Talk:Études-Tableaux, Op. 39

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Études-Tableaux, Op. 39 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Études-Tableaux, Op. 39 was copied or moved into Études-Tableaux, Op. 33 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Comment[edit]

tab·leau (tăb'lō', tă-blō') n., pl. tab·leaux or tab·leaus (tăb'lōz', tă-blōz'). A vivid or graphic description: The movie was a tableau of a soldier's life. A striking incidental scene, as of a picturesque group of people: “New public figures suddenly abound in the hitherto faceless totalitarian tableaux” (John McLaughlin). An interlude during a scene when all the performers on stage freeze in position and then resume action as before. A tableau vivant. [French, from Old French tablel, diminutive of table, surface prepared for painting. See table.]

Page merge[edit]

I don't like that the page was moved without discussion. I separated the pages because eventually, they must be two, and starting now makes navigation and redirects easier for everyone. ALTON .ıl 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Division[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to split the article. If it got split, there would probably be two short stubs. Now it's an article which even needs ampliation, so we'd better leave it this way. In case of being a matter of increasing the number of articles of the English wikipedia, there's no need to do so. English wikipedia should now concentrate on improving the quality of the hundreds of short stubs it has (more than on creating new articles, which is also useful, of course). Kadellar (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there wouldn't be a right link to the article's other languages, which don't divide 33 and 39. Kadellar (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there would be stubs, but two stubs together makes not an article. They are two distinct groups of works and deserve their own articles. They both need to be expanded, yes, but so do Piano Sonata No. 1 (Rachmaninoff) and Piano Sonata No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), and they shouldn't be put at Piano sonatas (Rachmaninoff). Completed 6 years apart and published 6 opus numbers apart, they are distinct woks in all but the name. Our preludes articles are also at different locations for these reasons (op. 23 and op. 32). ALTON .ıl 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally on the split. Opp. 33 and 39 are related in name and composer only; their styles are extraordinarily different and should be discussed in detail separately. Jonyungk (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would rather see a compare and contrast approach taken to the two sets, which do have a very strong connection in that the composer intended both sets of etudes to paint a scene, even if he didn't specify the scene to be evoked. Splitting the article would make such an approach, which I think would be very helpful, impossible.PhilipvanLidth (talk) 7:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about keeping this page the one that does a comparison and overview, while linking to the two other opus, which should have their own sovereign pages? ALTON .ıl 04:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion, but it seems there would be very little to be said about comparison and overview. Op 33 is more like the preludes in style, though they are technically more difficult. Op 39, on the other hand, inhabits a much more adventurous universe, compositionally speaking. Jonyungk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split declined. There is no clear consensus, and sources and publications discuss Opp. 33 and 39 as Études-Tableaux (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en-GB___GB379&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%C3%89tudes-Tableaux&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=), so it appropriate that we follow the sources - at least initially. If material is built up on one or other of Opp. 33 and 39 they can be split out at that point per WP:Summary style. If there is a new proposal to split the page, then a new tag with a new date should be placed on the page, and a rationale given on this talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People are still going on about this? I haven't seen an iota of contribution to the page since 2 years ago it was first brought up. ALTON .ıl 00:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Apart from the obvious problems with this article which I have just tagged (unreferenced and unencyclopaedic content close-paraphrased from this source, an unidentified essay that shows no sign of being a reliable source), there seems to be something well adrift with the references. There are four citations of a work by "Harrison", but the only source provided is a book by Geoffrey Norris. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List styling[edit]

A majority of this seems to be written in a list format, with a considerable amount of biased content with little reference. Should this section be reformatted and written in paragraphs? If so, should it be completely rewritten or simply edited to make the existing content more encyclopaedic?

dot >:3 talk! 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]