Talk:List of major opera composers/Archive 3

Neutrality issues

Moreschi left a comment on my talk page yesterday asking me what I thought about adding a definition of the word "major" on this top of this list. I would be for this term being defined, but not perhaps for the reasons he is thinking of.

I feel that the contents and selectiveness of this list imply a POV agenda. I make this point because there are certain glaring omissions:

• There are no women on the list
• There are no living people on the list.
• There are no non-Europeans on this list.

Before any one has a "kneejerk" reaction and says that "there are no major women opera composers" or "there are no major living opera composers", consider that

• Kaija_Saariaho in only in her early 50s and has already had two opera which have had recordings on major labels and performances on several continents.
• Ethel Smythe's "The Wreckers" is being done in several major houses in the UK this season.
• John Adams was alive the last time I looked...and still writing operas. His last opera generated more excitement than any new work by a living composer has done in a long time.
• And what about Opera in China, Azerbaidjan and other places?

Since you haven't mentioned anything outside of things commonly performed outside of established opera houses in European and American Cities, you are cutting out an awful lot of things which should be at least examined.

Your discussion concerning who should be included and who should be deleted are primarily based on "who likes what" and are not based on an examination of the facts, as the exchange concerning Arthur Sullivan would tend to suggest.

Adding a definition of what you feel "major" would be either expose this POV agenda further or would force a rethinking of the way this page is presented. I personally would be for such a clarification, as it would clean up a lot of POV problems in the process. In the meantime, I have added a "neutrality" tag to the article.Musikfabrik 08:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a definition of criteria would be good. I think the criteria should be "central to the current repertoire of major opera houses, or historically important to the development of the form"

I think it's appropriate that the page focuses on Western opera which has developed as a single tradition. Chinese opera is a historically different genre to which the western word has been applied by extension, not really the same thing (although there have been some interesting "fusion" works recently).

As far as the list being sexist, I would resist the sexism of patronizing tokenism. Ethyl Smythe was a brave social crusader but her music is minor Victoriana, is revived only as a curiousity, and only in Britain. I'd far sooner have Thea Musgrave on the list, or Meredith Monk for the influence she had on the perfomance style of modern dance/opera blends. But the fact is that neither of them really has an equivalent place in the repertoire to other composers we are excluding from the list, such as Poulenc, Dvorak, etc.

I agree that John Adams and Philip Glass should be added - they created an important new sub-genre.

I think Meyerbeer should be added - while he's not much admired now, he defined a historically important period in opera's development.

Dybryd 19:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Before we discuss who should or shouldn't be added, wouldn't it be more productive to discuss this definition of "major opera composer" to see what this means? After this is defined, it will be clearer who should or shouldn't be on the list...and also whether the article needs to renamed or restructured. Musikfabrik 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the standard of "who is frequently performed in large opera houses" and "who is historically influential" has the advantage of being objectively verifiable, and not a value judgment by wiki editors. Personally, I think Charles Gounod and Arthur Sullivan are roughly equal in musical quality. But it doesn't matter if a composer is any good in my, or your, opinion or not. The question is, are they central to the core repertoire - and that can be answered without subjective judgments of artistic worth. Dybryd 21:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But historically influential in what way? Arthur Sullivan was vastly influential in creating the modern musical, but not so influential on opera. Adam Cuerden 21:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this standard to be rather contradictary, since you have one criteria which is objectively verifiable, "who is frequently performed in large opera houses" yet, I've yet to see a discussion of inclusion here which says things like "Prokofiev was performed at 35% of the houses in the International Opera association and has occupied 3% of the total performances of Operas during the last ten years". If you're going to call this an "objective" criteria (and I do think that it is a good thing to have some sort of quantified criteria here), than you should have the figures to back that objective reality up.

However, I really don't see how "who is historically influential" can be objectively judged, since how do you plan on quantifying this? It seems to me this should be subjective criteria....and there's no problem with using subjective criteria, as long as sources are provided to reputable, neutral, third-party references. It's just that this is where the discussion is going to be the most thick, since it's not going to objective.

Now, how do you define the terms "Large Opera houses" (the size of the house, the total budget, the subjective reputation of the house, the history?), "historically influential", even "Opera"? All of these terms should be defined to give the definition meaning and make it clear exactly what it is this article is about...Musikfabrik 08:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavian opera?

Musikfabrik above refers to Kaija Saariaho, who as yet has no wiki article of her own. Despite her work having been performed internationally I've never heard of her, but I am dimly aware that there's a whole world of Scandinavian opera on the periphery of the European scene. Does anyone know enough about this to judge notability in this context? I do feel that this is an unfortunate omission for wiki. Dybryd 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I spelled her first name incorrectly. Her last opera was Adriana Mater and was commissioned by the Paris-Bastille Opera and the Finnish National Opera. I believe that it was also done at the Salzberg Festival with a staging by Peter Sellars.

Delete Beethoven?

He wasn't primarily an opera composer, and Fidelo wasn't so important as to boost him onto this list, was it? --Ssilvers 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Moreschi 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I really don't think he should be on the list. Important composer? of course. Important for opera? not so much, IMHO. Mak (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe you people! You insist that this list is based on "objective" criteria", and yet once again we have "I don't like this" or "I like that". I believe I mentioned the terms "Koffee Klatch" before. Is that what this is???

Are we using the definition already put forward, or are we using yet another unstated definition of what should or shouldn't be on this list? It has been suggested that this definition be put forward before any more deletion or inclusions be made. Is this that much of a problem for you to respect this idea?

If we are using the definition put forward, how many times is Fidelio performed in "major opera houses"? What is the percentage of times it has been performed in major opera houses, according to what this definition means? Has "Fidelio" had an influence on opera in general which would indicate inclusion on the list?

In other words, can we get beyond "I like this" and get into the area of writing an encyclopedia article??? Musikfabrik 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouting at us all is not going to help. Please calm down and read WP:CIVIL. Moreschi 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for shouting, however a discussion concerning neutrality is underway. Please do not add or delete any materials until this discussion is completed. Musikfabrik 20:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes a composer "Major"?

Looking back at the discussions, I don't see any discussion of this, just on whether or not individual composers reach that unexplained level.

Can an operatic composer be "major" with just one work in the international repertoire? (Beethoven, Debussy, Bartok)

Can composers of light works that are not normally performed by major companies be considered major? (Sullivan, Offenbach, Lehar, J. Strauss) - DrGeoduck 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the "neutrality" discussion, as this is the main issue which is treated there. This term needs to be definined and your imput would be most useful. Musikfabrik 20:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven no, but Debussy yes, as Pelleas is sufficiently influential IMHO (a great way to distill Wagner, etc); Bartok also no. Re the light opera; I feel it's important to have one operetta composer, so I feel that Offenbach's inclusion is appropriate.

The one composer left whose presence really grates with me is Tchaikovsky. I love his music to bits, but I don't see as either Onegin or The Queen of Spades are so very influential or, for that matter, so very regularly performed (as are, say, the works of Mozart or Puccini or Verdi) that he merits inclusion on those grounds. Best, Moreschi 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give figures to back up your position? If so, then perhaps Tchaikovsky should be deleted. However, until these figures and percentages are objectively given, I don't think that any addition or deletions can be justified. Musikfabrik 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add or delete any information from this article until the term "major opera composer" has been defined

I have accepted to not delete any unsourced materials until they are have been sourced, for the time being. Until this term is defined, please do not remove or add any information to this article. Please see the neutrality discussion for more information. Musikfabrik 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The current definition is as follows

This article lists major opera composers by date of birth, together with brief notes on their importance. A "major" opera composer is here defined as one who contributed significantly to opera's stylistic development or one whose current popularity worldwide would make their omission nonsensical.

Please explain the criteria for including or excluding anyone objectively, based on this definition. Musikfabrik 20:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Current popularity Worldwide" can surely be done statistically, can't it? As for "historical influence" - you explain why X is influential, what he did to make himself influential, say (preferably) who he/she influenced - and then - most importantly - reference and cite. Moreschi 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a percentage or a number on any of these discussions. If "objectivity" is indeed a criteria, then we should be seeing percentages and the like. Recordings and unit sales of those recordings should be used as well. "Influential" is going to remain subjective, but cases can be made using sources from reputable scholars. Musikfabrik 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

O.k, we seem to have agreed on influential, and now can someone tell me where figures for "Popularity" are going to come from. This isn't my area. If someone can, then we can put the back the definition with figures and continue with the citing process. Moreschi 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't agree on "influential". My position is that sources must be presented. I'm not at all impressed with the sources used here, but I'm willing to allow them to be used as long as all statements are properly sourced. However, the term "influential" itself should be defined using source materials. The term "popular" should be proved numerically. There are surely ways of doing this, using resources on the web and recordings.Musikfabrik 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure if I understand here - you want the dictionary definition of influential referenced and cited? Moreschi 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I want the terms "Influential Opera Composer" referenced and cited using reputable musicological sources. I am willing to include things such as the "Viking Opera guide" (if Reader's Digest did musicology, this would not be far off the mark, but I'm willing to accept it as a "general public" reference...), but things should be properly sourced using neutral third-party sources. However, I think that the term "popular" should have a broad numerical definition; in other words a flexible percentage-scale (say from 2% to 100% of Opera performances in "Major Houses" or something like that...except that "Major houses" has to be defined as well) over a certain period of time. Whatis "popular" now is not what has been "popular before...Otherwise, we would have "Scribe" at the top of this list...Musikfabrik 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this: Collect up all reputable lists of important opera composers, and, perhaps, lists of important operas (and taking from this who composed them). Here is one, but it may nto be reputable. It may be useful to set a cut-off date - it is difficult to assess the importance of very recent works - and many of the lists are likely to be older. Tote up the number of times a composer appears on these lists. Allow some extra weighting for (late?) 20th century composers, as many lists will be older. For composers after the cut-off date, a subsidiary list, "List of important 20th and 21st centtury composers" may be useful, if citable. It would be helpful, to gain an international perspective, if some of the lists could be in foreign langauages.

In short, the definition would be "Citable works tend to agree they're important". It may be possible to further weight the lists: e.g. The composer of the first opera (and first SURVIVING opera, as I believe the first is lost) might reasonably be added even if he came relatively low on the tallying up, but, if we have sufficient lists, I would say that no composer not appearing on at least one should be added to the list.

This will, of course, mean redoing this article from scratch, but this may not be a bad thing. And it will make it clearly verifiable and NPOV. Adam Cuerden 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that who gets included in non-lists might be workable. E.g., if [reference work detailing opera plots] does not try for dictionary/encyclopaedic completeness, then we may be able to presume this would count as a selection of important operas. However, these are likely to lack historical perspective and recent works, and, as such, will only be partially usable. Adam Cuerden 23:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, and it does use third-party sources. The list that you've given is by a journalist with the BBC, but if you get a pool of 10 or so lists and they're all basically saying the same thing, then perhaps this would mean something; I personally would find this as an acceptable compromise, although I still think that exploring the idea of measuring "popularity" using number of productions, record sales etc would also be an interesting avenue to explore; However, this idea would be perhaps a suitable starting point. Musikfabrik 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The definition has been removed pending a consensual decision-making process.

Please do not add any definition until the discussion has been completed.Musikfabrik 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've re-reverted on the grounds that we need something to talk about and to serve as a first model. In my edit summary I said "first try". The definition was not meant to be the definitive definition and arbitrary removal is the wrong way to go. Moreschi 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the revertion because "objectivity" has been given as a criteria in the discussion underway. This definition is subjective and cannot meet the standards of the current definition. The definition should remain empty until the discussion has taken place.Musikfabrik 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and, although it's overkill, any definition should include a neutral, third-party source in a reputable publication....but I didn't need to add that, did I?Musikfabrik 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article....

is its existance. Sorry if I say this, but I don't see why to create a kind of "Olympus". IMHO the biographical and historical articles can clarify the importance of each composer without marking an ever thinkable boundary among major and not major (minor?) opera composers --Al Pereira(talk) 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that your position is correct. However, since quite a few people do think that such things should be here, at the very least they should be sourced and strive for some sort of "neutrality", although quite frankly, I fail to see how a list of "major opera composers" can ever be neutral.Musikfabrik 08:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Collecting Representative Lists

I am not suggesting that this is the solution which should be used, but the idea was put forward by Adam Cuerden to collect representive lists and to make a cross-reference to see what was there. Here is one that has been put forward

Here is one, but it may nto be reputable. Musikfabrik 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This list contains the following composers:

The earliest work labelled 'opera' was Dafne (1594-98) by Jacopo Peri.

The first truly great opera composer was Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) who developed older models into a musico-dramatic style which presented the characters not as emblematic figures, but as recognisably human beings, exploring their inner feelings in a way which became the norm for composers in the 19th century.

The most important opera composers 17th Century: Cavalli, Scarlatti, Lully, Rameau 18th Century: Handel, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart 19th Century: Weber, Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Meyerbeer, Berlioz, Wagner, Verdi, Massenet, Gounod, Bizet, Saint-Saëns, Glinka, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Smetana, Dvorak, Richard Strauss, Puccini, Mascagni, Leoncavallo 20th Century: Berg, Schoenberg, Pfitzner, Schreker, Korngold, Orff, Stockhausen, Henze, Debussy, Ravel, Janácek, Britten, Tippett, Walton, Maxwell Davies, Birtwistle, Menotti, Barber, Argento, Glass, Adams

Can people provide other lists with which this one may be compared? Musikfabrik 08:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a second list [1]

Major Composers This list provides links to individual OperaGlass pages devoted to some of the most famous and popular opera composers. For each of these composers there is an index, including links to more detailed pages for one or more of their operas:

• Ludwig van BEETHOVEN
• Vincenzo BELLINI
• Georges BIZET
• Arrigo BOÏTO
• Benjamin BRITTEN
• Gustave CHARPENTIER
• Francesco CILEA
• Gaetano DONIZETTI
• Clemens von FRANCKENSTEIN
• Umberto GIORDANO
• Charles GOUNOD
• Fromental HALÉVY
• Leos JANÁCEK
• Ruggero LEONCAVALLO
• Luigi MANCINELLI
• Heinrich MARSCHNER
• Pietro MASCAGNI
• Jules MASSENET
• Saverio MERCADANTE
• Wolfgang Amadeus MOZART
• Amilcare PONCHIELLI
• Giacomo PUCCINI
• Henry PURCELL
• Nikolai RIMSKY-KORSAKOV
• Gioachino ROSSINI
• Carlo SOLIVA
• Richard STRAUSS
• Giuseppe VERDI
• Richard WAGNER
• Carl Maria von WEBER

Musikfabrik 10:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica article quoted here is probably a useful cite for historically important composers. It mentions:

Jacopo Peri (1561–1633) Giulio Caccini, Claudio Monteverdi, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Jean-Philippe Rameau, George Frideric Handel, and Christoph Willibald Gluck, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Gioacchino Rossini, Gaetano Donizetti, Giuseppe Verdi, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, Giacomo Puccini, Alban Berg, Benjamin Britten, Gian Carlo Menotti, John Adams, and Philip Glass.

The same link quotes a Columbia University Press Encyclopedia article containing: VERY EARLY: Vincenzo Galilei, Emilio del Cavaliere (c.1550–1602), Jacopo Peri, Giulio Caccini, Stefano Landi, Claudio Monteverdi

EARLY: Marcantonio Cesti (1623–69), Pietro Francesco Cavalli, Alessandro Stradella, Jean Baptiste Lully, Jean Philippe Rameau, Alessandro Scarlatti, Pietro Metastasio, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Giovanni Paisiello, Domenico Cimarosa, John Blow, Henry Purcell, George Frideric Handel, John Christopher Pepusch (Beggar's Opera)

MORE-OR-LESS 18th CENTURY: Mozart, Georg Philipp Telemann, Johann Christian Standfuss's (?–1756), Christoph Willibald von Gluck

19th CENTURY: Ludwig van Beethoven, E. T. A. Hoffmann, Carl Maria von Weber, Richard Wagner, Luigi Cherubini, Étienne Nicolas Méhul, Jean François Lesueur, Gasparo Spontini, Daniel François Esprit Auber, Gioacchino Rossini, Giacomo Meyerbeer, Jacques Halévy, Hector Berlioz, Ambroise Thomas, Charles Gounod, Georges Bizet, Léo Delibes, Jules Massenet, Gounod, Bizet, Emmanuel Chabrier, Vincent D'Indy, Gustave Charpentier, Claude Debussy, Rossini, Donizetti, and Bellini, Giuseppe Verdi, Pietro Mascagni, Ruggiero Leoncavallo, Giacomo Puccini, Mikhail Glinka, Aleksandr Dargomijsky, Modest Moussorgsky, Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov.

20th CENTURY OPERA:

Richard Strauss, Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg, George Gershwin, Paul Hindemith, Gian-Carlo Menotti, Samuel Barber, Alberto Ginastera, and Hans Werner Henze, Douglas Moore, Carlisle Floyd, Benjamin Britten, Krzysztof Penderecki, György Ligeti, Philip Glass, John Adams, William Bolcom

These encyclopedic articles should be useful to bring back in historical perspective in a highly citable way. The Columbia University Press article probably quotes somewhat more marginal works than might be desireable, but the comparison work will start trimming it back down.

I do worry, though, that when we hit the 20th century and get past the early German-dominated first decade or two that the consensus suddenly becomes strictly American and British. It might be wise to weight foreign-language composers after, say, 1930, 1940 or so somewhat higher, to counteract bias from using English-language sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

An important point to consider

Some information was posted by Marc Shepherd that on the pageTalk:List of important operas which seemed important to copy here. Quoting Mr. Shepherd-

• I happened to notice yesterday that Jimbo Wales had commented himself on the talk page for List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming. Jimbo doesn't comment in the main namespace very often, so when he comments on an article three times, as he did here, it's worth taking notice.

Jimbo said:

(a) I tend to look with disfavor on such lists in the first place but that (b) if we must have them, we must require that we work from extant lists compiled by others.

He cited with approval two other lists, Films that have been considered the greatest ever and Films considered the worst ever. What is very apparent is that both those lists are rigorously cited. The latter article, for instance, has 61 footnotes, as compared to zero in List of important operas.

Having been here a while, I fully expect someone to say that opera isn't the same thing as video gaming or film. Of course it isn't. However, the criteria that make the video game list bad, and the two film lists good, are well worth observing. In terms of its rigor, this article at present is more like the video game list than the two film lists.

During the AfD discussion, Kleinzach repeatedly mentioned all of the effort that went into the List of important operas. But what is important is not effort, but WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I would strongly recommend arriving at concrete criteria that are better than just a consensus of whatever editors happen to be working on the article at present. Marc Shepherd 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this list is exactly the same. It's got to somehow get back to sources, concrete objective criteria and neutrality or it's got to go. That's what I understand Jimbo saying anyway. Musikfabrik 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to expand on my earlier comment. In the AfD discusion for List of important operas, I voted Keep. I was wrong. The correct answer was Delete. The only lists that belong on Wikipedia are:

A) Exhaustive lists

B) Lists where the criteria are determined by verifiable sources

Lists that don't belong on Wikipedia are those where the editors themselves decide the inclusion criteria. The debates about Beethoven, Debussy and Sullivan illustrate the point.

Although, on a personal level, I happen to agree with many of the selections, that is not the issue. It is a POV-list. It doesn't become a NPOV list just because there are a cabal of like-minded editors making the choice. Marc Shepherd 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've read through the entire talkpage archives here and on the 'Important Opera' page, and I thought I'd make some comments. Marc Shepherd is absolutely correct. This page is entirely subjective and inherently POV, as it stands now. Some of the comments made just exemplify this -- choosing someone to "represent the lighter side" and other similar comments are simply ridiculous. Either someone is major or they aren't, one can't be pushed aside simply because someone else was /more/ major in a particular sub catagory. Seriously. Either the page has to go, or the criteria needs to be totally revamped. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Arr, weel, hence my attempt to collect and collate lists. Four so far. It's a start. I'd suggest we hold off on revamping the important operas page until after this one, as the group to work on it is roughly the same in both cases. Though it may be better to just combine the two pages: list major compositions of each composer on this list (should be relatively easy to find cites for that), and check lists of important operas to make sure we're not leaving out composers that appear frequently on them. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest setting a timeframe for objective criteria which use sources to be put in place. It also seems to me that after this set timeframe, that if notable changes are not made then the article should be nominated for deletion. Musikfabrik 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My guess is that the article is not salvageable. The burden is on those who'd like to save it, to demonstrate that neutral and verifiable criteria can be established. Marc Shepherd 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the timeframe of one week for discussion on the criteria underwhich the list should be made. And one month for the necessary changes in the article. Would this be reasonable? Musikfabrik 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding unsourced statements

Once again, the phrase "lavish spectacle of the intermedi" was added to the Monteverdi entry without a source. It was then removed by me as being unsourced, then re-added again by the same person, without a source. I then took all of the unsourced material out and another person put in an acceptable cut-down version. This is not going to become an "edit war". This type of action seems to indicate that the editors here are not interested in conforming to WP:POV and WP:VER. If this is not the case, then perhaps it might be the moment to try to get some sort of concensus on this point and try to rework this article?

• I would however like to point out the fact that in the case where significant changes were not made in the article, the next logical step would be nominating it for AfD.
• You will note that Adam Cuerden and myself have collected four lists in sourced materials in an effort to try to establish some sort of verifiable criteria for this list. To date, no one else has either commented, added to this list or even suggested another viable solution. I believe that this action demonstrates good faith, but the fact remains that the burden of evidence is on the editors of this article.
• I might also ask the person who is so insistent that this phrase be in this article, inspite of its non-encyclopic language, since you've already quoted a name and a publication for this citation on the discussion page, just how difficult is it to find a page number? Musikfabrik 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I move for deletion of this article. I'm certainly not prepared to put any more effort into it. I don't know what "encyclopic" language means (a language for one-eyed speakers maybe?), but if you mean "encyclopaedic" then you'll have your work cut out removing "lavish" from Wikipedia. According to Google, there are 3,050 uses of the word on this site (most of them, no doubt, unsourced). Might be because it's NPOV... --Folantin 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean "Encyclopedic" as in "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". which you will see if you look down at the notice under the window when you make a reply. You must not have ever read that bit.

Wikipedia also seems to favor American English spelling and usage. In any case, thank you for correcting my spelling. In addition to using Yankee spelling, I also type very rapidly, which doesn't help. I apologize.

It has been suggested that a timeframe be set in order that those who do want to see this article here have a chance to set objective criteria and make the necessary changes. I have made a proposition above which has not yet received a response. It might be pertinent to give people a chance to respond, or to respond yourself. We are trying to find a concensus before nominating the article for AfD.

If you had simply added the source, the author and the page number to the text, I would have been more than happy to let you leave your favorite phrase. Since you have a source, why was this such a problem? Musikfabrik 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You know the source, so why not add it? I see you removed my citation from the Charpentier entry just because it didn't provide an exact page reference (like the vast majority of Wikipedia articles). The "Viking Opera Guide" is arranged in alphabetical order. Maybe you should look up the letter "C" for Charpentier. This - and the quibbling over the term "operatic stage" - is the reason why I feel it would be futile to continue work on this article. Put it up for deletion whenever you (or a consensus of others) like, then we can all get on with something more productive. --Folantin 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was originally for deleting it as non-encyclopedic content. I don't own the Viking Opera guide. And I don't have access to a copy-the Paris Opera library doesn't have a copy either...

In any case, the subject is under discussion. You can other participate or not, as you wish. Musikfabrik 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"I don't own the Viking Opera guide. And I don't have access to a copy-the Paris Opera library doesn't have a copy either..."

So why do you need a page reference then? Hmm, I didn't realise there was a Wikipedia rule that all references must be to books in Musikfabrik's personal possession or available on the shelves of a francophone library. An interesting development. I'll make a note --Folantin 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What I think or need is not the issue. The sources need page references because that's how things are sourced. This isn't about what we want to do: it's about producing a valuable reference for the general public. The page number is there to allow the information to be verified, as in "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". Now you're going to say "What can't people just look in the index" or something like that. They could. But they needn't if the article is properly sourced.

For whom do you think that this project exists? I'll give you a hint: it's not for editors...Musikfabrik 12:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, I think I'm beginning to understand for whom Wikipedia exists now. It's interesting to note that you made one or two contributions to List of organ composers, a completely unsourced, unreferenced article under the rubric: "The following is a list of notable organ composers, people who wrote for the organ and contributed significantly to the organ repertoire". No explanations of the notability of the composers listed are given or whether readers are being deceived by some "POV-pushing agenda" into thinking they are all in fact part of the standard organ repertoire. Yet, funnily enough, you didn't seem to have any NPOV issues there. Oddly, some of the composers I've never heard of (plus Germaine Tailleferre) seem to be associated with an organisation called Musikfabrik. But no doubt you have the best interests of the general public at heart and you'll be providing a full discussion of selection criteria, explanations, sources and page references any day now. It all just happened to slip your mind first time round.--Folantin 15:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the "unsourced" tag to the List of organ composers; if this list, with 24 inline citations, lacks references, then that list certainly does. Moreschi 16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

All of those composers are in A Directory of Composers for Organ by Dr. John Henderson Hon. Librarian to the Royal School of Church Music at [2]. Even thoough I must confess that he is a friend, I believe that his credentials count as a "neutral third-party sources". This will all be sourced in a few hours....Sorry, guys, but I have a rehearsal....I'm a musician.

Funny that you should mention Tailleferre, as this was how I discovered wikipedia in the first place. I was doing a web search on Tailleferre and noticed that someone had taken my article word for word. I don't really mind, because I am pretty much the authority on Tailleferre....but I can't source this because...I am the source. Before you tag this as a copyright violation, since I hold the copyright and I have released it according to the licensing standards used here. So, it's perfectly fine that it's here. I was rather flattered actually. I'm always happy when something that I'e researched is quoted by someone else...

Everything that I have added since, though (for example the list of chronological works) is sourced. Have a look at Alice Esty or Gold and Fitzdale for a couple of examples.

However, regardless of what I do, the fact remains that this article is NPOV and unsourced. This is not about me, as much as you would like it to be...Musikfabrik 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced??? With 34 inline citations???? I don't think so. Moreschi 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to the book, Musikfabrik. Unfortunately I don't have a copy, but it appears it contains entries for 17,112 organ composers, whereas List of organ composers contains considerably fewer. Can you tell us what criteria were used to make the selection? Perhaps you'd like to contact everyone who has contributed to the page so you and they can have a full discussion on the talk page and arrive at a consensus for inclusion. Then you can provide brief explanations of each composer's contribution to the organ repertoire and their notability (fully referenced, of course). I don't know much about organ music, so I'm sure I'll find it informative. "This is not about me, as much as you would like it to be..." Hmm, so you're sure you're not one of the lucky few organ composers included on that page? --Folantin 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Time frame?

Musikfabrik wrote:

It has been suggested that a timeframe be set in order that those who do want to see this article here have a chance to set objective criteria and make the necessary changes. I have made a proposition above which has not yet received a response. It might be pertinent to give people a chance to respond, or to respond yourself. We are trying to find a concensus before nominating the article for AfD.

Here is my response: There are two issues with this article, and they need to be distinguished.

1. What are the criteria for a composer being considered "major"?
2. Once a composer has met the criteria, what should be said about him?

In my view, the first question has priority. If we can't come up with criteria meeting WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, then the article has to be deleted, and the answer to the second question becomes irrelevant. So far, I haven't seen criteria meeting these requirements, so my presumption is that the article will have to be deleted. I would set a time frame of two weeks to answer #1, or at least, to demonstrate that significant progress is being made. Otherwise, the article should be AfD'd.

Should #1 be answered successfully, I do not favor a concrete time frame for #2. There is no clear consensus on Wikipedia for how much sourcing is required. Editors vigorously debate whether you need a footnote on every paragraph, whether it is sufficient to give a general list of resources at the bottom of the page, or something in between.

I have found Musikfabrik's approach to removing material somewhat unhelpful. Most Wikipedians think that if you find a problematic passage, your first priority should be to try to improve it. For instance, if someone has given a source but omitted the page number, either fill it in yourself, or flag the passage and give other editors a reasonable chance to fix the problem. Don't remove the whole citation. Removal should be reserved only for those cases where:

• It's patently obvious that the material is wrong
• The policy violation is flagrant
• Verification has proved impossible after allowing a reasonable interval to do so

Marc Shepherd 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Page-Move

I suppose everyone is going to want a reason.

• See my edit summary for the move.
• See the talk page of List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming, where Jimbo Wales (+ one other) advocates precisely this kind of move for this kind of list, where POV is inherent in the title.
• Ergo, please don't revert without at least the pretence of discussion. As for consensus, per WP:BOLD, I don't actually require it, but since I'm not a vandal, it would be nice to talk before anyone reverts.
• I hope I haven't offended anyone, but I don't believe that I've violated WP:CIVIL, and I think ArbCom would back me up.
• On the positive side, the list now has 37 inline cits, which should make everyone a lot happier. Moreschi 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't work. I've moved this to a non-POV name. What this means is that no one who has written an opera can be excluded. The only criteria is having written an opera.

Since I'm currently writing an opera myself, this is indeed ENOUGH. That is a POV-statement and I hope that you will all forgive me. Musikfabrik 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and right on cue things changed again with no discussion. The opera corpus already covers this, and this means that the list is a duplication and that the annotations are superfluous. Moreschi 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When Jimbo Wales says that it does work (or at least that it is preferable), please explain why it doesn't work here. Moreschi 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC) You change the list name without discussion and what do you expect? The problem was WP:POV. The new name didn't work because it remained POV. You moved the list without addressing this problem. If this is a mess, it's not my fault. My solution at least fixed the POV problem. Yours did not. Deal with it. Musikfabrik 20:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First, an administrative note: You have managed to move the talk page without moving the article itself. I'll leave it to someone more technically inclined to fix this mess.

Second, it is considered rude to pre-emptively impose a solution when the issue is clearly in controversy, and is being discussed on a talk page. I would say that this was a bad-faith move—much as I happen to agree with you that there are problems with the page as currently conceived.

Third, "List of composer of opera" is ungrammatical. "List of composers of opera" or simply "List of opera composers" would be acceptable.

Finally, the name of the article needs to follow from its function. The current list is clearly a selective list. Another Wikipedia article, The opera corpus, has a non-selective list. There is no point in having both. Either this list should be AfD'd, or there need to be inclusion criteria meeting WP:NOR, WP:VER, and WP:NPOV. If there are criteria making it a selective list, then the original name would be more suitable than the one you have chosen. Marc Shepherd 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the site went down when I was making the change. I did not make this change in the first place. If this had not been done, it would NOT have been necessary to change anything.

Second, the name change was made by Moreschi without consulting anyone, because of his or her understanding of the model proposed by Jimbo Wales in the quote proposed above. I change the whole mess back to the original title. Do not blame me for this mess, since it should not have happened in the first place.

Third, "List of composer of opera" is ungrammatical is obvious. The site went down and nothing could be changed. What do you expect?

Finally, the name change was made without addressing the obvious NPOV problems. The sources do not solve this problem. The problem remains the same. And here we are back at square one. What are we going to do about it? Musikfabrik 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. I thought you were going to solve it by reference to a set of standard references. So, I am suggesting that the criteria for selection be that the composer is listed as a major opera composer in a majority of the agreed-upon set of standard references. Then, by stating which references are referred to, you have a NPOV list. Sure, there might be other references somewhere that disagree, but until they are found, at least you will have constructed the list from independent third-party sources. -- Ssilvers 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! Quite how anybody could move the talk page but not the page itself is really quite a remarkable achievement. I don't suppose that I'm terribly surprised that we wind up back where we started, but I tried anyway. I did not, however, expect that we would at one stage wind up at a list which should have been immediately deleted as a flagrant double of The opera corpus. Then we came to a nonsensical list caused by over-fast typing. At no stage was my solution discussed by anyone other than Musikfabrik, who rejected it instantaneously as part of his personal vendetta against Folantin and myself, and has at no stage said what the POV problem was, particularly given what Jimbo said. Yes, I agree that with the title "List of opera composers considered major" there are still POV problems, but my edit summary said "softened", not "removed" for the POV, and Ssilvers' solution could be used. The point about my move was then it wasn't just us that said "major", it was those 40-odd inline citations as well. It was not intended as a permanent fix, but as a step that gave us something to work with and that softened the POV, per Jimbo. Moreschi 09:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The list still has the POV problem that the criteria for inclusion haven't been nailed down. If we're going to adopt SSilvers's recommendation, which are the standard references, and what precisely are we looking for to (consistent with WP:NPOV)) determine who is major? Marc Shepherd

Excuse me, Moreschi, but would you mind qualifying that statement about my supposed personal vendetta against you and your friend, perhaps to something like "what I perceive to be"??? I believe that you're jumping to conclusions here. I could also ask you for a neutral third-party source for this statement, but I'll wait until the papers come out (That's supposed to be a joke....)

I will admit that my move to another admitedly inappropriate name was made in haste, anger and frustration at what I perceive to be a basic imcomprehension of the problem here. I will apologize for that, but I believe that the name change should not have been undertaken in the first place. You see, we are trying to resolve this POV issue and I (and others) have very clearly stated why we think that is so. Other pages also have POV problems which should be fixed, but we are discussing this page.

The POV issue here, as far as I understand it, is that the selections are made without using verifiable criteria but are simply made by a group of people saying "I like that" or I don't like that". What is missing are discussions saying "I consulted seven sources and six of them listed Composer X, so I think that he should be included on that basis" or "I checked the statistics of the International Opera Guild and Composer Y is performed on 8% of the world's main opera houses, according to their figures". If you can justify the "Important" using these kinds of sources, then I do believe that you would have a case for the article being here. I believe that if this kind of decision-making process is not implemented, then the article can and should be deleted for being non-conform to WP:POV

In a nutshell, it doesn't matter what you call it: the problem is with the way things are selected. Even if you're only claiming that things are "considered important", you still have the basic problem of defining who is doing the considering and what the term important means. Musikfabrik 14:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely why changing the name from "List of major opera composers" to "List of opera composers considered major" solved nothing. Fundamentally, one still needs to answer the question, "What is major?" and "Who decided that?" Marc Shepherd 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

List of "major" opera composers

What if you have a heading like the above and add an intro that says, "The following is a list of composers noted as "major" opera composers in at least a majority of the following sources: A, B, C and D." [Naming the sources containing the lists that you researched, and the page numbers where those lists appear]. -- Ssilvers 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah now, isn't this fascinating; Ssilvers says "List of "major" opera composers" and no objections. Isn't that just the same as "List of opera composers considered major"? In other words, you take it from him but not me. I suppose the only difference is that I was planning to move first and cite second. Talk about vendettas...

O.K, I'm just printing out Adam Cuerden's lists. Just give me a bit of time to get my head around how to make this work. Moreschi 15:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)(Oh, and meanwhile, still no telling as to who is notable and who isn't at the List of organ composers? So people can't tell between the obscure Paul Wehage and Bach. Great.)

Again, we have a problem with how the list is being selected. If you'll reread the discussion page, the selections are made without objective criteria. Ssilvers has suggested a system which may provide these objective criteria, but this needs to be discussed. I personally find that there are a few holes in this system (which references should be chosen? How to guard against national and gender bias in most general reference sources. How many sources would be a representative source?). One of those lists you're printing out was found by yours truly. More are needed. We were kind of hoping that you might be able to do your own research and find others.... Now, I'm going over to List of organ composers and fix that NPOV problem over there so that you can forget about it. You might want to actually add some organ music composers after that, since there's a list of about 17000 which need to be added.Musikfabrik 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Off you go then. And you might like to remove the word "notable" while you're at it, because otherwise you have to tell us who is and isn't notable, and the world doesn't really need to know that Paul Wehage is just a bit less well known than Bach - or at least they don't for the purposes of an exhaustive list; but that word "notable" implies selectivity. Now, let's see about these lists... Moreschi 15:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you need worry about nationalist bias. The BBC link doesn't include Purcell. Moreschi 15:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course Paul Wehage is less notable than Bach. Most composers are. It's just that his contributions to the Organ repertoire are documented in John Henderson's book. As the former Music Librarian to the Royal College of Church Music, he does perhaps know a bit about the subject. Since he's elected to add both Paul Wehage and Bach, this must mean something, given his decades of research on the subject of organ music.

Trying to bring this back to the subject at hand, the point is that the List of organ composers can be verified in a neutral third-party source and now that the definition has been changed, it corresponds to the title: a list of those who have written for the organ. There are no questions about importance, notability or the like. It is what it says it is. If you don't think that all of the people who should be are this list are there, feel free to add them.

This list however something else: a selective list of "important opera composers". The point of this discussion is that this term needs to be defined according to something other than "because we said so". There are many ways of doing just that, and we've provided some ideas. But the problem is not just going to go away. So, why not fix it? Musikfabrik 15:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure everybody who has expressed an interest in POV issues here will be demonstrating equal concern over at List of organ composers and List of organ pieces (paying particular attention to the rubrics stating criteria for inclusion at the top of each page). Remember the advice: "For whom do you think that this project exists? I'll give you a hint: it's not for editors". I can assure everybody that I am not one of the major opera composers on the list here. They are not my personal acquaintances either. I also believe User:Moreschi can make a similar guarantee of good faith and that he is not, say, Claudio Monteverdi, Mozart or Richard Wagner moonlighting on this page. --Folantin 16:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have problems with those pages, then do something about it. We're discussing this page...since we're at this page. What's so difficult about figuring out a way to define "major opera composer" using neutral, third-party sources? Musikfabrik 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, List of organ pieces now has a NPOV definition. I've left the source tag, but added a general source. However, every work on that list can be sourced through the source cited. How long did that take? Check the time stamps. It's not such a big deal...Musikfabrik 16:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the NPOV issues at List of organ composers can be resolved simply by you altering the rubric of your own accord, Musikfabrik. I'm sure many people contributed to the page while the previous rubric asserting "notability" was there. I think a wider consensus might be necessary. In fact, you yourself added "Paul Wehage" while the said "notability" rubric was still there on September 6, 2006, the very same day you discovered POV issues on this page. --Folantin 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with that page, go there and begin the discussion. In any case, I still have to add the second source (the Cantegrel book, but I lent it to someone....), but all of the people listed on that page are sourced in the Henderson book, which I knew when I added those four names. I should have added the source then and I apologize for that. It's fixed now, anyway, as far as the sources are concerned.Musikfabrik 16:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One major POV issue to be resolved

"What does that have to do with this page?" asks User:Musikfabrik above. The relevance for this page is the question whether any discussion involving User:Musikfabrik of a NPOV version of this list can reach consensus if the list does not contain any composers published or represented by the firm Musik Fabrik (owner: Paul Wehage, also known as User:Musikfabrik - although apparently other members of the Musik Fabrik roster employ this pseudonym to work on Wikipedia from time to time). The fact you had no qualms about NPOV issues on "notable composer" lists for the organ because you were allowed to add "Paul Wehage" (and possibly other names from the Musik Fabrik stable) unchallenged might also be pertinent here. Maybe Musik Fabrik is intending to publish an opera by a composer on its roster in the near future. That would explain a lot. Some might consider such undeclared personal interests to be a serious breach of neutrality.

Wikipedia allows a certain degree of self-promotion, but there are limits. Adding yourself or your acquaintances to "lists of notable composers" might be one of them. I work unpaid on the encyclopaedia and stand to make no financial gain from this project, yet you accused me.of pushing a POV and failing to have the best interests of the general public in mind. You also admonished me: " For whom do you think that this project exists? I'll give you a hint: it's not for editors". Many other statements you have made on this page take on an interesting new meaning in the light of your undeclared interests.

You did not state this potential conflict of interest regarding POV at the beginning of the discussion here. Many people have entered into this discussion in good faith and it might have saved a lot of time had we known what cards certain members involved in this discussion were playing with to start with. I leave others to decide how far they think the project they devote unpaid time to should be used as a promotional device for other editors. Hope that clarifies the situation here and elsewhere --Folantin 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Which has nothing at all to do with this page. My name is Jean-Thierry Boisseau. I'm a composer, organist, musicologist, author and music critic. I work for Musik Fabrik Music Publishing, which was never hidden from our first edits. I don't spell or write correctly in English because I'm French. From now on, this will be me and only me posting here.

• You've been reading too many Agatha Christie novels, Mr. Folantin. The POV issues with this list remain the same. Paul Wehage has had nothing to do with this. This is between you and me.
• No Musik Fabrik composers are involved with this article. None. Anything that has to do with our (mainly) musicological research has nothing to do with this.
• Now, how do you plan on establishing NPOV criteria for this article which are based on objective, sourced materials? Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"My name is Jean-Thierry Boisseau...I don't spell or write correctly in English because I'm French". Yet the user posting under User:Musikfabrik in the above discussion writes American English and claims: "Sorry about my English. While I'm a native English speaker, I spent most of my time speaking and writing in French these days." In fact, judging from the comments throughout this talk page by User:Musikfabrik, there is a strong resemblance between said user and Paul Wehage (as documented at User talk: Musikfabrik).

I do not think a discussion of NPOV issues here can be productive as long as the confusion caused by users associated with Musik Fabrik continues. --Folantin 20:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page or to an administrator. This is above this article and an obvious WP:POV issue. Please name one composer currently on this list or who could be on this list who is on our roster and could qualify? Our most famous composer is currently Germaine Taillferre and she would definitely not qualify for this list, even accounting for gender bias.

None of this has to do with the subject at all. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add: it would have been nice if we'd known earlier that we were dealing with a collective, which personally I don't feel is really on. From now on, I'd like to know who I'm talking to, especially in relation to earlier statements. I suppose I should have guessed; first I was promised three months to sort something out, then everything kicks off again as a matter of extreme urgency; one Musikfabrik is putting someone else's opera back together - presumably "Paul Wehage"- while another is writing an opera himself; one shouts, another is sarcastic, etc. I don't know who was responsible for the horrendous series of move-mess-ups last night, but it sounded like a completely different person with little control of grammar, while we have had one or two suggestions of an interest in feminism.

O.K, I've opened a new tab and have read a various series of contretemps - can I please have another week's grace to sort out the POV, basically doing things per Ssilvers. While I can understand if Musikfabrik/new account now wants this page to be put on AfD, all I am asking for is one more week of trying things out and consultations with Folantin, Marc Shepherd, Adam Cuerden, and Ssilvers. Moreschi 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: I don't know which Musikfabrik left his most recent comment on my talk page after the move cock-ups, but I don't care how many Phds you've got; some lessons in civility would not go astray. Moreschi 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are no longer speaking to a collective. We had no idea about the role account business, but this is no longer the case. After being called a "trollboy" above for simply asking for NPOV language and sources, I seriously doubt that he (meaning Paul Wehage) will ever be back here, which is definitely your loss. However nothing in this article ever had anything to do with our business. I'm the only person around here who has written an opera, besides Tailleferre. And I'm still waiting to get it produced, so it obviously does not qualify for this list....
• Whoever you were speaking with, none of this changes the issue. You will however note that when the sources were added, I (in my old incarnation) took out the "sources needed" tag. If you're able to sort out a NPOV criteria for inclusion in this article, then the subject is closed. A week is fine with me. Actually, just having a solid NPOV criteria that everyone can agree on in one week would fine. I can certainly see a larger timeframe for converting the article as long as this basic criteria is seen as being NPOV.
• What I do not understand is why this got to be such an issue. The problem is obvious and the solution is obvious. Why could it not have been solved when it was pointed out? You got the sources done in about a day or so. It not that much work when you put your mind to it. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you or Wehage or whoever you are today are worried about the use of the term "trollboy", then you shouldn't have started off your discussion here with the sarcastic "This is an encylopedia, not 'Opera News'" combined with some ultra-pedantic (and inaccurate) edits to my contributions. You set the tone. Harrassing me on other pages I contributed to was not a smart move either. I would never have taken such an interest in User:Musikfabrik's contribution history had you not done so. The major concern of User:Musikfabrik seems to be promoting Musik Fabrik composers and their works and trying to delete list pages that do not allow the promotion of people published by Musik Fabrik.

I am quite prepared to enter into discussion of the POV issues on this page with users who have shown good faith, such as Adam Cuerden and Marc Shepherd, but I don't think such a discussion can be resolved in a neutral manner while members of Musik Fabrik still participate on this Talk Page. Perhaps you should do the decent thing and remove yourself/selves from the debate here, then we might make some progress. --Folantin 08:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As for a deadline, you are in no position to dictate terms. Some members who made major contributions to this list and its talk page (e.g. Kleinzach and GuillaumeTell) are not available at the moment. They need to be allowed to participate (should they so wish) and a reasonable time limit should be given for them to make contributions here (at least two weeks?). Of course, this does not mean that a POV discussion can't get started right away (ideally, minus Musik Fabrik participation). --Folantin 08:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Right.. let's try to move past the disaster of the last few weeks. As I see it, the content of the short biographies is definately improving - well-cited and useful. However, the selection is less so.

I've provided three lists above, two taken from composers mentioned in history of opera encyclopedia articles, and one from a BBC reporter listing what he considers important composers by period. As this list has a dual role: historical importance and musical importance, this should help. The controversial MusikFabrik provided a fourth list.

Now, whilst four lists may not be enough to determine definitively who should be on the list, there are several notable things:

• There is reasonable consensus on modern composers: Janacek, Richard Strauss, Benjamin Britten, Gian Carlo Menotti, John Adams, and Philip Glass appear on two or three of the three lists that include modern composers.

• There is reasonable consensus from about Lully to early 20th century. Various lists get much sparser before or after then, which should be taken into account.

• The voting process does not seem to work well: Mascagni and Leoncavallo, voted out, appear on all four lists, if I don't misread.

• That said, it isn't too far off from the citable material. I'd suggest collating these lists, adding a few others, perhaps, and then going from there.

• Note that MusikFabrik's list is odd, in that it includes important librettists as well as composers.

• I am somewhat worried by the pro-English-language bias of the late 20th-century listings. Surely there's interesting things being done outside of Britain and America?

• Expansion outside of composers in these lists (and others that may be provided) is somewhat hard to justify, but may not be impossible: Franscesca Caccini, for instance, appears on none of these lists, but, as the first woman opera composer, may be justifiable if we can get sufficient sources saying she's notable. However, I would severely limit this: It's easy to find a few quotes to support any composer you should happen to like. A simple test might be to see what we could find, with sufficient work, for definate non-notables (Something like Alfred Cellier - two operettas The Mountebanks (opera) and Dorothy (opera) which are occassionally performed today, Dorothy was extremely popular for several decades before dying out, but even I, a fan of his work, would not consider him anywhere near notable enough for a list like this), and compare that to what evidence is put in favour of the proposed notable.

• As for my thoughts on Caccini: I did a little research. Not even sites in favour of her put her on Monteverdi's level, most are instead pointing out that she did as well or better than most of the early composers like Peri, her father, and so on. Seems to be somewhat of a feminist icon.

For all I know, she may be good, though the midi I was able to find did not support this (but then, few MIDIs do, do they?), but her main qualification seems to be gender. She does, however, seem to have been at least highly competent: the music will take analysis, and reveals a few intereresting creative choices. But it's difficult to get her higher than "interesting because of her gender".

But I digress.. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I found one more list yesterday; it's not fantastically useful, as it only has baroque composers and it is not specifically operatic, but if anyone wants to have a look then here it is [3]. Best to all, Moreschi 08:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)(Oh, and BTW I had no idea there were so many Wikipedia mirrors out there)

I did a search of that list for the word "Opera" (with a quick check of context). The composers which have opera mentioned in their biography are: Claudio Monteverdi (1567–1643), Alessandro Scarlatti (1660–1725), Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (1710–1736), Jean-Baptiste Lully (1632–1687), Jean-Phillippe Rameau (1683–1764), Heinrich Schütz (1585–1672) [Very weak mention, though. It just said he wrote one, which was lost, but which was the first German one.] Georg Philipp Telemann (1681–1767), George Frideric Handel (1685–1759), and Henry Purcell (1659–1695). Seems to largely confirm the other lists.

Another possibly useful list: the Baroque composers mentioned by name by Nicholas Kenyon (former editor of "Early Music", former controller of BBC Radio 3) in his introduction to the "Viking Opera Guide" are Peri, Giulio Caccini, Monteverdi (with special admiration), Cavalli, Cesti, Fux (mentioned for the sumptuousness of the productions rather than musical importance, as far as I can tell), Purcell, Lully, Campra, Charpentier, Rameau (with special admiration), Handel (with special admiration) and Pergolesi. (Incidentally, Schuetz is widely regarded as one of the most important German composers before Bach. He did write the first German opera,Dafne, but it's been lost for ages, so no one alive has heard or can judge it. He is almost certainly a major opera composer if historical significance is the criterion, but this is a tricky case. Maybe we ought to leave him to one side for the moment). --Folantin 10:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to believe he's a great composer, though I know little of him (I know a bit more of Fux as my Counterpoint book uses bits of him ass examples), but with his opera being lost he's a marginal case as an opera composer. I mean, are we going to name the first opera composer in every language? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the gender bias issue has to somehow addressed, simply because there are women who wrote opera and there are perhaps other reasons (academic, political, economic etc) that they are not more widely known. I don't think that it should be 50/50, but I do feel strongly that a representative sample of women should be present on this list.

• Some references which might be explored include

• • Letzter and Adelson's Women Writing Opera: Creativity and Controversy in the Age of the French Revolution (Studies on the History of Society and Culture) (Hardcover) Univ. of CA press 2001 ISBN0520226534,

• • The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers (Hardcover)

by Julie Anne Sadie (Editor), Rhian Samuel Norton 1995 ISBN 0393034879,

• • Women Making Music: The Western Art Tradition, 1150-1950 (Paperback)

by Jane Bowers (Editor), Judith Tick (Editor) Univ. of Ill. press 1987. There are many others and I can ask members of the International Alliance of Women composers for suggestions if this is needed. And yes, this is still the same person: men can be feminists too. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 10:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe we could include Germaine Tailleferre, eh? --Folantin 11:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know we're still talking to the same person. O.K then; could we please name one female composer who has made as significant a contribution to operatic stylistic development as did (say) Gluck, Mozart or Wagner, or is even close in terms of popularity to anyone currently on the list?

More seriously, I do feel that gender bias has existed in operatic history, but that it's not our fault. It's the fault of past societies. If sexism has stopped a composer of opera from becoming "major", then there's little we can do about it and we'd be fools to try. And when well-known modern figures such as Birtwhistle, Adams or Ades aren't on the list (though maybe one or two will be, I haven't got the print-outs of the other lists in front of me), to include someone more obscure purely to correct our ancestors' gender bias would IMO be wrong. Moreschi 12:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple things. First off, and I apologize if it was already mentioned in the above mesh of text, but there's still the issue of a source for who is considered important in the first place. Citing the text added is well and good, but as has been brought up before, it IS POV to decide who should be here and who shouldn't without a source to back it up -- and this would include Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, etc.

The other thing is, it's really not bias at all to be lacking in any female composer. It's not our fault that history was the way it was. I myself certainly don't know of any females after Caccini until, well, composers still living, at least off hand, though looking it up, I see Amy Beach did. She doesn't qualify, obviously. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I strongly disagree with the opression of women, but to flood the list with non-notable women whose main qualification is their gender makes the struggles of the best of these women composers meaningless. If there are unnoticed great women opera composers out there, by all means point them out to us, let us try and judge the critical reviews, and if it turns out that they would appear to indeed be forgotten geniuses, let us add them to the list. But let's not go through the fallacy of "any woman opera composer deserves to be on this list because of her gender". Not only is that Original Research, but it's POV original research.

It is not surprising there are very few female opera composers: Opera is one of the most expensive forms of music to produce. It needs an orchestra, singers, costumes, scenery, and possibly even special effects. Historically, women would rarely have access to the resources to be able to put together such a production, whatever their talent.

The only female opera composer of any note before the 20th century that I've found is Francesca Caccini. Even she is borderline, being most notable for being early and female (That said, her non-opera works do seem to appear on quite a number of recordings, so she may well be notable as a composer). It is unlikely that anyone more notable and female will be found bnefore the 20th century, and not one of the female composers has turned up in the research for NPOV that you asked for. As well, she appears in none of the NPOV research of lists of operatic composers, meaning she would be very difficult to justify adding without a great number of cites to explain that she is, indeed, notable. When she doesn't appear in history of opera artricles that are listing obscure early composers right and left, and doesn't appear in a list of baroque composers, it's hard to justify her inclusion. And she seems to be the best candidate.

In short, we are in the process of making this NPOV. To do what you are asking - which would appear to be to include every female who ever wrote an opera, would tear apart all the work we're doing in order to insert your POV. This is impossible.

Actually, we can make things simpler. The Opera corpus, which strives for completeness of anyone at all notable ends with the following stats:

There are 380 men and 17 women.

The women composers are: Amy Beach, Francesca Caccini, Deborah Drattell, Vivian Fine, Elena Firsova, Peggy Glanville-Hicks, Kazuko Hara, Moya Henderson, Elizabeth Maconchy, Thea Musgrave, Nicola LeFanu, Roxanna Panufnik, Rachel Portman, Kaija Saariaho, Ethel Smyth, Louise Talma and Judith Weir.

If anyone can make a case for any of these 17 women being major opera composers, I would like to hear it, however, as they do not appear on the lists we are using in order to make this list NPOV, it will have to be an extremely good arguement indeed, such as finding and submitting, say, two lists of great opera composers of appropriate breadth and citablility including one of them, then perhaps we can see about adding them. Until then, it's literally impossible to do this and any of the other things you ask for. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is great progress. I would just strongly suggest that we live by the results of a neutral survey. Once we've decided on several reliable sources for "major" opera composers, then a consensus of those sources should determine who's on this list. If we start adding others – say, to counter gender bias – then, it's a POV list once again. Marc Shepherd 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't worry too much about gender bias. I can think of a few more historical female opera composers (Elizabeth Jacquet de la Guerre, Louise Bertin, Pauline Viardot) but their works are rarely staged or recorded. There are obvious historical and cultural reasons why such biases occur. The same goes for nationalities. Opera developed in Europe and, for obvious reasons, there are likely to be rather a lot of Italians, Germans and Austrians on this list (probably followed by French, Russians and so on). Likewise, artists from the Caribbean would most likely be "over-represented" on a list of reggae bands and Japanese names on a list of sumo wrestlers. --Folantin 16:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Research Totals

There are six lists: Two encyclopedic, two lists of composers the author thinks important, and two lists of baroque composers. Note that last fact: It means the most a non-baroque composer can get is four cites, so baroque composers may not be directly comparable.

That warning said,

Composers with 5 cites

Handel, Lully, Monteverdi, Rameau (2 baroque cites each)

Composers with 4 cites

Non-Baroque

Britten, Donizetti, Mozart, Puccini, Rossini, Richard Strauss, Verdi, Wagner: These are the core group, appearing on every relevant list.

Baroque

Purcell, Henry (2 baroque) Peri, Jacopo (1 baroque)

Composers with 3 cites

Modern

Adams, Glass, Menotti: One of the lists cuts off at Britten, so these three are on all relevant lists.

Other

Bellini, Berg, Bizet, Giulio Caccini(1 baroque), Cavalli (1 baroque), Gustave Charpentier (1 baroque), , Gluck, Gounod, Leoncavallo, Massenet, G.B.Pergolesi (2 baroque), Rimsky-Korsakov, Scarlatti (1 baroque), Weber

Composers with 2 cites

Barber, Beethoven, Berlioz, Marcantonio Cesti (1 baroque), Debussy, Glinka, Henze, Janácek, Luigi Mancinelli, Mascagni Meyerbeer, Mussorgsky, Schoenberg, Tchaikovsky, G.P. Telemann (1 baroque)

Composers cited once

[Number of times cited with baroque not given] Argento, Auber, Birtwistle, John Blow, Arrigo Boïto, William Bolcom, Borodin, Campra, Emilio del Cavaliere, Francesco Celia, Chabrier, Cherubini, Domenico Cimarosa, Dargomijsky, Maxwell Davies, Delibes, D'Indy, Dvorak, Floyd, Clemens von Franckenstein, Vincenzo Galilei, Gershwin, Ginastera, Umberto Giordano, Fromental Halévy, Jacques Halevy, Haydn, Hindemith, E.T.A Hoffmann, Korngold, Stefano Landi, Lesueur, György Ligeti, Heinrich Marschner, Méhul, Mercandante, Pietro Metastasio, Douglas Moore, Orff, Giovanni Paisiello, Krzysztof Penderecki, Pfitzner, Ponchielli, Ravel, Saint-Saëns, Schreker, Smetana, Carlo Soliva, Spontini, Standfuss, Stockhausen, Alessandro Stradella, Ambrose Thomas, Tippet, Walton

Composers cited once, and significantly weakly

Fux, Pepusch (Listed in a discussion of the Beggar's Opera), Heinrich Schültz.

I'd say two cites or more looks like a reasonable cutoff, except for the baroque composers, which should probably need three, as they have 50% more lists. I will happily send my excel file to anyone who wants it for future use and reconsideration of the list. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes: This compares reasonably well with uout current list. We'll lose two Russian composers and Marc-Antoine Charpentier. [This may be restored if appropriate lists in other languages are later added]. List size increases to 47: Not bad, particularly considering much of the expansion is in 20th century composers, which were largely an uncovered field in the previous list. Seems workable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah, can you please use the preview feature to not clog up the edit history? O_O. Anyway, the problem here is you still seem to be looking for some special number of composers. That's still POV -- instead of looking at it that way, it should be "is he significant, or is he not" (forgive the pronouns, per above). It shouldn't matter how many are on the list, Wikipedia is not Paper. Still, this is a very nice start. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

True, number as such doesn't matter, but the one-cite composers have a significant number of odd choices brought in from biases in the lists (for instance, the BBC cite has 21 20th century composers compared to 22 19th century and 9 16th, 17th, or 18th century. This is extremely modernist-loaded, and, since nothing else, not even the quite comprehensive columbia university press encyclopedia article includes most of them, this appears to be a strange bias of that list alone. The stanford.edu cite is of very low quality (It's basically, "articles we happen to have done in a project we're diligently working on to list all major composers", despite MusikFabrik's claims for it, and will probably be deleted in favour of better cites when we get Fontatin's full list, if there's consensus on this. As such, I don't think the 1-cite composers are significant until they gain another cite, as they may be just a reflection of the bias of the list maker. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More lists

• The rest of Kenyon's list from the "Viking" intro (I might have missed a few): Gluck, Mozart, Beethoven, Auber (for political reasons: one of his operas sparked off a revolution in Belgium), Rossini, Berlioz, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, Wagner ("about whom more has been written than any other musician"), Glinka, Mussorgsky, Bizet ("Carmen"), Gounod ("Faust"), Offenbach, Lalo, Ambroise Thomas, Massenet (the last four unappreciatively, for what it's worth), Tchaikovsky, Moniuszko (founder of Polish opera), Szymanowski, Smetana (whose "Bartered Bride" is "secure at the centre of the repertoire"), Dvorak ("whose operas are not"), Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Kurt Weill, Krenek ("intolerably dated"), Debussy, Bartok, Janacek, Britten, Gershwin, Schoenberg, Berg ("Wozzeck" is "unparalleled in our century's opera"). More contemporary: Tippett, Berio, Judith Weir, Aribert Reimann, Peter Maxwell Davies (none of the last three "have travelled well"), John Adams, Philip Glass, John Corigliano, Harrison Birtwistle, Hans Werner Henze.

• "The Standard Repertoire of Grand Opera 1607-1969", a list included in Norman Davies's Europe: a History. The composers with works listed are: Monteverdi, Lully, Alessandro Scarlatti, Purcell, Handel, Rameau, Pergolesi, Gluck, Mozart, Cherubini, Cimarosa, Beethoven, Rossini, Weber, Bellini, Donizetti, Meyerbeer, Glinka, Verdi, Wagner, Berlioz, Offenbach, Gounod, Ambroise Thomas, Bizet, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, J. Strauss the Younger, Saint-Saens, Chabrier, Tchaikovsky, Delibes, Massenet, Debussy, Smetana, Borodin, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, Puccini, Cilea, Gustave Charpentier, Janacek, Richard Strauss, Bartok, Manuel de Falla, Ravel, Prokofiev, Hindemith, Berg, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schoenberg, Poulenc, Britten, Walton, Tippett, Penderecki.--Folantin 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: I will try to provide more lists later or tomorrow, so perhaps it's too early to start collating the material on this page. --Folantin 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Will put them all into the spreadsheet when you're done for the time being? Still, at least the initial results showed proof-of-concept. (P.S. Ah, drat. I was secretly hoping that Tippett wouldn't make the cut. The Knot Garden was possibly the worst night I've ever spent in a theatre, save maybe that transalation of a classic Spanish play for which I forget the name, which, when you got to the theatre, you discovered was, in fact, the opening and ending scenes of a classic Spanish play interspersed with whatever tasteless sexual scenes they could come up with. At one point they even talked to the audience about how tasteless it was, but "the original is five hours long, so we thought this would be more fun" - but I digress. As for Tippet, to be fair, I'm told his other operas are a lot better, and, as NPOV says he's major, he's major, my extreme dislike of the Knot Garden notwithstanding.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes: Are we in agreement that this list, on examination (it's articles finished, not a list selected as particularly notable) is unsuitable material? Discovered the poor quality when putting things in, but included it for lack of better cites. If we have better cites, I'd promptly remove it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Chronology by Mary Ann Smart in "The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera" (NB: might be worth noting the compiler seems to have an unusual fondness for Canadian and Australian opera) . Composers with works listed are: Peri, G.Caccini, Monteverdi, Gagliano, Landi, Schuetz, Marazzoli, Sacrati, Cavalli, Lully, Purcell, Campra, Keiser, Handel, Destouches, Vinci, Alessandro Scarlatti, Gay/Pepusch (i.e."Beggar's Opera"), Hasse, Charles Coffey/Mr.Seedo, Pergolesi, Rameau, Thomas Arne, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Duni, Piccinni, Jommelli, Gluck, Gugliemi, Philidor, Hiller, Mozart, Haydn, Schweitzer, Anfossi, Benda, Paisiello, Grétry, Dalayrac, Gazzaniga, Quesnel, Cherubini, R. Kreutzer, Cimarosa, Lesueur, Zingarelli, Paer, Méhul, Spontini, Rossini, Spohr, Weber, Schubert, Henry Bishop, Boieldieu, Auber, Marschner, Bellini, Donizetti, Hérold, Meyerbeer, Wagner, Halévy, Mercadante, Balfe, Glinka, Lortzing, Berlioz, Verdi, Erkel, Edward Geoghagen, Flotow, Isaac Nathan, Moniuszko, Nicolai, Schumann, Gounod, Dargomizsky, Offenbach, Bizet, Smetana, Ambroise Thomas, Boito, Mussorgsky, Ponchielli, Chabrier, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, Calixa Lavallée, Delibes, Massenet, Lalo, Borodin, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, Humperdinck, Richard Strauss, Giordano, Hugo Wolf, Rimsky-Korsakov, Dvorak, Gustave Charpentier, Debussy, Cilea, Janacek, Puccini, Dukas, Delius, Wolf-Ferrari, Ravel, Schoenberg, Bartok, Schreker, Stravinsky, Boughton, Prokofiev, Pfitzner, Berg, Zemlinsky, Busoni, Szymanowski, Hindemith, Krenek, Kurt Weill, Vaughan Williams, Shostakovich, Gershwin, Blitzstein, Britten, Menotti, Dallapiccola, Bernstein, Tippett, Walton, Douglas Moore, Barber, Hans Werner Henze, Nono, Ligeti, Zimmermann, Healey Willan, Harry Somers, Birtwistle, Maxwell Davies, Penderecki, Berio, Kagel, Sculthorpe, Glass, Knussen, Stockhausen, Messiaen, R. Murray Schafer, Meale, John Adams, Cage, Judith Weir, Casken, Harvey. (NB: let me proof-check this list tomorrow in case I've missed someone. My eyes are pretty tired now. Still, probably more to come). --Folantin 18:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

When I'm back in England later this week and have better access to the Internet, I'll list the composers included in Lord Harewood's latest edition of Kobbé, unless someone beats me to it. --GuillaumeTell 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC) (from the land of Idomeneo)

• "A Bird's Eye View of the World's Chief Opera Composers" in "The Oxford Companion to Music" by Percy Scholes (10th edition revised by John Owen Ward, 1970). Composers from Italy, Austria/Germany, France, Russia, Bohemia, Britain and the USA are represented:

Peri, G. Caccini, Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Cambert, Lully, Purcell, Pergolesi, Jommelli, Rameau, Keiser, Hasse, Handel, Bononcini, Gay/Pepusch ("The Beggar's Opera"), Paisiello, Cimarosa, Piccinni, Sacchini, Salieri, Rousseau, Philidor, Monsigny, Grétry, Gluck, Hiller, Dittersdorf, Mozart, Arne, Dibdin, Arnold, Hook, Shield, Fomin, Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini, Cherubini, Spontini, Méhul, Boieldieu, Auber, Hérold, Halévy, Meyerbeer, Berlioz, Weber, Beethoven, Flotow, Nicolai, Bishop, Balfe, Wallace, Glinka, Fry, Verdi, Boito, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, Giordano, Ambroise Thomas, Lecocq, Gounod, Bizet, Offenbach, Saint-Saens, Massenet, Johann Strauss, Suppé, Wagner, Cornelius, Humperdinck, Wallace, Benedict, Sullivan, Stanford, Dargomizsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Smetana, Dvorak, Fibich, Puccini, Wolf-Ferrari, Pizzetti, Malipiero, Respighi, Dallapiccola, Gustave Charpentier, Debussy, Dukas, d'Indy, Ravel, Poulenc, Richard Strauss, Schreker, Pfitzner, Korngold, Busoni, Berg, Hindemith, Orff, Hans Werner Henze, Delius, Smyth, Boughton, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Britten, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Gliere, Kabalevsky, Janacek, Foerster, Haba, Martinu, Converse, Parker, Damrosch, Cadman, Taylor, Menotti, Nono, Milhaud, Blacher, Egk, Einem, Bennett, Tippett, Williamson, Walton, Shostakovich, Bernstein, Moore, Weisgall, Schuller--Folantin 08:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If GuillaumeTell can provide the Kobbé list later this week, that's great. If not, I can access the table of contents using the "Search inside" feature at Amazon.com.. I hope to check out "The Rough Guide to Opera" from the library either today or tomorrow and I'll try to list which composers get full articles in that (unless someone has it already and wants to pre-empt me). --Folantin 08:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Composers with recordings included in "The Penguin Guide to Opera on Compact Discs" (1993 edition): John Adams, d'Albert, Alwyn, Auber, Barber, Bartok, Beethoven, Bellini, Berg, Bergman, Berlioz, Bernstein, Bizet, Blitzstein, Blomdahl, Blow, Boito, Borodin, Boughton, Britten, Busoni, Campra, Casken, Catalani, Cavalli, Cesti, Chabrier, Gustave Charpentier, Marc-Antoine Charpentier (Baroque), Chausson, Cherubini, Cilea, Cimarosa, Coleridge-Taylor, Copland, Debussy, Delibes, Delius, Dibdin, Donizetti, Dukas, Dvorak, Enescu, Erkel, Falla, Fauré, Fibich, Flotow, Gunnar de Frumerie, Gay/Pepusch ("Beggar's Opera"), German, Gershwin, Gibbons, Giordano, Glass, Glinka, Gluck, Goldmark, Gounod, Hába, Halévy, Handel, Haydn, Heise, Hans Werner Henze, Herrmann, Hindemith, Holst, Humperdinck, Janacek, Joplin, Kabalevsky, Knussen, Kodály, Kokkonen, Korngold, Krenek, Kuhlau, Lalo, Leclair, Lehár, Leoncavallo, Liszt, Lully, Madetoja, Magnard, Martin, Martinu, Mascagni, Massenet, Maxwell Davies, Meale, Menotti, Merikanto, Messager, Meyerbeer, Mondonville, Monteverdi, Mozart, Mussorgsky, Nielsen, Nicolai, Nyman, Offenbach, Orff, Pacius, Paisiello, Pergolesi, Pfitzner, Ponchielli, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Puccini, Purcell, Rachmaninov, Rameau, Ravel, Respighi, Rimsky-Korsakov, Luigi Rossi, Rossini, Roussel, Saint-Saens, Salieri, Sallinen, Saxton, Alessandro Scarlatti, Schnittke, Schoenberg, Schreker, Schubert, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Sinopoli, Smetana, Spohr, Spontini, Stockhausen, Johann Strauss, Richard Strauss, Sullivan, Szymanowski, Taneyev, Tavener, Tchaikovsky, Telemann, Ambroise Thomas, Thomson, Tippett, Tubin, Vaughan Williams, Verdi, Villa-Lobos, Vivaldi, Wagner, Walton, Weber, Weill, Weinberger, Wolf-Ferrari, Zandonai, Zemlinsky.

• Important note: the "Penguin Guide to Opera..." seems to have a much broader idea of what constitutes opera than is usual. The following composers are included because they wrote oratorios or incidental music for plays: Elgar, Grieg, Honegger, Mendelssohn, Franz Schmidt, Schumann, Stradella. The "Guide" also includes musicals (some of them might be borderline operetta). The composers in question are: Bart, Cy Coleman, Noel Coward, Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Romberg, Loewe, Rodgers/Rodgers and Hart/Rodgers and Hammerstein, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, Loesser, Sondheim, Styne, Wright/Forrest.--Folantin 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• "The New Kobbé's Opera Book", ed. Lord Harewood (1997 edition). Composers with articles listed in the table of contents:Adolphe Adam, John Adams, Thomas Ades, d'Albert, Argento, Arrieta, Auber, Balfe, Barber, Bartok, Beethoven, Bellini, Benedict, Berg, Berio, Berlioz, Bernstein, Birtwistle, Bizet, Blake, Blitzstein, Boieldieu, Boito, Borodin, Boughton, Britten, Busoni, Casken, Catalani, Cavalli, Chabrier, Gustave Charpentier, Chausson, Cherubini, Cilea, Cimarosa, Cornelius, Dallapiccola, Dargomizsky, Maxwell Davies, Debussy, Delibes, Delius, Donizetti, Dukas, Dvorak, Einem, Enescu, Falla, Fauré, Flotow, Floyd, Gay/Pepusch ("Beggar's Opera"), Gerhard, Gershwin, Ginastera, Giordano, Glass, Glinka, Gluck, Goetz, Goldmark, Goldschmidt, Gomes, Gounod, Granados, Grétry, Halévy, Hamilton, Handel, Haydn, Heise, Hans Werner Henze, Hindemith, Holst, Humperdinck, Janacek, Kienzl, Knussen, Kodály, Kokkonen, Korngold, Lalo, Lehár, Leoncavallo, Ligeti, Lortzing, Marschner, Martinu, Mascagni, Massenet, Meale, Menotti, Messiaen, Meyerbeer, Milhaud, Millocker, Moniuszko, Montemezzi, Monteverdi, Mozart, Mussorgsky, Nicolai, Nielsen, Offenbach, Orff, Penderecki, Pergolesi, Pfitzner, Piccinni, Ponchielli, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Puccini, Purcell, Rachmaninov, Rameau, Ravel, Reimann, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rossini, Roussel, Rubinstein, Saint-Saens, Sallinen, Schoenberg, Schreker, Schubert, Schumann, Shostakovich, Smetana, Smyth, Sondheim, Spontini, Johann Strauss, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Suppé, Szymanowski, Tchaikovsky, Ambroise Thomas, Thomson, Tippett, Turnage, Ullmann, Vaughan Williams, Verdi, Vir, Vives, Wagner, Wallace, Walton, Weber, Weill, Weinberger, Weir, Wolf-Ferrari, Zandonai, Zemlinsky, Zimmermann--Folantin 10:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, enough lists from me. I think I've spent enough of my time off dealing with them. The "Rough Guide" was not available at the library. I could probably reconstruct a list of most of the composers listed there from memory, but that probably wouldn't satisfy everybody here. If anyone can add this list, go ahead. If GuillaumeTell could check I haven't omitted anyone from the New Kobbé list later this week, that would be great too. I agree with Adam Cuerden above that the stanford.edu list is far from ideal and we should probably dismiss it. Lists provided by commercial ventures such as opera houses might also fail the ultimate test of objectivity too. --Folantin 10:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Other issues

We seem to be close to fixing an NPOV definition. But the business about "gender bias" isn't over yet. This is copied and pasted from Makemi's talk page:

• I wanted to inform you that Paul Wehage has contacted the International Alliance of Women in music to bring the gender bias issues in "List of important opera composers" and other such selective lists to their attention. You may see individuals from this organisation editing on this site. This organisation is composed of hundreds of music professionals who work on the subject of Women in Music. Reducing gender bias is specifically one of their main priorities. These men and women are not in any way connected to us, other than as music professionals working towards better documentation and undertanding of women in music, so they should not be treated as "secret agents" of the great "Musikfabrik" cabal. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• The gender bias issues are going to be addressed by several musicologists and a plan of action is currently being considered. It is not out of the question that one or more articles will be written about this situation, as it does prove quite a few theories concerning reactions towards this subject. This idea that "established gender bias is neutral because that's how it was" was seen as being especially interesting. I believe that Wikipedia is going to be a subject in many women's studies courses this year, so perhaps something good has come of this.
• "Lazy"....well, if you will look at the way this was handled over at List of major opera composers, it was necessary to give these people a stratigically located kick. It would not have changed otherwise (and I have no regrets for having done this). I myself have decided that the best way to change this situation is to use other means. IAWM is only one out of many. When the message that is mirrored onto hundreds of websites from this site is that "there were no notable women opera compoers and this is neutral because that's the historical reality" and this is what Jimmy and Janey are using to do their homework--passing this flawed information to yet anotehr generation simply because people can't do their research, academics tend to get a bit upset. I think that you're going to an influx of more qualified scholars....and opening the "Viking Opera guide" is not going to the prefered source any longer. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that yet another cabal is going to be brought in to override the above consensus. It can't get any worse, surely? From role accounts to what looks like shaping up to be a blatant POV violation. Great. Moreschi 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I don't see as how the "International Alliance of Women in Music" is capable of treating this in an non-POV way. They have a glaring obvious, if praiseworthy, POV to push and will surely do so. Moreschi 11:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm more curious as to who they could champion. Given the historical oppression of women, women would rarely have the resources to break in to such an expensive field as opera. I'm sure there are forgotten women composers, but will there be women composers of opera of significant note, is the question? Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Tallying up the lists, we might just get lucky: Weir has three cites, one somewhat disfavourable, but two perfectly good. If that gets her past the cut off point, we're fine. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just added something to Makemi's Talk Page too, though it might be of a more general interest:

These guys are priceless. Look at the page for Paul Wehage and you'll find he's made "many surprising discoveries" concerning the operas of Germaine Tailleferre. Some editors with strict linguistic ideals might find "surprising" a bit "peacocky" (who was surprised, after all?) but that's OK because on Saturday 16th of September a citation appears to a book by one Jean-Thierry Boisseau. Checking out the French version of Wikipedia, the article on "Germaine Tailleferre" has a thoroughly sourced list of works but as for the biography and critical commentary (again, maybe a bit "poetical"), not one single book is given as a source, let alone citations with page references, although one of the contributors to the article is listed as "Musikfabrik" and there is mention of "le grand spécialiste de Tailleferre, Paul Wehage" as well as Tailleferre's piece Sous le rempart d'Athènes with the comment "La partition originale de cette œuvre a hélas disparu, mais une reconstitution remarquable en a été faite par le compositeur Paul Wehage" (roughly: "The original score of this work has, unfortunately, disappeared, but a remarkable reconstruction has been made of it by the composer Paul Wehage."). Remarkable.

Though I have an account at French Wikipedia, I have no intention of going over there and policing it for NPOV violations and missing sources, citations and page references. Maybe I'm too lazy. In fact, I am simply placing this information here for Makemi's benefit due to the (ahem) interesting light it casts on events of the past week or so. Musik Fabrik has an opera by the female composer Germaine Tailleferre in the pipeline (or already available). Musik Fabrik members develop a sudden concern that there are no women composers on the List of major opera composers page. Reach your own conclusions.--Folantin 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

His behavious was a bit strange, wasn't it? I mean, fair enough about the NPOV, but then, whilst everyone's working to make an NPOV list to promptly insist that using citable sources is biased because we weren't getting enough women? Odd. Ah, well. As I said, Judith Weir comes out pretty well on the new listing so far, so, even if we lose F. Caccini, there will still be one woman of note. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is opposing cutting 51% of the population of this planet from the pool of this article categorized as strange? Please read [4] which very specifically refers to gender bias. This means that, in disputed situations, all points of view must be considered. I have given you a number of reputable sources on the subject of women writing operas. There are others. You have not taken these sources into account, which therefore makes this entire discussion POV.

However, in any source, there is a selection of materials presented which are made according the agenda of the scholar giving the material. NPOV sources simply do not exist. If 51% of the planet which is defined in an objective manner (I do not, I hope, have to explain the difference between boys and girls here?) is not listed in any given category, one can suppose that a POV agenda is de facto in place.

The IAWM has been discussing the following

L’amour de loin

          Music by Kaija Saariaho 
           http://209.218.170.3/amour/ 

           World Premiere: 15 August 2000 
            Salzburg Festival, Salzburg, Austria 
            Commissioned by The Salzburg Festival 
           http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/4136.html  re the DVD 

Judith Weir's many operatic works Thea Musgrave Violetta Dinescu (adult and children's opera) Ethel Smythe (the "period victorian" remark was not amusing at all to this crowd, folks....)

Would you knock it off about Germaine, please? We'll let you read the reviews after the production and you can make your minds up then...Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetising

Would someone be willing to alphabetise the lists from "A Bird's Eye View of the World's Chief Opera Composers" on (by surname, if possible? It would make input so much easier. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've alphabetised the list. It isn't 100% proof-read yet, so maybe it's best to wait. I'll try to check it tomorrow. Anyone else is free to check it, of course. Here's the (provisional?) alphabetical version:

Arne, Arnold, Auber, Balfe, Beethoven, Bellini, Benedict, Bennett, Berg, Berlioz, Bernstein,Bishop, Bizet, Blacher, Boieldieu, Boito, Bononcini, Borodin, Boughton, Britten,Busoni, Caccini (G.), Cadman, Cambert, Charpentier (Gustave), Cherubini, Cimarosa, Converse, Cornelius, Dallapiccola, Damrosch, Dargomizsky, Debussy, Delibes, Delius, Dibdin, Dittersdorf, Donizetti, Dukas, Dvorak, Egk, Einem, Falla, Fibich, Flotow, Foerster, Fomin, Fry, Gay/Pepusch ("The Beggar's Opera"), Giordano, Gliere, Glinka, Gluck, Gounod, Grétry, Hába, Halévy, Handel, Hasse, Henze, Hérold, Hiller, Hindemith, Holst, Hook, Humperdinck, d'Indy, Janacek, Jommelli, Kabelevsky, Keiser, Korngold, Lecocq, Leoncavallo, Lully, Malipiero, Martinu, Mascagni, Massenet, Méhul, Menotti, Meyerbeer, Milhaud, Monsigny, Monteverdi, Moore, Mozart, Mussorgsky, Nicolai, Nono, Offenbach, Orff, Paisiello, Parker, Pergolesi, Peri, Pfitzner, Philidor, Piccinni,Pizzetti, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Puccini,Purcell, Rameau, Ravel, Respighi, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rossini, Rousseau, Sacchini, Saint-Saens, Salieri, Alessandro Scarlatti, Schreker, Schuller, Shield, Shostakovich, Smetana, Smyth, Spontini, Stanford, Strauss (Johann), Strauss (Richard), Stravinsky, Sullivan, Suppé, Taylor, Tchaikovsky, Ambroise Thomas, Tippett, Vaughan Williams, Verdi, Wagner, Wallace, Walton, Weber, Weisgall, Williamson, Wolf-Ferrari --Folantin 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Which lists?

Can someone please summarize which lists that are now candidates to determine which opera composers will be considered major? I do agree that the Stanford list appears to be non-notable.

I am specifically wondering whether two baroque-only lists are still in the hunt, and if so, why? It seems to me that in compiling a "List of major opera composers," a source that is limited to one period, style, or nationality will unduly bias the outcome. The most defensible procedure would be to:

• Find several lists from reliable verifiable sources that are not limited as to period, style, nationality, or gender;
• Include any composer who appears on two or more of those lists.

I am neutral on whether or not it turns out that those lists include women, Swedes, or composers with long fingernails. As editors, our job is to report on what the sources say, not to lament that they don't say what we wished for. Marc Shepherd 13:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I did give the rest of one of the lists you mention (in other words, the missing post-Baroque composers). It's the list by Nicholas Kenyon from the intro to "Viking Opera Guide". I just got the initial impression we were working era by era before other lists showed we're working on the whole of operatic history at once. You can discard the other (exclusively Baroque list) if the rest of it cannot be found.

I think we should draw up a short list of those composers who appear on every list. This will give us the "core". A long list of composers appearing on, say, at least two lists should also be made.--Folantin 13:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If your list for the Viking Opera Guide is accurate, this would exclude Puccini. That seems... a little much. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Kenyon jumps about all over the place. Puccini is there. Will re-check the whole list tomorrow.--Folantin 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary results

With 6 of the 9 lists added [The baroque-only and stanford cite were discarded, an I couldn't face another massive list, here's the current totals. .51 indicates, in practice, that the Viking opera guide mentioned them, but disfavourably. (hence half a point) Weir is likely to move up the list a bit: She has a couple cites left to add. Note that some lists do not include modern composers. As there are over 100 of them, some very strange, I do not include composers with only one cite.

• Berg 6
• Britten 6
• Donizetti 6
• Gluck 6
• Handel 6
• Lully 6
• Monteverdi, Claudio 6
• Mozart 6
• Puccini 6
• Rameau 6
• Rossini 6
• Strauss, Richard 6
• Verdi 6
• Wagner 6
• Adams 5
• Glass 5
• Peri, Jacopo 5
• Bellini 5
• Berlioz 5
• Bizet 5
• Glinka 5
• Gounod 5
• Mussorgsky 5
• Schoenberg 5
• Tchaikovsky 5
• Massenet 4.51
• Menotti 4
• Caccini, Giulio 4
• Debussy 4
• Janácek 4
• Smetana 4
• Tippet 4
• Cavalli 4
• Henze 4
• Leoncavallo 4
• Meyerbeer 4
• Rimsky-Korsakov+A183 4
• Scarlatti 4
• Weber 4
• Charpentier, Gustave 4
• Pergolesi, Giov. Battista 4
• Purcell, Henry 4
• Thomas, Ambroise 3.51
• Beethoven 3
• Birtwistle 3
• Borodin 3
• Mascagni 3
• Ravel 3
• Saint-Saëns 3
• Walton 3
• Bartok 3
• Prokofiev 3
• Shostakovich 3
• Stravinsky 3
• Barber 3
• Auber (Viking mentions him partially for political reasons) 3
• Gershwin 3
• Chabrier 3
• Cherubini 3
• Cimarosa, Domenico 3
• Delibes 3
• Hindemith 3
• Penderecki, Krzysztof 3
• Davies, (Peter?) Maxwell 2.51
• Dvorak 2.51
• Offenbach 2.51
• Cesti, Marcantonio 2
• Haydn 2
• Pfitzner 2
• Schreker 2
• Stockhausen 2
• Berio 2
• Campra 2
• Moniuszko (f. Pol. Op) 2
• Szymanowski 2
• Weill 2
• Cilea 2
• Dargomijsky 2
• Halévy, Fromental 2
• Landi, Stefano 2
• Lesueur 2
• Ligeti, György 2
• Méhul 2
• Moore, Douglas 2
• Paisiello, Giov. 2
• Pepusch (Beg. Opera) 2
• Spontini 2
• Krenek 1.51
• Lalo 1.51
• Weir, Judith 1.51

WARNING: My data has not been proofread and may (probably does: Leoncavallo at 4, Mascagni 3?) contain mistakes. When the rest of the lists are finished, I will upload my excel file here or to a site, but would appreciate if someone else proofread. Peter Maxwell Davies will be much lower if he's not the same as Maxwell Davies. There is some fall-off in quality after the 2.51 point: Composers get a lot more obscure. Appearing on half of the lists might be a reasonable guide, though. And, as I said, it is not unlikely I made some mistakes: Indeed, I know I missed a Wagner before him not appearing on all lists surprised me so I double checked. Still, I'd start adding biographies for anyone with 5 points or more if they don't have one already: I think this works out to Adams, Glass, Peri, and Schoenberg, but my eyes are going a bit funny from data entry, so double check that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if you drop the .51's, and include anyone with three or more mentions, you'll have a good common-sense list that is totally defensible from a methodology standpoint. Marc Shepherd 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)