Talk:Fünf Duette (Franz Schubert)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I propose that this page be split, and specific works pages created for each of the five duets. What do others think? —Carlos Email.gif 05:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My first instinct is to agree, however I'd probably need to know more about the work before making an informed opinion. The general rule of thumb for me is that works that are grouped together simply because they were written at the same time and have a similar structure and/or require similar forces should not be grouped together on the same page. Another helpful question may be "how likely is it the the individual movements/songs from the same opus will be performed together?" or "can they just as acceptably be performed separately?" I do note that each duet is only one page long so it seems more likely that they would not be performed separately. Anyway, as you can tell, without more information, I'm rather ambivalent. --Bobnotts talk 16:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, some of the reasons I saw for the split were the fact that the works have different lyricists, and also because other similar song cycles by this composer have separate pages for each song (as for instance "Vier Gesänge für vier Männerstimmen, Op. 17", "Winterreise", and "Fräulein vom See (Lady of the Lake) Op. 52"). —Carlos Email.gif 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The concensus on Vier ernste Gesänge (Johannes Brahms) seems to be toward consolidation (this is also the rational of the Messiah cleanup), and from my point of view as a user, a single page is easier here as well. The Austrian National Library Schubert Autograph site unfortunately does not include D199 & 202-205 but their composition in a single day is suggestive of Schubert's intentions, and one can find many cycles with more than one poet: I'm aware Schwanengesang wasnt arranged as such by Schubert himself, but wouldn't it have been a little inconvenient if Emily Ezust had split Ibert's Chansons de Don Quichotte or Debussy"s Trois Chansons de France? Richard Mix 01:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
On the talk at Vier ernste Gesänge I could see only Chuck's suggestion to consolidate song cycles in one single page, not exactly a consensus yet. I particularly have different views when it comes to oratorios and operas as opposed to song cycles. The former ones are conceptually indivisible and sequential, while the songs in a cycle are not necessarily so. Their sequence of execution are many times modified at the will of the performer. It also often happens that just one or two of the songs in a cycle become well known, and people googling for them will find them more easily if there is a page with that title (Google gives higher rates to page titles than it does to text inside a page). But this last point may possibly be corrected with the creation of redirects for each song title. —Carlos Email.gif 03:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood you then. I read Robert Urmann's comment as supporting "this page", ie the consolidated Vier ernste Gesänge. When you say "these pages" you seem to mean the subpages for individual songs instead, if I understand now. Will redirect pages do anything to improve our Google posture? Richard Mix 08:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Richard, in that discussion we were trying to define if pages for a cicle/opus (as this one) should be kept or not (which I referred to as 'these pages' - not the subpages! :) I agreed with Robert Urmann that a page like this one is worth keeping even if it's just an index for the individual songs, but that it should preferably contain also a "complete" edition with all songs in a single PDF (at the same time keeping the individual songs in their own pages). Chuck develops this idea even further, suggesting that cicle/opus pages should not only be kept, but also have all editions consolidated in them, eliminating subpages for individual songs. With respect to redirects, it seems that Google indexes them too, so it's worth creating redirects for songs/movements inside a main work, as it would increase the probability of someone finding them when searching. —Carlos Email.gif 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, if the motion on the floor is whether there should be subpages, I can't very well object just because I think I probably wont need them myself. "Split" made me nervous though, and I think they should include a pointer to Larger work: Fünf Duette (Franz Schubert). Richard Mix 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Carlos, and I have to point out some personal thoughts: The way I see CPDL work is bottom-up; that means, the smallest element to be submitted is a sheet of music. We are then collecting sheet music und categorize: assign it to composers, to genres, link it to larger works. By submitting sheet music it is assigned a unique ID—this shouldn’t be broken up. For the sake of convenient access to all entries in the CPDL catalogue each piece should have its own page. The lumper in me now says, let’s group pieces when they’ve already been compiled by the composer. This includes a dedicated page summarizing individual pieces/movements. In return, subpages should contain back links. Which came first: the chicken or the egg? We couldn’t split pieces if they wouldn’t contain self-consistent ones, and we couldn’t set up collections if there weren’t pieces to combine. So, I’d prefer to see a peaceful co-existence of individual and index pages. —Robert Urmann 21:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)