→Bach's Prelude BWV 543: :::De Rosa interviewed Morricone for the book, but the work cited is not an interview. ~~~~ |
→Bach's Prelude BWV 543: ::::The evidence is theme itself, you have to be deaf not to hear it. As for the name, again, there's a varying degree of formality involved. ~~~~ |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
:::As for Reger, this involved edits to a small segment. The content about [[Philipp Wolfrum]] was not so straightforward, because there were several sources which duplicated imprecise variants of the material. The Reger section was marked "in-use", so it was inconsiderate to cause edit-conflicts while edits to new content were happening. Distinguishing between "citation, "cite book" and "cite journal" is not important in the grand scheme of things. Locating secondary sources that are actually available for reading ''is'' important. It is the first step in creating content, which is the main purpose of wikipedia. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::As for Reger, this involved edits to a small segment. The content about [[Philipp Wolfrum]] was not so straightforward, because there were several sources which duplicated imprecise variants of the material. The Reger section was marked "in-use", so it was inconsiderate to cause edit-conflicts while edits to new content were happening. Distinguishing between "citation, "cite book" and "cite journal" is not important in the grand scheme of things. Locating secondary sources that are actually available for reading ''is'' important. It is the first step in creating content, which is the main purpose of wikipedia. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::The evidence is theme itself, you have to be deaf not to hear it. As for the name, again, there's a varying degree of formality involved.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 17:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Other suggestions: |
Other suggestions: |
||
#Use {{tl|cite interview}} instead of {{tl|citation}} or {{tl|cite book}} for the Morricone/De Rosa interview book:<blockquote>{{cite interview |
#Use {{tl|cite interview}} instead of {{tl|citation}} or {{tl|cite book}} for the Morricone/De Rosa interview book:<blockquote>{{cite interview |
Revision as of 17:58, 20 October 2020
Classical music: Compositions | |||||||
|
Pipe Organ Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
In-use
There is an in-use tag on this article. That has been disregarded through that tag, where disruptive edits have occurred. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Bach's Prelude BWV 543
@Headbomb: "Bach's Prelude BWV 543" (as it is in the source) is not the same as "Prelude and Fugue in A minor" (as the Wikipedia article currently has it – my emphasis). As I said (and repeated): the source doesn't mention the fugue – thus: failed verification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- BWV 543 is a clear identification of this piece. If someone says "Concerto K.482" by Mozart, they clearly are talking about piano concerto no. 22, even if they didn't write the literal words "Piano Concerto no. 22". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I wrote the BWV page. But linking to that page does not make a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR). We follow external reliable sources. The external source says "Prelude", not "Prelude and Fugue", and it is OR to expand one to the other, because, for some unfathomable reason, a Wikipedia editor erroneously thinks that that is what the external source intended (but didn't write). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you think BWV 543 refers to anything other than Bach's Prelude and Fugue in A minor, you really have no business editing this article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
In Morricone's own words: he didn't make an "arrangement", neither of the Prelude, nor of the Fugue (and certainly not of both), but derived the theme of the film music (besides, also that of Investigation of a Citizen above Suspicion) from the Fugue (not the Prelude). See end of this page and first paragraph of this page. Now, that is a primary source (thus not necessarily reliable), but to be frank, neither does the France Musique website seem all too reliable. So, maybe just remove the entire paragraph as trivia (if no other sources can be found) or relate it in Morricone's words with an in-text attribution? I haven't heard either film music, so I can't confirm by my own hearing which description (Morricone's of France Musique's) would be most to the point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- FM is a reliable source, and is clear
The influence of "serious" classical music is present throughout Ennio Morricone's musical output, and the composer often amused himself with these serious references, often citing and arranging works from the classical repertoire in his film scores: for example Wagner's famous Ride of the Valkyries for the theme of the "Wilde Horde" from My Name is Nobody (1973), and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969).
- Your tortuous reading of this passage does not invalidate it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Citing" and "arranging" are two entirely different categories. "Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan" is clearly a "citation" (deriving a theme from a composition is at best a citation, and not the same as arranging the entire composition); also a "citation" would in this case likely be either from the Prelude or from the Fugue (it could, at least theoretically, also be from both): as the sources are unclear on the point, it is OR to claim Morricone's film music is an arrangement of both the Prelude and the Fugue, as the Wikipedia article currently does. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's not claiming to be an arrangement of both parts of BWV 543, it's an arrangement (i.e. "a musical reconceptualization of a previously composed work") of BWV 543, which on Wikipedia, we call Prelude and Fugue in A minor and which is known by a variety of names from the more casual to the more formal. If you want to be specific, The Sicilian Clan's Theme only deals the with the prelude section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Listened to Morricone's film music now (had heard it before but must have been a long time ago since it took me a bit before I remembered):
- it is not an "arrangement" (please also, again, don't quote Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source: afaics Wikipedia's definition of the term "arrangement" is OR). Anyhow, Morricone's film music is not an arrangement of Bach's music, not of the Prelude, not of the Fugue.
- The (main) theme of Morricone's film music is loosely based on part of the main theme of Bach's Prelude (the Fugue is not involved). counter-subjects, secondary themes (etc) of Bach's Prelude are also not involved. Morricone's film music has a nice counter-theme played by slow strings, which is repeated a few times, but is completely unrelated to Bach's music.
- The France Musique quote says that Morricone does "citing" and does "arranging" of works from the classical repertoire. It does not imply that what he does with Ride of the Valkyries and with BWV 543 would both be arrangements of "works from the classical repertoire" – in the case of BWV 543 he does "citing" of a limited part of a work of that repertoire.
- In sum, the current content and presentation of the Morricone-related topic in this Wikipedia article is OR. It doesn't belong in the "Arrangements" section for starters, and the way it is formulated (pretending to be an arrangement of Bach's composition which it definitely is not) is OR of the most objectionable kind. I still propose, since not many secondary sources seem to be available on this, to remove it entirely as trivia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Listened to Morricone's film music now (had heard it before but must have been a long time ago since it took me a bit before I remembered):
- It's not claiming to be an arrangement of both parts of BWV 543, it's an arrangement (i.e. "a musical reconceptualization of a previously composed work") of BWV 543, which on Wikipedia, we call Prelude and Fugue in A minor and which is known by a variety of names from the more casual to the more formal. If you want to be specific, The Sicilian Clan's Theme only deals the with the prelude section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Citing" and "arranging" are two entirely different categories. "Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan" is clearly a "citation" (deriving a theme from a composition is at best a citation, and not the same as arranging the entire composition); also a "citation" would in this case likely be either from the Prelude or from the Fugue (it could, at least theoretically, also be from both): as the sources are unclear on the point, it is OR to claim Morricone's film music is an arrangement of both the Prelude and the Fugue, as the Wikipedia article currently does. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Further suggestions:
- Insert " Morricone borrowed material from the Prelude." before the France Musique reference (currently footnote 18).
- Use File:BWV 543 PRELUDE THEME.jpg to illustrate which melody of Bach's composition appears in Morricone's film music. (note however that Morricone adopts a different rhythmical pattern for the tune, so the formulation of how Morricone adopted & adapted that material must avoid misleading statements, e.g. Morricone did not merely "copy" Bach's musical theme).
--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- The WP:RS from the Oxford University Press book is explicit about the material.
- De Rosa, Alessandro (2019), Ernio Morricone: in his own words, translated by Maurizio Corbella, Oxford University Press, pp. 66–67, ISBN 9780190681012
- On page 67 there is a quote: "After reflecting further on this resemblance, I then realized that the other theme as well was derived from my own idealization of Johann Sebastian Bach's Fugue in A minor BWV 543." Nowhere is there any mention of a prelude. On the contrary, on page 66 of the OUP source, Morricone sketches the "ambiguous tango" which indeed resembles the head-motif of the Fugue in A minor, BWV 543, as stated. There are currently excellent sources for BWV 543/1 and BWV 543/2 from Commons. Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- You have to realize that the piece is divided into two parts, and that since it has no formal name, people refer to it by a plethora of variation on Praeludium et Fuga Organo de Pleno. Listen to the piece, and it's clear as day it's a take on the prelude section. France Musique says Prelude, Morricone says Fugue, but really both of those are casual names for BWV 543, rather than a specific reference to either sections. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- (ec after a pause) There is still no evidence that Morricone used the prelude. Your statements about Bach's organ works do not seem to be correct. The standard and oldest edition of Bach's complete organ works is that of C. F. Peters: Orgelwerke II has 10 preludes and fugues, all with the title, "Praeludium et Fuga." There are many other versions. The Urtext edition of Kilian is marked "Praeledium et Fuga in a." The Breitkopf version of Rust has the title "Praeludium et Fuga VIII." And so on.
- As for Reger, this involved edits to a small segment. The content about Philipp Wolfrum was not so straightforward, because there were several sources which duplicated imprecise variants of the material. The Reger section was marked "in-use", so it was inconsiderate to cause edit-conflicts while edits to new content were happening. Distinguishing between "citation, "cite book" and "cite journal" is not important in the grand scheme of things. Locating secondary sources that are actually available for reading is important. It is the first step in creating content, which is the main purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Other suggestions:
- Use {{cite interview}} instead of {{citation}} or {{cite book}} for the Morricone/De Rosa interview book:
Morricone, Ennio (2019) [2016]. "Ennio Morricone: In His Own Words" (book). Interviewed by De Rosa, Alessandro. Translated by Corbella, Maurizio. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 9780190681036.
- Current article prose speaks about this book first as De Rosa's book, and then, after mentioning Morricone, it follows in the next sentence that it is his book, even implying that the composer did the writing. Could be formulated clearer (for which the "interview" format of the reference might help). Afaics De Rosa does the writing (Morricone does what every interviewee does: speaking, not writing), but otherwise it is Morricone's book (the raison d'être of the book is Morricone's words, as it is indicated in the title, not De Rosa's questions, nor his work of transforming the spoken words into readable copy).
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ennio Morricone: In His Own Words is a book, so it should be cited as a book. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- That it is an interview, and thus should be cited as an interview is an as valid approach (within the limits of what is possible with cite templates for formatting the ref). See also the information page of the book which identifies the authors and collaborators as "interviewee", "interviewer" and "translator" respectively. Anyhow, whatever helps best to make the phrasing clearer about it being De Rosa's or Morricone's publication, and avoid the erroneous indication that Morricone did the writing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)