Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National composer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the article, in its current form, is basically vitiated by original research. Perhaps an acceptable article could be written on this (or a closely related) topic, but there seems to be general agreement that the present article takes the wrong tack. Deor (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

National composer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE and seems to be basically WP:OR. This article has no references or citations- except for one, which claims to support the article text that the Nazis nominated some composers as 'national composers' - however the citation itself (to a website) does not mention the term 'national composers'. The concept 'national composers' does not appear in musical dictionaries (e.g. Groves) and I can find no definition of the concept in reliable sources. The selection of composers in the article seems to be pure WP:OR. The only pages which link in to the article are those associated with Jean Sibelius, and that is only because someone has included the article in the Sibelius template. Nothing in the Sibelius article justifies this, apart from an unreferenced claim in its lead that he is 'widely recognized as his country's national composer' - thus, a circular 'argument'. As examples of the WP:ORness of the article: Armenia is not in Eastern Europe; Jean Antoine Zinnen seems to have written the Luxemburgisch national anthem and nothing else; Turlough Carolan was a harpist and songwriter: Verdi and Albeniz 'may be regarded' as national composers....sez who?...... Smerus (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note that this is the nomination, not a separate !vote. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the above comment is utterly irrelevant - a nomination is, of course, an argument for deletion. 'Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.' (see WP:CLOSEAFD). I think we can trust the administrator who eventually closes this to know what s/he is doing.--Smerus (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep It is easy to find extensive sources on the subject such as Music Makes the Nation and Foundations of National Identity. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you read your sources before citing them in support. From the second book you mention: "That there are so-called national composers is a well-established fact of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Whether a single name can be picked up to represent a country is of course arguable." (p. 37). The first book seems to be a ramble by a non-notable author via a vanity publisher. Neither provides a definition of what a 'national composer' is. Thanks for providing evidence in support of the delete nomination.--Smerus (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I read exactly that sentence and consider that it supports my position quite strongly, "That there are so-called national composers is a well-established fact of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries". The phrase "well-established fact" seems so clear that I can't imagine what Smerus is thinking. The other source seems fine too being written by an academic. And there is no shortage of other sources. Here is a selection:

1. Ethnicity, Identity, and Music: The Musical Construction of Place – National anthems: the case of Chopin as a national composer
2. The national composer and the idea of Finnishness: Sibelius and the formation of Finnish musical style
3. 'National in Form, Socialist in Content': Musical Nation-Building in the Soviet Republics
4. National music and the folk-song
5. Camargo Guarnieri A Celebration of Brazil's Foremost National Composer
6. Grieg as a National Composer
7. The role of classical music in the construction of nationalism: an analysis of Danish consensus nationalism and the reception of Carl Nielsen
8. The Reception of Carl Nielsen as a Danish National Composer
9. The making of a national composer: Vaughan Williams, OUP and the BBC
10. Composer and Nation
11. Music and German National Identity
12. Keys to a Russian national composer: an introduction to Georgy Sviridov
13. The construct of national composer in the Czech musical historiography 1890–1920

Andrew D. (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I was probably thinking that the use of the epithet 'so-called' indicates that the writer was contemptuous of the term 'national composer' - and I guess many readers would agree with me. But perhaps you think 'so-called' is a term of endorsement?--Smerus (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. Seems like a personal essay. unref'd. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Music Makes the Nation has a lot about nationalism and composers but doesn't really support the article's thesis in any way. FYI. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• That book focusses on Wagner, Grieg and Smetana. It says, "Through the story of these three composers’ ideas and works, then, we will read the larger story of nationalist music, and indeed, of nation building itself." This seems consistent with the approach of the other sources. If the article does not represent these views perfectly then it should be improved. This is our editing policy, "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles.". Andrew D. (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, when Capitalismojo says "unref'd" this seems misleading as the draft in question contains currently 6 sources and a specific citation. And, as explained above, there are plenty more sources which might be used to develop the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment There is only one ref at the article and it hardly seems to support the essay. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nationalist music might well be an OK topic, but this article is called 'National composer'. The fact that some wombat published a book in 1907 called 'Grieg as a national composer' does not make 'national composer ' a notable topic. And articles or books about 'Musical Nation-Building', 'National music', 'Composer and Nation', etc. are clearly not relevant to the article title - they are about something else. Unless someone can supply a reliable secondary source defining exactly what a 'national composer' might be, the article fails.--Smerus (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• The author of that piece was Agnes Wergeland, a reasonably distinguished professor. Her view is echoed by numerous other sources which note that the Norwegian government recognised Grieg in this way and awarded him an annual pension. For more details see Nationalistic trends in 19th century Norwegian music. Andrew D. (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• As is clear form the WP article, Wergeland was a poet and political historian but not a musicologist or musical historian. Her main wirk is on topics such as 'Slavery in Germanic Society During the Middle Ages ' and 'History of the Working Classes in France'. The article you cite - or at least, what is avaialble of it to view, does not use the phrase 'nationalist composer' and is therefore irrelevant to this disucssion. Either give us authoritative, relevant, cited, definitions of the phrase 'national composer', or give up.--Smerus (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• The reference to musicology makes Smerus' POV clearer. It seems that there is a dogma or school of musicology which contends that music does not have meaning or significance. This school therefore does not like the idea that a composer might represent a particular national spirit in their work. Others take a different view – see new musicology. One can find discussion of these contending doctrines in works such as National Frontiers in Music. So, it is not that the concept does not exist but that Smerus does not agree with it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And it's a good POV since musicologists know the contexts in which musical nationalism appears. Nationalism is definitely a trend in the history of music; even though the article is barely passable, Musical nationalism is the appropriate place for such content. To assign the appellation "national composer" to individual composers is very misleading since it minimizes and deliberately misinterprets their musical career.

Delete. One should be wary of using sources from the early 20th century when nationalism was a rising phenomenon, later put in check by World War I. I'm in agreement with Smerus's points. - kosboot (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• It is easy to find works published in the 21st century which use the concept. For example, see The Cambridge Companion to Vaughan Williams – A national composer. Andrew D. (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

But that is not the same topic. A composer can express nationalistic tendencies, and many composers have. But that does not place them into a category of "national composer" even if a few have been designated as such. To me "national composer" implies a title. Titles of books are often designed more out of promotion than anything else; I doubt Vaughan Williams or any composer would want to be known as "national composer" because a number of them (e.g. Strauss, Orff) specifically denied such a term applying to them. - kosboot (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• It seems clear now that there are differing views on the matter. Wikipedia should not take sides or suppress these views. Our policy is to give them due weight and balance. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see different views. I see people misreading views and believing it to be another view. - kosboot (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Until somebody comes up with a kosher citation for the term 'national composer' there is only one view being expressed here, which a single editor is trying to drown in waffle.--Smerus (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as is. As is, it's just an WP:OR WP:ESSAY. Completely uncited. This is not to say that there are not composers who historically are considered most representative of their country, or most famous internationally and historically, or of whom any given country is most proud, and it might be nice to have an article which lists them and so forth, but such an article would have to be scrupulously cited, airtight, and bulletproof. As is, this is just coatracky WP:SYNTH and reminds me of that other nightmare and shifting-sand article, Music community. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.