How to include the Library of Congress discography?
Hello Michael, thanks for the cleanup edits. My query is: how we might include this now-deleted bit:
This page strikes me as very professional and far more complete than anything we might hope to do here. Can you suggest a way to put it back in?
Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- That web page indeed very useful; it is cited 6 times throughout the article under the title
- "Charles Rosen", biography, discography, Performing Arts Encyclopedia, Library of Congress (currently as #5)
- It is normal practice in Wikipedia articles that sources used in citations are not repeated in the external links section, so I'm not quite sure whether and how that page ought to be mentioned again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Ref 14 is gobbledy
Has anyone got an upated link? If not, it should be removed. Tony (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks for raising this. The live page on manager's site is indeed frazzled, so I've updated to clean archive.org version. Same page was ref'd elsewhere in article without even a link, so updated there, as well. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussing reversion
Hello, I don't mean to be mean or aggressive or anything like that, but really, I just could not see any improvements in the most recent edit and I just went ahead and reverted it.
- Warring back and forth about date formats seems really unhelpful. I've gotten used to day month year (which for at least a while was the obligatory WP standard) even though I'm American, and I'm happy to keep using it. Let's just let things lie, ok?
- Many, many readers, particularly outside America, will not know what "wonky" means and we really should be helping them out.
- Contrariwise, the person who knows not where New York City is is a very rare bird. It patronizes readers to tell them it is in the USA.
Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you, in the main. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It has been 53 days since the outbreak of the latest dispute over date formats.
Books and other writings
There is a subheading of that name. But shouldn't notable works be described in the body of the text? And the bibliography provides that anyway, no? Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well, there are little sentences explaining the significance and content of each book. These would not be included in a normal bibliography. Also, I feel that this section is in the body of the text -- I don't really understand what problem you are getting at. I hope this is helpful. Opus33 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well, it seems redundant to have a section "Books and other writings" when there's a bibliography. And the significance and content of each book are described in the body of the text. The section seems superfluous. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, with respect, I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying. Look, here is the relevant passage:
--
- The Classical Style (1971), his most famous work, which analyzes the nature and evolution of the style of the Classical period as it was developed by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Rosen revised the work in 1997, leaving most of the text intact but adding a second chapter on Beethoven and a preface addressing comments on the first edition.
- Sonata Forms (1980), which is in some ways a follow-up to The Classical Style, is an intensive analysis of the primary musical form used in the classical era. Rosen wrote the work when his intended contribution to the New Grove on sonata form was rejected by the editors; he enlarged the article he had written into book form.
- The Romantic Generation (1995), which is centered on the early generation of Romantic composers, including Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Berlioz.
- Beethoven's Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion (2001), which gives general background on these famous works as well as sonata-by-sonata advice for performers.
- Critical Entertainments: Music Old and New (2001), a compilation of essays originally published in magazines and scholarly journals, mostly The New York Review of Books. It covers a variety of topics, including Oliver Strunk; the work of various composers; the status of contemporary music, and the "New Musicology".
- Piano Notes: The World of the Pianist (2002), an account of the concert pianist's world, addressed to the general reader. It covers piano technique, the instrument itself, the culture of piano performance, and the repertoire for the instrument.
--
- Maybe you could paste in the words from elsewhere in the article that you think cover the material in this passage? That might help clarify. Personally, I feel there is no redundancy. Opus33 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- There is a section that lists titles. These are listed in the bibliography and are described in the article. The section seems superfluous. But I repeat myself. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- You could merge the descriptions with the bibliography to make an annotated bibliography. (In fact, I would.) But having two lists of the same books is superfluous. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. One section is for commentary, the other provides the standard bibliographic information. The distinction should be clear.
- Um, is this really a productive way for you to spend your Wikipedia editing time? Perhaps you could find a Rosen book not yet covered, read it, and edit on that basis. I would see this as much more useful than your current efforts. Opus33 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe you could paste in the words from elsewhere in the article that you think cover the material in this passage? That might help clarify. Personally, I feel there is no redundancy. Opus33 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)