Talk:List of variations on a theme by another composer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Variations on a theme by an unknown composer[edit]

Should we include works varying a theme of unknown or disputed authorship? (Example: Beethoven's variations on "God Save the King", WoO 78). We could list them under "Anonymous" and/or add the fact that the composer is disputed to the entry. They are themes by another composer — it just isn't clear what that composer's name was. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this. I don't think it could cause any harm. --Toccata quarta (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No harm at all. But it's a big field. All those "Variations on National Airs" etc. Do we let any folk song in, or is it to be restricted to works we're reasonably sure a discrete composer wrote? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 11:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there should be a separate article for variations on national airs/anthems. And maybe one for variations on folk-songs.--Smerus (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't think 'Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji: Sequentia cyclica super "Dies irae" ex Missa pro defunctis' can quite count as variations on a theme.--Smerus (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because? Have you heard the work or studied its score? --Toccata quarta (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - the issue is not what I have or have not heard or seen, but whether the nature of this work as 'variations on a theme' can be documented or referenced. The Sorabji archive describes it simply by its title. A 'cyclic sequence' is not identical with a 'set of variations'. If it is not called 'theme and variations' and is without verification, it shouldn't be in the list. In the meantime I will talk to my friend Jonathan Powell, who is I believe the only person ever to have performed the work; but even his opinion would count as WP:OR. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source. --Toccata quarta (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be cited.--Smerus (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Toccata quarta (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just got hold of Jonathan who is presently halfway up a mountain in Poland and he confirms that it is indeed a set of variations.--Smerus (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, just a couple of things: First, when I went to see how this was handled, I found that the "composer" on whose work Sorabji's variations were based is named as Thomas of Celano. While there is a cautionary note that this attribution for the Dies Irae is disputed, the implication was left that this attribution refers to the music. It does not. Thomas was a writer, not a musician, and the melody of the Dies Irae Sequence was adapted from the section "Dies illa, dies irae" from the Gregorian responsory Libera me, in existence for centuries before Thomas lived (see John Caldwell and Malcom Boyd's article "Dies irae" in the New Grove, second edition). Second, even if he were the composer, Thomas's name begins with T, and so should not be alphabetized under C (Celano was his place of birth, not a surname). I have not bothered to move it, since the issue of including anonymous musical compositions needs first to be discussed. The present lede to this list includes the statement "Variations written on composers' own or original themes, or on folk, traditional or anonymous melodies are not included in this list". Is there a proposal to change this restriction? If so, there will undoubtedly be hundreds, if not thousands more titles added. If not, then should not Sorabji's two sets of variations be removed?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really thought I had checked the intro, even performed a search for the word "anonymous". Evidently, it was my imagination (or extremely poor reading and typing skills). The argument that this list would then probably also have to include many folk tunes and experience a huge increase of items has turned my opinion against my own suggestion. I guess disputed attributions could remain, but maybe even those should be removed if a majority of contemporary scholars agree that the attribution is likely spurious.
(As a side note: Could that sentence perhaps be topicalized differently? Something like "Not included are ...", only more elegant :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your intention to emphasize the non-inclusion, rather than the things not included? I suppose that would be a valid reason, though I suspect elegance may be harder to achieve with the passive voice than with the current, active formulation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More about noticing the negative than about emphasis. I suspect I somehow missed the "not" when reading it the first time. Moving it closer to the beginning wouldn't allow for that to happen. The passive voice is already there though ("are not included "). It's no big deal. Obviously other readers had no problem parsing that sentence as negative. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{blushes guiltily) I wrote that sentence when I created the article, but when I responded positively above, I had completely forgotten I had included that restriction. Having refreshed my so-called memory, I also stand by the intent of the restriction, if not necessarily its exact formulation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make my own position clear, I see no lack of clarity with the present (original) formulation of the restriction. If others feel it is desirable to make it more emphatic, however, I have no objection. As for the passive voice, I believed for more than fifty years that I understood the concept perfectly. Reading the current Wikipedia article on the subject, I must now humbly submit that I have no idea at all what it is. (Another candidate for improvement of an article for the benefit of non-academics, I think.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the proposed solution? To create a "List of Variations on a Theme by an unknown composer" page, or to simply change the introduction to this article? Unsuitability and lack of notability are not synonyms. --Toccata quarta (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and tried to phrase a less clumsy topicalization than what I suggested above. diff Even managed to change the voice. Please revert immediately if you think it's worse or if you see no consensus to exclude variations on anonymous themes, folk tunes, etc on this page. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this helps the problem immediately above, but I resubmit for consideration my proposal that 'there should be a separate article for variations on national airs/anthems. And maybe one for variations on folk-songs'. (Then maybe a 'list of variations that don't occur in any other Wikipedia lists of variations'). --Smerus (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem that inhibits the morphing of this list into "List of variations on a theme" or "List of variation sets" is the fact that the articles Musical quotation and Composer tributes (classical music) partly rely on it. --Toccata quarta (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be a barrier to changing this list in any way we might agree on. (Besides, I created both those other articles and I grant my imprimatur to do with them as you will.  :) But I fully support Smerus's resubmitted proposal that any variations on anonymous etc themes should NOT be included here but should be the subject of a separate article. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's establish consensus:
  • List of variations on an anonymous theme
  • List of variations on a theme of unknown origin
There may be something more elegant than this (I prefer the first option, for what it may or may not be worth). --Toccata quarta (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's not the themes that are anonymous, but their authors. Hence I would go for something like List of variations on a folk melody. And I would also argue for the establishment of List of variations on a national anthem. And maybe even List of variations on a self-composed theme. By the time you take out these categories, the list of 'variations on a theme by anon' are I think quite few, and could be contained under 'Anon' in the present article - even more so if you have two additional categories for variations on Dies irae and on La Follia.--Smerus (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of promoting list-o-mania (sorry, couldn't resist), what about variations on an unknown or uncertain theme (as Elgar's Enigma Variations), or variations without a theme (as Webern's Variations, op. 27, Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra, or Stravinsky's Variations (Aldous Huxley in memoriam)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm missing some clever joke, but just what makes the Webern piece athematic, particularly considering that the article on it states, "All three movements of the work are 12-tone pieces based on the following row"? --Toccata quarta (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No clever joke. What makes Webern's Variations athematic is that they are not thematically based. What makes them variations without a theme is that there is no theme to be varied. Twelve-tone rows are not themes, though it is possible to form themes from twelve-tone rows, just as it is possible to form a theme from the D-major scale, or from the Lydian mode.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but does that not contradict the passage from the article quoted by me? --Toccata quarta (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing something here. "The work is in three movements". Unusual for variation form, but I don't think that can be what you are referring to. "These movements are 12-tone pieces". That seems entirely consistent with what I said. "These pieces are based on the following row". Yes, well, since they are 12-tone pieces, they would have to be based on some row, by definition though, as I said, a tone row is not a theme. Where is the contradiction?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Theme (music) offers the following definition of a musical theme: "In music, a theme is the material, usually a recognizable melody, upon which part or all of a composition is based." The Webern Op. 27 article says, ""All three movements of the work are 12-tone pieces based on the following row". Where's the non-thematic basis? I've never heard Webern's mature work get described as athematic. (Emphasis is always mine.) --Toccata quarta (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to that definition (not a very good one, in my opinion), yes, any material at all may be regarded as a "theme". In that sense, Cristóbal Halffter's Variaciones sobre la resonancia de un grito, for 11 instruments, tape, and live electronics (1976–77) has a "theme", which is the reverberation of a scream recorded on tape. Not a very conventional theme, though, I think you will have to admit. By this definition also, a tone row could be construed as a "theme" but it has no audible form, since it must first be provided with rhythms and contours before it can be sounded. New Grove is a little more restrictive: "usually having a recognizable melody and sometimes perceivable as a complete musical expression in itself", and I am inclined to follow this definition, which also differentiates "theme" from "motif", which is "shorter and more elemental". It is plausible to regard the Webern Variations as being motif-based, without going so far as to describe them as "thematic". Indeed, Elaine Sisman, in her New Grove article on "Variations" describes the last movement of Webern's op. 27: "Here the nature of the form is increasingly abstract, with no identifiable theme beyond the level of the motif". As it happens, Webern's mature work is routinely described as athematic, for example by Schoenberg in his 1949 essay "My Evolution" (Style and Idea, UCal Press, 1975, p. 88): "In fact, I myself and my pupils Anton von Webern and Alban Berg, and even Alois Hába believed that now music could renounce motivic features and remain coherent and comprehensible nevertheless". A quick search of RILM turns up a 1985 article entirely devoted to "The Meaning of Athematism in Webern's Music", with an abstract reading in part: "Athematism from the first atonal works of the Second Viennese school … through Webern's last 12-tone works, from op. 27, is the logical consequence of the abolition of tonality. Theme has no meaning except through its tonality. … Webern was the one who used the row as an abstract constructive principle (with athematic elaboration), in opposition to Schoenberg, in whose works row coincided with theme". The article, by Giōrgo Zervos, is in Greek, however (the original title is "Το νόημα του αθεματισμού στον Webern"), published in Mousikologia: Periodikī ekdosī mousikīs theōrias kai praxīs 1, no. 1:68–76. For a recent English-language example, I can cite John-Philipp Gather's 2003 dissertation, "The Origins of Synthetic Timbre Serialism and the Parisian Confluence, 1949–1952" (SUNY Buffalo), chapter 1, section 2: "Leibowitz and the Athematic Music of Webern" (pp. 37–61). Gather names in particular Webern's opp. 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, and 27, and amongst other things quotes Leibowitz (Schoenberg and His School, trans. Dika Newlin, 1949, pp. 210–11) on the works following the String Trio of 1927: "The very appearance of these scores is disconcerting. … There seems to be no melody, no harmony; as for the rhythm, it appears incomprehensible. The instrumental style, too, proves problematic, reduced as it is to the emission of isolated tones …". Well, obviously everything turns on how you define "theme", but I think you see what I am talking about.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation; and yes, it comes down to what one means by "theme" and "motif", and I happen to hold the more "progressive" view of them.--Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. As you align yourself with the "progressives" (by which I suppose you mean that you are prepared to accept Halffter's primal scream as a "theme"), you may wish to consider the closing paragraph of William Drabkin's New Grove article "Theme", to which I referred above: "In much contemporary music it is difficult to draw a line between what is proposed (i.e. the theme) and what is worked out from the proposal. Writers have increasingly turned away from using ‘theme’ in any but a formal sense, for example to show the first and second ‘themes’ of a work clearly modelled on the sonata form of the Classical and Romantic period. Thus the theme of, say, a 12-note instrumental composition by Schoenberg might well be viewed conceptually as the 12-note set on which it is based; in a descriptive analysis of the work, however, the ‘first theme’ might be indicated by its opening bars."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The can of worms continues to spew forth its contents. What about different themes in the same set of variations? I'm thinking here of Symphonic Studies (Schumann). Most of the variations are on the theme outlined at the start, but the final study is thematically unrelated to it, but based on something entirely else. Also, Tchaikovsky's Suite No. 3 in G - same deal, with the final "variation" not being based on the themes the other variations are based on. There must be others. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these could be catered for by List of variations on theme and variations form.--Smerus (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Indeed we have barely scratched the surface. What about the problematic case of treating chaconne and passacaglia as variation forms? When there is a basso ostinato or harmonic ostinato, it can be regarded as "the theme", but there are many examples that combine chaconne and passacaglia into one and the same movement, and many others in which there is no discernable ostinato at all. An especially problematic example is Carl Neilsen's Chaconne, op. 32. Then there is Stockhausen's electronic Studie II, which the composer described as "Reihenvariationen über ein Tongemisch" (serial variations on a tone mixture)—a perfectly accurate description if you understand how it is composed, but very difficult to reconcile with conventional ideas of variation form.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not simply create a page called List of musical works with misleading titles? Sorabji's 2(+)-hour Symphonia brevis and Opusculum clavisymphonicum vel claviorchestrale should both make it. --Toccata quarta (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That ought to stir up some of the most heated editorial debates in the history of Wikipedia, over the difference between titles that are misleading vs titles with humorous intent. It is a well-known fact that, for Wikipedia editors, humour is no laughing matter ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I should fit right in here, then. I like living on the edge, making history as I go. I was once informed by another editor that I had penned "one of the most horribly written statements in Wikipedia history". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! If that claim is accurate, you have really accomplished something special! Wikipedia is nothing if not a proving ground for horribly written statements!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Of course it was never accurate, but it's such fun to be told these things by one's betters. And I can dream, can't I?  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what makes Stockhausen's approach to variation form in the aforementioned work unconventional? Toccata quarta (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet[edit]

Why is this in WikiProject Dance? --Toccata quarta (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the multiple dance categories were automatically generated when User:Robertgreer added the Ballet Project banner on 8 February 2011‎. You might well wonder why that project banner was added, but I suspect it is because there are six items in the list that include the word "ballet".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should somebody therefore just be bold and remove it, or does that require consensus and/or a request at the dance projects and/or here? --Toccata quarta (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no evidence for the claim on the banner that the article is 'supported by WikiProject Ballet' I have been bold - or foolhardy.--Smerus (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Here's a really lame question: is the title of this list capitalised correctly? Here's evidence that it's not:

--Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, you are completely wrong. This is not a lame question at all. Whatever possessed you to think that it was?!! You are not merely correct about the capitalisation, but you are blindingly, obviously, overwhelmingly correct about it. The really lame question is: why didn't I notice this myself? Pending any objections from other editors, I recommend changing the title capitalisation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Toccata quarta (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red-link composers[edit]

I suggest that where a composer of variations is redlinked/unlinked a citation should be given, or the entry removed. Apart from notability issues, there is the simple issue of verification as to whether these people/works exist. --Smerus (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing is clearly the way to go, otherwise this list could include ... me, you know.—Toccata quarta (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. Next week when some new articles get written, some of them might have become blue links had they still been here to be bluelinked, but as they'll now be gone, we'll have virtually permanently lost those entries. I'd much prefer we find citations, and remove only the currently uncitable ones. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 10:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with this. If on looking anything up I can't find a citation, I will delete.--Smerus (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy March (Weber)[edit]

I quote the article: 'Felix Mendelssohn and Ignaz Moscheles: Fantasy and Variations on the "Gypsy March" from La Preziosa (two pianos and orchestra; 1833; Moscheles later made an arrangement for two pianos alone, an arrangement that Mendelssohn barely recognised. Despite this, the work was often attributed to Mendelssohn alone.' Out of curioisty, I should be interested to learn the authority (if any) for this; I have seen the manuscript of the two piano version (it's now in the Conservatoire at St.Petersburg) which is in the handwriting, and has the comments, of both Moscheles and Mendelssohn. Cheers, --Smerus (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of variations on a theme by another composer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of variations on a theme by another composer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia by Vaughan Williams and Tippett[edit]

The list includes Vaughan Williams Tallis Fantasia but not Tippett's Corelli Fantasia. While the Tippett work is not as famous as the VW it is a lot more famous than most of the works listed. Both are fantasias rather than sets of variations, are for double string orchestra and string soloists. It makes no sense to include the VW but not the Tippett.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_variations_on_a_theme_by_another_composer&oldid=1213514536"