? I ask don't we just leave old articles that served a few readers alone? I see no danger. - We (project) could say that we don't want more repertoire articles, but those we have (of had) were the luxury of a past. -- 2015:"Deal with lists individually" sounds like a good option. Will you add that as Option 4, please. - Members of this project have different views on biographies and their layout, why should that be different for lists. -- 3251: 157:' edits and thank him for cleaning up that template. Lots of composers were previously included there that made absolutely no sense. (Barber? Korngold??) Great work so far and I hope he manages to tidy up the 983:, it was kept. However, several of the comments said that they felt it was a notable subject if only it was well sourced and improved. So in the spirit of being bold, I merged the pages to the newly created 1661:

Repertoires themselves vary depending on cultural context and tastes, you cannot have one "objective" or master list regardless. They absolutely fall afoul of INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIRECTORY. It's entirely

1374:(emphasis on every) piece written for an instrument is blatantly indiscriminate. And you're confusing work list (i.e., a composer's list of compositions) with a list of compositions for an instrument. The 1171:

an article, each one an invitation to research and write that article. I explained my disappointment in greater detail in the linked discussion, and on the talk pages of Ritchie333 who closed keep, and of

3052:

I would say not. The listings there themselves have no citations. And just to duplicate stuff from site would be a transgression of copyright.There is no reason to assume that everything listed there is

1356:. There have been articles published explaining that work lists are omitted from Grove because editors didn't have time to complete them, not because they don't belong or they are "not encyclopedic." - 907:(yet) where that dividing line should be. As some noted in the discussion, this can apparently vary due to various things for each article. There was also a suggestion that for some of these, use of the 1727:

So you'd like to start the entire RfC over? I'm fairly sure nobody's opinion will be swayed by whether or not the text before the statement (which is what I assume you have issue with) is neutral? I'm

2901:, which lacks an informative lead and which claims to give 'notable' works without considering or explaining what 'notable' might mean, and is also uncited. It might (and perhaps should) be retitled 606:

Hi, I'm planning on writing a page on Symphoria, the Syracuse orchestra. Is there any specialised orchestra notability guidelines. It looks to me that there is enough local coverage on syracuse.com

1877:

you don't require citations there's zero justification for removing anything that isn't blatantly NOTHERE. And I see no reason for WP to serve as a host for minor, non-notable pieces just because

1504:

As an alternate comparison, look at the extensive lists of Hindi Cinema, which effectively breaks down all Hindi films back to 1920 by year whether they have a Knowledge (XXG) article or not (see

726:

the other day; if it is truly representative of her typical style (I do not know most of her music), it might be the ideal balance between a traditional but still 21st-century coronation march.

2878:. Mass-deletions are not "deletionism". There's a reason we have notability and dueness requirements: this is an encyclopedia. "Useful" content, that is not encyclopedic, doesn't belong here. 1937:

To clarify, I don't consider that Option 2 requires all entries to be notable enough for their own article, let alone that that article should already exist. Coverage of classical music is

1802:

lists the appropriate expectations on this score. My interest is only in making sure user conduct, including yours, is appropriate and respects consensus-driven decision making processes.

2187:

choice with Option 2 not having any policy basis at all. I would think that this is just a mass AfD nom in disguise, with an extra option added just so that people wouldn't suspect this.

1570:(and companion letters), but several editors thought that action was inappropriate. Now, per Gerda's recommendation, the two articles are seperate where the former acts as an "overview". 2507:'s arguments. None of these lists should exist; an article should only be created on a repertoire when there is significant scholarly discussion of that repertoire; otherwise, we fail 84: 72: 67: 59: 229:

he is linked to jazz, romaticism and neoclassicism, but not to modernism. As regards Grainger, his music exhibits none of the quailities of modernism listed by Dahlhaus and others in

3004:

is a basic requirement for inclusion. The fact that a reliable source mentioned a piece, once, is completely irrelevant for our purposes. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (

1139:. Until someone wants to put in the work, there's not really a reason to let such large uncited lists stay. Focus on adding information to the instrument's sections first (e.g., 1562:) are already pretty clear that these types of list articles are not acceptable. However, I've been getting push-back for trying to even trim such articles down to ones such as 2984:, right? I fail to see how not including every game on Google Play suggests that we should have higher standards than including compositions referenced by one reliable source. 1780:. How is it possible to disregard the outcome of a vote? In such cases, what's the point of participating if the rules are tilted to favor one outcome over the other anyway? — 1205:

I made the comment before the discussion became an RfC, and now that it is an RfC, I think the choices are too limited. How about Option 4: hybrid, following the reasoning of

1524:

Is the above really meant to exemplify a good example? Of 21 films listed, only two have citations (let alone WP articles) to support their inclusion. Once again I refer to

926: 2622:

the repertoire, its influences, and its development. We have categories for simply listing notable works. At the very least, simply existing is not a good enough criteria.

1016:

and the like....Option 3 is just not on - "every piece" for an instrument? - without citations? - how about the Trombone Sonata I wrote for my friend when I was 15?.....--

778:

Mozart has already set "Beetle-headed flap-ear'd knave" as "Welche Wonne, welche Lust". The translation, I grant you, is a little free, but you can't gainsay the scansion.

746:

Excellent! And thank you for the link to the Clyne piece - new to me and well worth hearing. (I thought I heard echoes of Holst, and why not?) 14:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

2923:), and could be covered by a category. If you say "mentioned on Knowledge (XXG)", you'd get more interesting information. I didn't follow closely , but saw that at least 2511:. If that threshold is met, pieces should only be included if they're significantly discussed (in multiple scholarly sources) as part of discussions of that repertoire. 1977: 435: 3406:

That's way down in the article. How would a reader see in the first few lines what a score is? Reading the present intro, I felt I was at the wrong article. --

2706:

the real world we have less than 0.1% of them, and the remaining 99.9% are only held to GNG (or in a couple of irrelevant cases a subject-specific guideline).

2064:

How is the RfC neutral when one of the options is deemed unencyclopedic? Option 1 is "delete every list," Option 2 is "every list item must be notable," which

581: 47: 17: 1942:

off-the-top-of-my-head write a list of piano solo repertoire, or piano concertos, so what I'm looking for as a reader is a level of detail beyond the obvious.

2902: 1378:

the most music capped out at about 3,000 pieces (and Knowledge (XXG) doesn't even list all of them). The incomplete viola list measured over 10,000 pieces.

3321:

Same, both are fine. Both words have more than one meaning, and I prefer measure because of that :) My excuse is that there are many American readers. --

3177:, and in it examples. Why these examples of the thousands there are, without any prose explaining? Why Agnus Dei from Faurè's Requiem but not Verdi's. -- 3149:

is a better way to handle such works than lists whose inclusion criteria is "a bunch of random people dumped a bunch of random items into this list". --

1713:

as it is not neutrally worded. Regardless of the opinions here, such an invalidly-worded RfC is not going to be normative as it is fundamentally flawed.

104:, some of which I find questionable and do not appear to have been discussed anywhere or with anyone. Comments from others are welcome. I'm also pinging 1069:

lists, which would be vastly more helpful anyways. At the moment, not a single one of these lists does so in this fashion, so at this point I would say

715:

perhaps more American than English at this point; Birtwistle and Maxwell Davis have passed; doesn't seem up George Benjamin's alley. Maybe Judith Weir?

2161:

The purpose of the RfC is to decide if we should even have lists of this type on Knowledge (XXG) and, if we do, what should the inclusion criteria be.

2140:

I don't think an MoS is grounds for keeping these articles as they are over another guideline. Especially when that MoS is largely talking about how

2171:, since repertoire of instruments have been discussed as a group by multiple sources, there will be lists that are notable. The AfD you linked with 1248: 3301:, bar is the norm, except in American usage, where measure is generally preferred. Better to stick to one or the other in any one article, though. 2386:

You find out whether or not people want the lists by having discussions (e.g., RfCs) similar to how anything else goes on Knowledge (XXG). Look at

1167:

listing only compositions with an article, which could indeed be found by looking at a category. The more interesting/informative pieces are those

3296: 834: 324: 1949:

too. There just isn't a one size-fits-all solution to repertoire; the piano or the violin have a lot, the euphonium or the marimba not so much.

903:

is not about counting bulleted "votes"), the consensus for inclusion criteria would seem to fall somewhere between option 2 and 3, but there is

2924: 2867: 2586: 2033:

is specific to this RfC. I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss the lists in general, just that !voting on these options do not go anywhere.

1765: 1567: 1509:

different than the needs of German cinema or French cinema. Ultimately, I feel that any such restrictions in any category are too constricting.

1164: 279: 2741:

But student recitals are almost never reviewed in reliable sources! And I think it would be easy to agree on what is a high-quality venue, eg

2681:

really part of the percussion repertoire? No, it's really not at all. It was just a new piece at the time that the magazine reviewed. Heck,

2353:

where a plethora of sources are required for an entry). As for your next point, I could have been more clear. Either a Knowledge (XXG) page

352:- an article which imo is a complete shambles. If you can't create the appropriate article, you can't construct its corresponding template. 3133:

repertoire which is well documented, akin to an anthology of literature or a well-documented stable canon of works for an instrument, that

1013: 447:). I hope this helps. The article is decidedly sketchy as it stands, but there's much good material in these two books for expanding it. 2598: 991:). I believe that Knowledge (XXG) is not an index for viola pieces nor a place for violists to discover new music. I also believe that 2252:, and is probably one of the weaker guidelines as it isn't even suggesting that most lists actually follow these criteria. It is just 1616:

How would you feel if a source was cited? There have been a number of bibliographies. That would make it less indiscriminate, yes? -

3439:

Gerda - the equivalent of Partitur in English is "Full score", not, as you thought, just plain "score". As the lead for the article

2751: 1486:

This discussion has raised wider issues of what WP is about. I think, for example, that lists of works per instrument fall under

863: 754: 1757:

and am not sure what restarting this RfC would accomplish, other than perhaps reaching a different outcome possibly preferable to

3146: 2847:

Just about the only appropriate articles/lists we should have are those that meet similar notability and dueness thresholds as

2519:. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and we need to make sure additions meet encyclopedic standards. That is not only 225:

I've removed Grainger and Martinu. I can find no element in their music which would make them 'modernists'. In the WP article

123:

Basically my deletions were made on the basis that there was no evidence that many of the entries were for representatives of

3104:

in the sense that a list of works for uncommon instruments should be possible when properly sourced. I am thinking about the

267: 3285: 3220:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3072:

response, "But it's not encyclopedic." My attitude to that response is "feh - so what." People are coming to WP wanting

275: 3277:, I often find both "bar" and "measure" being used. Is there a consensus as to which one to use, or are both acceptable? 911:

might be more appropriate. I might suggest a followup discussion to see if a consensus on usage/criteria can be found. -

349: 246: 234: 206: 136: 2871: 1555: 1525: 1487: 624:

The stuff on the source you suggest seems all from one local journal. Wider coverage would be necessary imo to meet

249:

I know nothing of them - but its seems prima facie extremely unlikely that they could be considered as modernists. --

3487: 3472: 3457: 3429: 3415: 3401: 3374: 3330: 3316: 3289: 3263: 3245: 3210: 3186: 3162: 3121: 3088: 3066: 3047: 3017: 2996: 2968: 2952: 2937: 2914: 2887: 2825: 2809: 2780: 2765: 2736: 2717: 2700: 2651: 2631: 2574: 2551: 2536: 2495: 2477: 2458: 2414: 2399: 2381: 2366: 2343: 2326: 2311: 2295: 2276: 2240: 2219: 2198: 2153: 2135: 2101: 2079: 2059: 2044: 2024: 2010: 1995: 1960: 1928: 1909: 1890: 1854: 1840: 1825: 1811: 1789: 1748: 1722: 1705: 1671: 1640: 1625: 1593: 1579: 1537: 1518: 1499: 1476: 1453: 1435: 1418: 1387: 1365: 1347: 1329: 1301: 1280: 1232: 1218: 1200: 1185: 1152: 1130: 1114: 1088: 1057: 1043: 1025: 1004: 964: 917: 849: 828: 793: 773: 741: 708: 658: 637: 618: 596: 566: 545: 525: 496: 462: 420: 394: 365: 339: 297: 258: 218: 190: 170: 148: 117: 769: 205:, including removing irrelevancies and putting the references to pop music in context. Also made further edits to 101: 94: 38: 2656:

Isn't the goal for every article to be a featured one? They aren't held to a higher standard. They just happen to

2387: 2229:

My interest in participating in this discussion directly correlates with where the comments land on this diagram.

1732: 139:, with all entries in the latter properly cited. Then the template could be appropriately derived from the list.-- 3205: 2804: 2760: 2712: 2646: 2569: 1955: 1923: 1073:. If someone wants to create an appropriate repertoire overview, sure, but otherwise none of these should exist. 540: 330:

Like liberty, it seems that the price of maintaining a sensible "modernism" template will be eternal vigilance. —

2875: 2107: 2085: 1777: 1736: 1689: 1559: 1012:

for me - because the other two just don't seem to me feasible or 'encyclopaedic'. Option 2 is covered anyway by

3281: 2919:

A list of just the works which have an article on Knowledge (XXG) would be trivial (and we have it it's called

2144:; you know, individuals or groups. I don't see anything that would support lists of works based on instrument. 1665:

that specific repertoires could be notable, but I'm having a hard time seeing it versus the constituent parts.

880:

As a few have mentioned below, this is (charitably) an "oddly" formed RfC. But that said, taking it as it is:

113: 2300:

That's not how consensus works. An AfD for one article determines whether that one article should be deleted.

444: 3038:

which currently lists about 14,000 entries. Would that be a suitable citation for all of these compositions?

2848: 2636: 2594: 2546: 2350: 1850: 1821: 1785: 1701: 1414: 886:

should come into play here, as noted by the RfC creator. This is apparently reflected in Option 1. This was

845: 335: 237:

other Australian composers are listed with Grainger, with evidence a citation from ' Skinner, Graeme. 2015.

166: 3141:, if this is meant to be an arbitrary list of musical works written for a particular instrument, lists are 1799: 3468: 3411: 3370: 3326: 3259: 3182: 2933: 2410: 2225: 2020: 1589: 1375: 1276: 1240:

No, because deleting information that others have built, for reasons established later, looks cruel to me.

1214: 1181: 673: 929:, some editors thought it'd be best to start a wider discussion on how to move forward with these lists. 3043: 2964: 2821: 2776: 2732: 2696: 2627: 2395: 2362: 2322: 2291: 2215: 2149: 2097: 2055: 2006: 1798:. You may want to start the RfC over again, because it's not valid and won't be normative for anything. 1744: 1697: 1636: 1575: 1472: 1383: 1343: 1297: 1228: 1196: 1148: 1110: 1039: 1000: 960: 816: 765: 430: 3137:

merit an article; I wouldn't want to interfere with that as it seems a reasonable thing to document.

2126:

criticism. Thus unless you want to start a topic on the Manual of Style, I still go for option 4. --

3274: 3200: 3115: 2987: 2852: 2799: 2755: 2707: 2669: 2641: 2564: 2486: 2335: 2303: 2268: 2232: 2190: 2071: 2036: 1987: 1950: 1918: 1098: 535: 408: 3054: 1773: 625: 3309: 2663: 2615: 1886: 1431: 1143:

is something I'm working on expanding and sourcing). And if those get too big, then finally split.

786: 701: 651: 614: 518: 489: 468: 455: 226: 183: 109: 3345:, the kind of sheet music showing all parts of a composition together. I thought that is "score". 2816:

I still don't agree with the last criteria, although it'd be nice if more editors would chime in.

2210:

Also, how does this not align with the views expressed at AfD? I'm open to a better RfC proposal.

1684:

that cannot be verified, and even to the extent that it's sourced, there is no context to provide

3155: 2944: 1904: 1846: 1836: 1817: 1807: 1781: 1718: 1510: 1445: 1410: 1206: 841: 331: 162: 3463:

Thank you, always learning. I bet I did it wrong in hundreds of articles, and nobody told me. --

2792:

three different performances at mainstream venues that each got a review in a mainstream source;

2688: 2168: 2065: 1981: 1794:

I have no opinion on whether the RfC should be started over again, and no interest in the topic

3464: 3407: 3366: 3322: 3255: 3241: 3194: 3178: 3084: 2929: 2454: 2406: 2377: 2131: 2016: 1621: 1585: 1361: 1325: 1272: 1210: 1177: 811: 592: 562: 416: 320: 242: 230: 202: 158: 132: 124: 3005: 1685: 477:

praised his "taut direction" and "concern for sonority".(Goodwin, Noël. "YMSO/Gunzenhauser",

3483: 3453: 3062: 3039: 2960: 2948: 2920: 2910: 2898: 2817: 2772: 2728: 2692: 2623: 2582: 2391: 2358: 2318: 2287: 2211: 2145: 2093: 2051: 2002: 1845:

Thanks for clarifying. For a moment, I was concerned that I had done/said something wrong. —

1754: 1740: 1666: 1632: 1571: 1563: 1533: 1528:. The issue here is not what people feel, or like, but what conforms to the WP guidelines.-- 1514: 1495: 1468: 1449: 1379: 1339: 1293: 1224: 1192: 1173: 1144: 1106: 1053: 1035: 1021: 996: 984: 956: 824: 633: 361: 353: 316: 254: 214: 144: 3001: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2282: 2245: 2204: 2164: 2120:). If you don't like something, don't destroy (i.e. erase) others' work but instead offer 1693: 1551: 1547: 1460: 1353: 1335: 1289: 1136: 992: 908: 900: 883: 3362: 3110: 3013: 2883: 2683: 2532: 2473: 1081: 734: 679: 439:

is more than enough to establish notability. There is also a substantial entry for him in

387: 290: 2977: 2974:

A WP-appropriate citation doesn't just include link to the piece verifying that it's real

2724: 2614:

know the marimba can. However, I just do not see a use for lists. If an article is title

1681: 945:: Lists of notable repertoire based on sources and the existence of Knowledge (XXG) pages 175:

Concurring with the two immediately preceding entries. Much improved: thank you, Smerus.

2844:

Strongly agree that the blues article's standard is what we should apply to other lists.

2661:

worry about the "played" and "reviewed" criteria. Magazines and music journals, such as

2515:

if they're mentioned as "famous viola pieces", "popular", or whatever; those don't meet

1898:

per arguments for them posted above. Knowledge (XXG) is not a compendium of everything.

607: 3425: 3397: 3304: 1945:

And in response to below; I agree the initial statement is biased. I'd be very open to

1882: 1427: 781: 696: 689: 684: 646: 610: 552: 531: 513: 484: 450: 371: 178: 128: 3199:

Looks like Verdi's in, or did you just add it? Agree the article is somewhat lacking.

2981: 2508: 3350: 3150: 1900: 1832: 1803: 1758: 1714: 375: 2600: 2177:

provide guidance when articles like this one are nominated for a deletion discussion

3353:, however, are just redirects, and what I am looking for is not an option, because 3237: 3233: 3080: 2742: 2674: 2450: 2373: 2142:

works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists

2127: 2116: 1617: 1357: 1321: 588: 558: 426: 412: 3129:

seems reasonable. If there is a specific stable collection of pieces, a specific

1505: 1426:

per Aven13. I like the idea of repertoire articles that are more than just lists.

3105: 2754:, many of which are considerably more problematic than lists of pieces of music. 749:

Sticking with the bard: somebody might set "Beetle-headed flap-ear’d knave" from

3479: 3449: 3445: 3440: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3354: 3058: 3029: 2906: 1543: 1529: 1491: 1402: 1285:

How would you like me to word these options? I'm completely open to suggestions.

1127: 1049: 1031: 1017: 835:

Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/Archive 5#RFC regarding the addition of an infobox

820: 629: 357: 250: 210: 154: 140: 105: 46:

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

3034: 1338:? They don't appear in leading encyclopedias because they're not encyclopedic. 819:) - which we are thinking of subtitling as "The Coronation That Goes Wrong." - 609:

to pass general notability, but I thought I'd ask the experts before starting.

3420:

I'm not defending it; I'm just pointing out where the treatment is on enwiki.

3009: 2879: 2608: 2606: 2528: 2504: 2469: 1984:

on this, and I personally believe that this is not a discussion worth having.

1406: 1094: 1076: 932:

So how should lists of instrumental repertoire be treated on Knowledge (XXG)?

729: 723: 719: 382: 285: 2678: 3421: 3393: 3174: 2111: 1465:

short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group

1247:

way of such lists permitted. - Looking a bit beyond instruments: I like the

981:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of compositions for viola: A to B

913: 806: 473: 2602: 951:: Lists of compositions that try to include every piece for that instrument 899:

Reading through the discussion and the "criteria" subsections (reminder: a

1872:. A list that doesn't have any notability requirements and has no hope of 1262:, is also asking too much, - who would ever be sure to gather every piece? 3342: 2795:

inclusion in at least two different repertoire lists for that instrument;

2746: 2172: 1467:. A list of 10,000 non-notable compositions is not short by any metric. 3252:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Flute repertoire (2nd nomination)

2903:

List of compositions for viola which have an article in Knowledge (XXG)

2405:

a 21st-century building, or would you? Or demolish it, or would you? --

1140: 282:? Somewhat arbitrary indeed, but I struggle finding another rationale. 2203:

How does Option 2 not have a policy basis at all (I've already cited

2604: 1881:

themselves do not consider those pieces important enough to cover

1243:

No, because that seems asking too much from editors if this is the

760:) to music. He also used "pitchers" and "ears" in that play and in 274:

it to winners of prestigious prizes, like composers who've won the

3346: 2224: 764:

which became "small (or little) pitchers have big ears". SCNR. --

3392:" subsection, rather than being split to an independent article. 2785:

Indeed, my suggestion is that each entry should satisfy at least

467:

Afterthought: Gunzenhauser made his British début in 1983 at the

407:

Does there appear enough sources out there that demonstrate that

3448:

would take you to the definition if you need it in an article.--

1334:

So you would want lists of compositions to directly go against

1105:

repertoire. Just the lists seem to be a little unencyclopedic.

840:

Project members are invited to comment. All opinions welcome. —

481:, 5 November 1983, p. 7), which may or may not be of interest. 2258:

Also, how does this not align with the views expressed at AfD?

25: 2943:

effort to reduce duplicative efforts and not to waste space.

1974:

Option 4: Support status quo and deal with lists individually

1288:

I'm not sure I can ever agree with you on point one, because

327:: "ne long final cadence.") spin in his grave as I type this. 1696:

weight, and mere existence on Knowledge (XXG) isn't enough.

809:

we will be celebrating the coronation with a production of

263:

I think the a main issues here is that we may be missing a

2677:'s pieces while researching for his article. Is the piece 2179:

does not align with this RfC. As I said before, this is a

2029:

Sorry if you have misread my last comment, my belief that

893:

And on the converse, Option 3, taken to its extreme, was

643:

there's enough American coverage to justify an article.

1160: 989: 3232:

Comments from project members would be appreciated at

2590:

headache, or because prose overviews would be better).

1459:(XXG) guidelines. Discographies are fine because, per 927:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Flute repertoire

1739:

and just tell me your actual opinion on these lists.

1237:

This is not my RfC. I support none of the 3 options:

671:

Having borrowed or adapted the Shakespearian phrases

370:

Indeed. But I fear that other major periods, such as

356:

is no better. is close to random, and is a shocker.--

2372:

that each article requires different approaches). -

1506:

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Hindi_films_of_1920

862:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

2687:used to only exclusively review music published by 1352:I don't see how lists of compositions goes against 872:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

855:

Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Knowledge (XXG)

534:. I've gone ahead and removed the notability tag. 2928:composer's article where the ref can be found. -- 1764:I'm also confused by the outcome of this related 1161:List of compositions for viola: A to B as it was 882:There first seems to Binary question of whether 582:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Avi Berman 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Classical music 2798:recorded on a mainstream label at least twice. 2449:I think option 4 would be the best solution. - 687:said that he was reserving another phrase from 100:Large changes of content were made recently to 971:Discussion re Lists of Repertoire/Compositions 875:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 3234:Talk:Cithara#Requested move 29 November 2022 1879:actual specialized directories for the topic 436:Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians 311:reputation. For example, Rebecca Mitchell's 108:, who is behind most of the recent changes. 1731:unsure why you keep following me around to 3444:a television programme or film." The link 2870:and the related lists are egregious under 2167:but for lists of repertoire? At least per 245:. As for the other Australians listed in 587:Project members may wish to comment here. 3390:Full scores, variants, and condensations 1249:List of 20th-century classical composers 1135:That's why I've opted for this for now: 967:(Edited 21:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)) 403:Stephen Gunzenhauser, American conductor 379:continuous reversion or a new template. 2973: 2868:List_of_compositions_for_viola:_A_to_B 2587:List of compositions for viola: A to B 2503:, strong oppose of other options; per 2501:Strong support for a weakened option 1 2257: 2176: 2160: 2141: 2030: 1772:no better; essentially coming down to 1688:. This is the spirit of the advice at 1568:List of compositions for viola: A to B 1464: 1165:List of compositions for viola: A to B 429:, I think having an entry (155 words: 280:Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3173:Once we are together: I just noticed 2752:136,754 completely unsourced articles 2031:this is not a discussion worth having 7: 2357:a source can be used for inclusion. 1014:Category:Compositions for solo piano 677:for the coronation of George VI and 557:Thank you very much for your work! 3341:I am looking for an equivalent to 1816:So what's wrong with my conduct? — 1101:could be a good example for pages 979:as the nominator. After I started 239:Australian Musical First Modernism 24: 2558:Establishing criteria for entries 3216:The discussion above is closed. 201:I have now attempted to tidy up 29: 3380:It seems to be covered in the " 3147:Category:Compositions for flute 3145:for that. Categorization into 3032:: I'm curious your thoughts on 2110:but have gone further and read 1401:for the reasons stated by both 3365:doesn't help either. Help? -- 2575:23:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2459:20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 2400:21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2382:20:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2367:19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2344:14:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2327:14:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2312:14:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2296:14:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2277:14:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2241:14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2220:13:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2199:13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2154:13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2136:13:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2102:01:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2080:00:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 2060:16:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 2045:15:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 2025:15:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 2011:14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 1996:12:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 1961:00:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 1929:06:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 1910:10:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 1891:00:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 1855:00:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 1841:00:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 1826:19:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1812:19:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1790:19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1749:17:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1723:17:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1706:14:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1672:13:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1641:00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1626:23:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 1594:15:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1580:20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 1538:15:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 1519:11:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 1500:07:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 1477:20:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 1454:20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 1436:10:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC) 1419:20:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1388:23:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1366:21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1348:20:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1330:19:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1302:00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1281:08:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 1233:21:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 1223:Could you expand on Option 4? 1219:21:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 1201:16:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1186:16:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1153:15:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1131:15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 1115:00:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 1058:09:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 1044:00:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 1005:21:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 546:23:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 526:16:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC) 497:17:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC) 463:17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC) 421:14:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC) 340:02:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 1: 3488:16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC) 3473:12:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC) 3458:12:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC) 3430:23:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 3416:19:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 3402:19:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 3375:16:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 3246:20:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 1089:22:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1026:20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 965:15:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 850:06:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 395:22:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 366:20:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 298:20:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 276:Ernst von Siemens Music Prize 259:15:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 219:15:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 191:09:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 171:08:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 149:07:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 118:07:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 3331:17:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC) 3317:16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC) 3295:Both are fine. According to 3290:16:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC) 3264:16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 3163:14:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 3122:09:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC) 3102:A slightly modified Option 1 3089:12:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 3067:14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 3048:01:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 3018:13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC) 2997:10:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 2969:18:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 2953:18:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 2938:10:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 2915:09:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 2888:13:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC) 2593:The example I linked above ( 2552:14:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 2537:14:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC) 2496:08:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 2478:21:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC) 1048:Apologies - now corrected -- 918:13:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 829:15:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 794:15:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC) 774:14:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC) 742:00:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC) 709:15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 659:18:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC) 638:13:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC) 619:03:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC) 597:16:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC) 350:Contemporary classical music 268:Contemporary classical music 3211:22:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 3187:19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2826:00:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC) 2810:23:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC) 2781:07:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC) 2766:22:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2737:06:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2718:05:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2701:05:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2652:04:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2632:02:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2415:08:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 1566:. I trimmed that down from 995:agrees with these changes. 567:12:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 441:Who's Who in American Music 247:List of modernist composers 235:List of modernist composers 233:. In the present state of 207:List of modernist composers 137:List of modernist composers 3506: 2976:Ummm what? If the link is 1267:In the present wording, I 683:for that of Elizabeth II, 602:Notability of an orchestra 102:Template:Modernism (music) 95:Template:Modernism (music) 1668:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3357:can many types which do 3273:In the Piano Sonatas by 3218:Please do not modify it. 2925:the pieces from letter T 939:: No lists of repertoire 869:Please do not modify it. 348:But look for example at 325:Prelude in C-sharp minor 3236:. All opinions welcome. 2859:reliable sources don't 2849:List of blues standards 2637:List of blues standards 2595:List of blues standards 2351:List of blues standards 756:The Taming of the Shrew 751:The Taming of the Shrew 411:is notable? Thank you, 374:and to a lesser extent 2243: 1254:No, because going for 1163:, and am unhappy with 925:article. However, per 720:this fascinating piece 2864:encyclopedic content. 2228: 2175:suggesting an RfC to 2106:I've not only reread 909:categorisation system 901:consensual discussion 817:Jacksons Lane Theatre 42:of past discussions. 3275:Ludwig van Beethoven 3169:Inclusion criteria 2 2853:Euphonium repertoire 2548:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 2527:of Knowledge (XXG). 1099:Euphonium repertoire 409:Stephen Gunzenhauser 153:I agree with all of 3388:, especially the "" 3282:ContributeToTheWiki 3035:Literatur für Viola 2689:Boosey & Hawkes 2664:The Instrumentalist 2616:Trombone repertoire 890:by the discussion. 864:request for comment 469:Royal Festival Hall 313:Sergei Rachmaninoff 303:of them represent " 2980:, then it follows 2523:, it's one of the 2244: 1141:Marimba#Repertoire 3250:... and also for 3209: 2872:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 2808: 2764: 2716: 2650: 2618:, I expect it to 2573: 1959: 1927: 1556:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 1526:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 1488:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 1463:they are usually 1424:Modified Option 2 1376:person whom wrote 1159:I was happy with 544: 307:classical music?" 243:Modernism (music) 231:Modernism (music) 203:Modernism (music) 159:Modernism (music) 133:Modernism (music) 125:Modernism (music) 90: 89: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3497: 3361:show all parts. 3314: 3312: 3307: 3254:(not my call) -- 3203: 3198: 3153: 3120: 3113: 2994: 2992: 2921:Viola repertoire 2899:Viola repertoire 2802: 2758: 2710: 2644: 2583:Viola repertoire 2567: 2549: 2541:Some variant on 2493: 2491: 2342: 2340: 2310: 2308: 2275: 2273: 2239: 2237: 2197: 2195: 2078: 2076: 2043: 2041: 1994: 1992: 1953: 1921: 1907: 1735:. Use some darn 1669: 1564:Viola repertoire 1086: 1084: 1079: 985:Viola repertoire 871: 791: 789: 784: 766:Michael Bednarek 739: 737: 732: 706: 704: 699: 667:Coronation march 656: 654: 649: 556: 538: 523: 521: 516: 494: 492: 487: 460: 458: 453: 392: 390: 385: 354:Postmodern music 317:Soft Skull Press 295: 293: 288: 272: 266: 227:Bohuslav Martinů 188: 186: 181: 135:and the article 93:Changes made to 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3505: 3504: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3363:Autograph score 3339: 3310: 3305: 3303: 3271: 3269:Bar or measure? 3230: 3228:Input requested 3222: 3221: 3201:Espresso Addict 3192: 3171: 3151: 3111: 3109: 2988: 2985: 2876:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 2800:Espresso Addict 2756:Espresso Addict 2708:Espresso Addict 2642:Espresso Addict 2565:Espresso Addict 2560: 2547: 2487: 2484: 2349:something like 2336: 2333: 2304: 2301: 2281:Sorry, I meant 2269: 2266: 2233: 2230: 2191: 2188: 2108:WP:LISTCRITERIA 2086:WP:LISTCRITERIA 2072: 2069: 2037: 2034: 1988: 1985: 1951:Espresso Addict 1919:Espresso Addict 1905: 1778:WP:ITSIMPORTANT 1690:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 1667: 1560:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 1441:Option 3 hybrid 1271:all options. -- 1124:Option 2 hybrid 1082: 1077: 1075: 973: 921: 867: 857: 838: 787: 782: 780: 735: 730: 728: 702: 697: 695: 680:Orb and Sceptre 669: 652: 647: 645: 604: 585: 550: 536:Espresso Addict 519: 514: 512: 490: 485: 483: 456: 451: 449: 405: 388: 383: 381: 291: 286: 284: 270: 264: 184: 179: 177: 98: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3503: 3501: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3338: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3319: 3270: 3267: 3229: 3226: 3224: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3170: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3124: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 2940: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2865: 2845: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2813: 2812: 2796: 2793: 2745:high quality, 2591: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2539: 2498: 2480: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2208: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2089: 2066:isn't required 2027: 1982:drop the stick 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1943: 1932: 1931: 1912: 1896:Options 1 or 2 1893: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1792: 1762: 1708: 1674: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1438: 1421: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1286: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1252: 1241: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1007: 972: 969: 953: 952: 946: 940: 922: 920: 879: 878: 877: 858: 856: 853: 837: 832: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 716: 685:William Walton 674:Crown Imperial 668: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 603: 600: 584: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 502: 501: 500: 499: 404: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 372:Romantic music 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 328: 308: 222: 221: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 161:article too. — 129:Percy Grainger 110:Toccata quarta 97: 91: 88: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3502: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3442: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3384:" section of 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351:Score (music) 3348: 3344: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3318: 3315: 3313: 3308: 3300: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3278: 3276: 3268: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3248: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3227: 3225: 3219: 3212: 3207: 3202: 3196: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3168: 3164: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3154: 3148: 3144: 3143:poorly suited 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3125: 3123: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3108:, anvil etc. 3107: 3103: 3100: 3099: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3077: 3076: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3036: 3031: 3027: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2993: 2991: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2941: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2895: 2894: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2866: 2862: 2861:significantly 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2811: 2806: 2801: 2797: 2794: 2791: 2790: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2762: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2714: 2709: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2671: 2666: 2665: 2659: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2648: 2643: 2638: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2607: 2605: 2603: 2601: 2599: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2566: 2557: 2553: 2550: 2544: 2540: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2499: 2497: 2492: 2490: 2481: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388:WP:Poképrosal 2385: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2339: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2307: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2272: 2264: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2236: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2194: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2119: 2118: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2075: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2040: 2032: 2028: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1991: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1925: 1920: 1916: 1913: 1911: 1908: 1903: 1902: 1897: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1875: 1871: 1868: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847:CurryTime7-24 1844: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1818:CurryTime7-24 1815: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800:WP:RFCNEUTRAL 1797: 1793: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1782:CurryTime7-24 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1753:I agree with 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1709: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698:Shooterwalker 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1678: 1675: 1673: 1670: 1664: 1659: 1656: 1655: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1584:Thank you. -- 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1442: 1439: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411:CurryTime7-24 1408: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1318: 1315: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1125: 1122: 1121: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1080: 1072: 1071:Weak Option 1 1067: 1066: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 975: 974: 970: 968: 966: 962: 958: 950: 947: 944: 941: 938: 935: 934: 933: 930: 928: 919: 916: 915: 910: 906: 902: 898: 896: 891: 889: 885: 876: 873: 870: 865: 860: 859: 854: 852: 851: 847: 843: 842:CurryTime7-24 836: 833: 831: 830: 826: 822: 818: 815:(May 12 -21, 814: 813: 808: 795: 792: 790: 785: 777: 776: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 757: 752: 748: 747: 745: 744: 743: 740: 738: 733: 725: 721: 717: 713: 712: 711: 710: 707: 705: 700: 692: 691: 686: 682: 681: 676: 675: 666: 660: 657: 655: 650: 641: 640: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 608: 601: 599: 598: 594: 590: 583: 580: 568: 564: 560: 554: 549: 548: 547: 542: 537: 533: 529: 528: 527: 524: 522: 517: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 498: 495: 493: 488: 480: 476: 475: 470: 466: 465: 464: 461: 459: 454: 446: 442: 438: 437: 432: 428: 425: 424: 423: 422: 418: 414: 410: 402: 396: 393: 391: 386: 377: 376:Baroque music 373: 369: 368: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 341: 337: 333: 332:CurryTime7-24 329: 326: 322: 318: 314: 309: 306: 301: 300: 299: 296: 294: 289: 281: 277: 269: 262: 261: 260: 256: 252: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 223: 220: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 199: 192: 189: 187: 182: 174: 173: 172: 168: 164: 163:CurryTime7-24 160: 156: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 121: 120: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 96: 92: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3465:Gerda Arendt 3438: 3408:Gerda Arendt 3367:Gerda Arendt 3358: 3340: 3323:Gerda Arendt 3302: 3297: 3279: 3272: 3256:Gerda Arendt 3249: 3231: 3223: 3217: 3195:Gerda Arendt 3179:Gerda Arendt 3172: 3157: 3156: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3116: 3101: 3074: 3073: 3033: 2989: 2930:Gerda Arendt 2860: 2856: 2786: 2743:Wigmore Hall 2682: 2675:John H. Beck 2668: 2662: 2657: 2619: 2611: 2561: 2542: 2525:five pillars 2512: 2500: 2488: 2465: 2407:Gerda Arendt 2354: 2337: 2305: 2270: 2262: 2253: 2249: 2234: 2192: 2184: 2180: 2123:constructive 2122: 2121: 2117:The Signpost 2115: 2073: 2038: 2017:Gerda Arendt 1989: 1973: 1969: 1946: 1938: 1914: 1899: 1895: 1878: 1873: 1869: 1795: 1769: 1737:common sense 1728: 1710: 1676: 1662: 1657: 1586:Gerda Arendt 1483: 1440: 1423: 1398: 1371: 1316: 1273:Gerda Arendt 1268: 1259: 1255: 1244: 1211:Gerda Arendt 1178:Gerda Arendt 1168: 1123: 1102: 1074: 1070: 1009: 976: 954: 948: 942: 936: 931: 923: 912: 905:No Consensus 904: 894: 892: 887: 881: 874: 868: 861: 839: 810: 804: 779: 761: 755: 750: 727: 694: 688: 678: 672: 670: 644: 605: 586: 511: 482: 478: 472: 448: 440: 434: 406: 380: 312: 305:contemporary 304: 283: 238: 176: 99: 78: 43: 37: 3478:cymbals.'-- 3441:Sheet music 3386:sheet music 3355:sheet music 3343:de:Partitur 3280:Thank you. 2265:as an RfC. 2263:in disguise 1970:Invalid RfC 1711:Invalid RfC 1256:every piece 762:Richard III 278:and/or the 36:This is an 3446:full score 3112:The Banner 3106:Jew's harp 3055:WP:NOTABLE 3040:Why? I Ask 3002:WP:DUEness 2961:Why? I Ask 2818:Why? I Ask 2773:Why? I Ask 2729:Why? I Ask 2693:Why? I Ask 2624:Why? I Ask 2612:definitely 2505:User:Aza24 2392:Why? I Ask 2359:Why? I Ask 2319:Why? I Ask 2288:Why? I Ask 2286:them are. 2212:Why? I Ask 2181:delete all 2146:Why? I Ask 2094:Why? I Ask 2052:Why? I Ask 2003:Why? I Ask 1774:WP:ILIKEIT 1755:Why? I Ask 1741:Why? I Ask 1633:Why? I Ask 1572:Why? I Ask 1484:Suggestion 1469:Why? I Ask 1380:Why? I Ask 1370:A list of 1340:Why? I Ask 1294:Why? I Ask 1225:Why? I Ask 1193:Why? I Ask 1174:Why? I Ask 1145:Why? I Ask 1107:Why? I Ask 1097:: I think 1036:Why? I Ask 997:Why? I Ask 957:Why? I Ask 724:Anna Clyne 626:WP:NOTABLE 530:Good job, 85:Archive 80 79:Archive 79 73:Archive 78 68:Archive 77 60:Archive 75 3306:Tim riley 3175:Agnus Dei 2670:Limelight 2250:guideline 2112:MOS:WORKS 1939:extremely 1883:JoelleJay 1428:De Guerre 812:Agrippina 783:Tim riley 698:Tim riley 648:Tim riley 611:Newystats 553:Tim riley 532:Tim riley 515:Tim riley 486:Tim riley 479:The Times 474:The Times 452:Tim riley 180:Tim riley 3127:Option 2 2990:Deadbeef 2857:multiple 2747:Bunessan 2610:, and I 2543:Option 2 2489:Deadbeef 2466:Option 1 2338:Deadbeef 2306:Deadbeef 2271:Deadbeef 2235:Deadbeef 2193:Deadbeef 2185:keep all 2169:WP:NLIST 2074:Deadbeef 2039:Deadbeef 1990:Deadbeef 1947:Option 4 1915:Option 2 1870:Option 1 1833:Jclemens 1804:Jclemens 1770:at least 1759:Jclemens 1715:Jclemens 1677:Option 1 1663:possible 1658:Option 1 1399:Option 1 1317:Option 3 1010:Option 1 977:Option 1 949:Option 3 943:Option 2 937:Option 1 897:as well 718:I heard 3349:, and 3238:4meter4 3139:However 3081:kosboot 3006:WP:ONUS 2955:dbynog 2679:Andiamo 2620:discuss 2451:kosboot 2374:kosboot 2128:kosboot 2084:Reread 1686:WP:NPOV 1618:kosboot 1521:dbynog 1358:kosboot 1322:kosboot 1169:without 895:Opposed 888:Opposed 758:4.1/154 690:Henry V 589:4meter4 559:Thriley 471:, when 427:Thriley 413:Thriley 39:archive 3480:Smerus 3450:Smerus 3152:Jayron 3059:Smerus 3030:Smerus 2959:Play. 2945:Dbynog 2907:Smerus 2521:policy 2517:WP:DUE 2283:WP:LSC 2254:common 2246:WP:CSC 2205:WP:CSC 2165:WP:SNG 1978:warned 1901:Graham 1796:per se 1733:lawyer 1694:WP:DUE 1554:, and 1552:WP:LSC 1548:WP:CSC 1544:Smerus 1530:Smerus 1511:Dbynog 1492:Smerus 1461:WP:CSC 1446:Dbynog 1403:Smerus 1354:WP:NOT 1336:WP:NOT 1290:WP:CCC 1269:oppose 1258:, and 1207:Dbynog 1137:WP:TNT 1128:Aven13 1083:(talk) 1050:Smerus 1032:Smerus 1018:Smerus 993:WP:CSC 884:WP:TNT 821:Smerus 736:(talk) 630:Smerus 389:(talk) 358:Smerus 321:Adorno 292:(talk) 251:Smerus 211:Smerus 155:Smerus 141:Smerus 106:Smerus 3382:Types 3347:Score 3337:Score 3298:Grove 3131:named 3010:DFlhb 2978:WP:RS 2880:DFlhb 2855:. If 2725:WP:OR 2684:Tempo 2529:DFlhb 2470:Alsee 2248:is a 2092:are. 1682:WP:OR 1407:Aza24 1372:every 1103:about 1095:Aza24 1078:Aza24 731:Aza24 433:) in 384:Aza24 323:(re. 287:Aza24 16:< 3484:talk 3469:talk 3454:talk 3426:talk 3422:TJRC 3412:talk 3398:talk 3394:TJRC 3371:talk 3327:talk 3311:talk 3286:talk 3260:talk 3242:talk 3206:talk 3183:talk 3117:talk 3085:talk 3075:more 3063:talk 3044:talk 3014:talk 2982:WP:V 2965:talk 2949:talk 2934:talk 2911:talk 2884:talk 2874:and 2851:and 2822:talk 2805:talk 2789:of: 2777:talk 2761:talk 2733:talk 2713:talk 2697:talk 2658:meet 2647:talk 2628:talk 2585:and 2570:talk 2533:talk 2509:WP:N 2474:talk 2455:talk 2411:talk 2396:talk 2378:talk 2363:talk 2323:talk 2292:talk 2216:talk 2150:talk 2132:talk 2098:talk 2056:talk 2021:talk 2007:talk 1956:talk 1924:talk 1887:talk 1874:ever 1851:talk 1837:talk 1822:talk 1808:talk 1786:talk 1776:and 1745:talk 1719:talk 1702:talk 1637:talk 1622:talk 1590:talk 1576:talk 1534:talk 1515:talk 1496:talk 1473:talk 1450:talk 1432:talk 1415:talk 1405:and 1384:talk 1362:talk 1344:talk 1326:talk 1298:talk 1277:talk 1260:only 1245:only 1229:talk 1215:talk 1209:? -- 1197:talk 1182:talk 1149:talk 1111:talk 1054:talk 1040:talk 1022:talk 1001:talk 961:talk 914:jc37 846:talk 825:talk 788:talk 770:talk 703:talk 653:talk 634:talk 615:talk 593:talk 563:talk 541:talk 520:talk 491:talk 457:talk 445:here 431:here 417:talk 362:talk 336:talk 255:talk 215:talk 209:. -- 185:talk 167:talk 145:talk 114:talk 3359:not 3135:may 3008:). 2995:→∞ 2905:.-- 2787:one 2667:or 2513:Not 2494:→∞ 2183:or 2173:Liz 2163:So 1980:to 1972:or 1766:AfD 1409:. — 807:HGO 805:At 722:by 628:.-- 3486:) 3471:) 3456:) 3428:) 3414:) 3400:) 3373:) 3329:) 3288:) 3262:) 3244:) 3185:) 3158:32 3087:) 3065:) 3046:) 3016:) 2986:0x 2967:) 2951:) 2936:) 2913:) 2886:) 2824:) 2779:) 2735:) 2699:) 2691:. 2630:) 2535:) 2485:0x 2476:) 2457:) 2413:) 2398:) 2380:) 2365:) 2355:or 2334:0x 2325:) 2302:0x 2294:) 2267:0x 2256:. 2231:0x 2218:) 2189:0x 2152:) 2134:) 2100:) 2070:0x 2058:) 2035:0x 2023:) 2009:) 1986:0x 1906:87 1889:) 1853:) 1839:) 1824:) 1810:) 1788:) 1747:) 1729:am 1721:) 1704:) 1639:) 1624:) 1592:) 1578:) 1536:) 1517:) 1498:) 1475:) 1452:) 1434:) 1417:) 1386:) 1364:) 1346:) 1328:) 1300:) 1279:) 1231:) 1217:) 1199:) 1184:) 1151:) 1113:) 1056:) 1042:) 1024:) 1003:) 963:) 955:~ 866:. 848:) 827:) 772:) 636:) 617:) 595:) 565:) 419:) 364:) 338:) 271:}} 265:{{ 257:) 217:) 169:) 147:) 116:) 64:← 3482:( 3467:( 3452:( 3424:( 3410:( 3396:( 3369:( 3325:( 3284:( 3258:( 3240:( 3208:) 3204:( 3197:: 3193:@ 3181:( 3083:( 3061:( 3042:( 3028:@ 3012:( 2963:( 2947:( 2932:( 2909:( 2882:( 2820:( 2807:) 2803:( 2775:( 2763:) 2759:( 2731:( 2715:) 2711:( 2695:( 2649:) 2645:( 2626:( 2572:) 2568:( 2531:( 2472:( 2453:( 2409:( 2394:( 2376:( 2361:( 2321:( 2290:( 2214:( 2148:( 2130:( 2096:( 2054:( 2019:( 2005:( 1958:) 1954:( 1926:) 1922:( 1885:( 1849:( 1835:( 1820:( 1806:( 1784:( 1761:. 1743:( 1717:( 1700:( 1635:( 1620:( 1588:( 1574:( 1558:/ 1550:/ 1542:@ 1532:( 1513:( 1494:( 1471:( 1448:( 1430:( 1413:( 1382:( 1360:( 1342:( 1324:( 1296:( 1275:( 1227:( 1213:( 1195:( 1180:( 1147:( 1109:( 1093:@ 1052:( 1038:( 1030:@ 1020:( 999:( 959:( 844:( 823:( 768:( 753:( 632:( 613:( 591:( 561:( 555:: 551:@ 543:) 539:( 443:( 415:( 360:( 334:( 315:( 253:( 213:( 165:( 143:( 112:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 79 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index