Page simply being used as an advertisment?
This page seems to be only used to promote the composer's commercial activities. Whether these are choral music or not, I don't think that we should be hosting this free ad. Then again, where do you draw the line? The recent discussion on Category talk:Composers seems to be moving towards having composer pages for those composers who have no works in the public domain such as Rutter so how should we make the distinction? -- Bobnotts 04:03, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- While I don't see the page at present as exactly useful, I don't find it overtly offensive either. As I read it, the information on the page is "if you want to purchase my music, you might be able to find it from these sources", and as such is more informative than promtional. In my view, this page is a stub, and needs an opus list in order to be deemed complete. I see legitimate benefit to having a page for a living composer, identifying which of his compositions are still available, and from whom. [Since I wrote, "More problematic is that the link to the composer's Geocities page no longer is active, and that the Wikipedia page to which there is a link is no longer available either.", I have discovered that while the link to Dr. Jordahl's page at Geocities is no longer active, I hae located another external link, and updated it.]
- But I would submit that this page demonstrates the need for a page which defines a set of policies and recommended practices on what exactly should be on a composer page. As far as commercial activities, the nose of this camel is already in the tent, with the choral training aids being offered for sale by a couple of contributors. The question of commercial enterprises, and what form and structure the interface to these from CPDL should be seems more particularly pertinent to the Resources page, and I propose that the dicussion of commercial activities be conduced on the associated talk page. Noel Stoutenburg 1311 GMT 21 February, 2007