Template talk:Composer
Dear admins, I hope you don't mind my tweaking this template, I found it necessary sometimes to put complementary text after composer name (like, say, (attributed)), but the template's line break would throw the extra text to next line. My aditions may be reverted if necessary. Perhaps it's a good idea to protect it too. -- CarlosTalk 16:03, 20 April 2008 (PDT)
Extending this template
Would it be possible to extend this template to allow for more than one composer? The following score pages need the extension: Bicinia, Sive Cantiones (4 chansons) (Andreas Pevernage and Cornelius Verdonck), Messe des pêcheurs de Villerville (André Messager and Gabriel Fauré). Thanks! --Bobnotts talk 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Composer vs Arranger
I'd like to discuss a bit the differences between these terms and the appropriateness of using this template for arrangers. If someone creates an arrangement of a traditional work, the default procedure has been to put "Traditional" as the composer name, and a link to the arranger page. If one creates an arrangement of another composer's work, the same happens: the work is categorized only in the Composer_compositions category, not in an Arranger_compositions category. If all a composer has done in his life were harmonizations and arrangements, should his name appear in the title of the works as composer or not? Is it really necessary (and useful) to have a category for someone's arrangements? In this case, wouldn't it be more convenient to call it Arranger_arrangements? Anyway, I'd say I feel a bit unconfortable using the Composer template for arrangers; perhaps it's just me, but I'd prefer an specific Arranger template. Sorry for all these questions, but I feel that this subject is not very clear for many people, not just me. CPDL would profit from creating rules to define when an arrangement is an arrangement and when it's an unique composition that deserves a page of its own. —Carlos 15:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
|
- You raised good points, Chuck. Some more examples for our consideration: Abel di Marco's works are almost exclusively arrangements of traditional melodies and harmonizations of Gregorian chants. Seeing his arrangements under your perspective (which coincides with mine), we may well consider them as compositions (and change their titles accordingly). As for his harmonizations, simple as the term may sound, but it involves a good deal of creativity to make a 4-voice work out of just 1 voice. If we consider that different people can harmonize a melody in different ways, achieving consequently different musical results, then we could also argue that a harmonization can also be considered a composition. Two more cases: Ave Maria (Jacob Arcadelt) is in fact based on a work by Arcadelt, but "composed" by Pierre-Louis Dietsch. He kept only the Soprano line from Arcadelt's work, modified the remaining two voices and added a Bass line. Ave Maria (Bach-Gounod) is the well known work by Bach to which Gounod added a Solo line. Should we consider these two cases arrangements too? I defend the view that everytime creative work is incorporated to a work, it becomes a "new" work, not just an arrangement. By "creative" I really mean a substantial change, not just exchanging notes between voices. More food for thought. :) —Carlos 00:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)