Talk:List of music theorists

What this page is

A project of the WikiProject Music theory, this is a place where music theorists are listed. The idea is that this page can serve as a quick reference for what articles need to be created or expanded under the project. The beginning sources for this page are the Williams/Balensuela Music Theory from Boethius to Zarlino, and the Damschroder/Williams Music Theory from Zarlino to Schenker. Any theorists subsequent to the early 20th century who meet the Wikipedia notability requirement can be added to this list. -- kosboot (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the primary purpose of this page is to be a list of pages that should be created, it probably should be moved to the project space. However, it seems to me that it is a potentially useful list that should stay as a true WP:LIST. I would imagine the inclusion criteria are people that are both

1. Notable and
2. Have at least one reliable source that refers to them as music theorists? VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is my thinking - that all of the people listed have been referred to as theorists, mainly because they have published (or written, for the pre-15th century people) a work on music theory. -- kosboot (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Even if a person is linked, particularly if they are a known composer, that doesn't necessarily mean that the theory aspect of their career is sufficiently covered in the article (e.g. Tchaikovsky). -- kosboot (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kosboot, Jerome Kohl, and IronGargoyle: per the five-year-old consensus above, we are limiting the scope of this list to subjects with their own article (as is the standard Wiki practice for stand alone articles, as discussed in the guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE). Consensus can of course change, but if you disagree with the talk page discussion then it should be discussed further, not edit warred. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think limiting the scope to entries with their own page is great, and I fully support that consensus. While independent and reliable sources which support notability would be the minimum, I think a higher standard is certainly fair here. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a bit misguided, especially in the case of Medieval theorists. It seems unlikely to me that a theorist as important as the anonymous author of the Musica enchiriadis is ever likely to have an article of his or her own, even if the treatise itself merits an article. The discipline of music theory recognises many authors as being of great importance, though we know nothing or nearly nothing at all of their biographies. Their notability can easily be established with ciotations to reliable sources. On the other hand, if you really want to force creation of such "biographical" articles, just to establish their notability, I can certainly oblige you. I have in hand the sources needed to establish notability for all the deleted names from the Medieval list, and a few dozen more that could be adedd. Just let me know which way you would like me to proceed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think what might be misguided is focusing (in the case of anonymous authors) on the author rather than the notable work or theory. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, and not only in the case of anonymous authors. There are any number of monumentally important theorists who are notable solely for their theoretical wrtitings. Why is focusing on these people rather than their theories any different, simply because we know their names? For that matter, why is Magister Lambert (to give but one example) not a notable theorist, simply because we know only his name, apart from his theoretical writing?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Among the recent criticisms of Wikipedia is exactly what has happened here - that people think redlinks or unlinked people should be deleted. They should not. It's so easy to think one has found a rule and to follow that rule, rather than thinking in a large manner or keeping up with recent thinking on what makes Wikipedia work and not work. Additionally deleting the list is destructive editing. I strongly advise you talk about such attempted editing before you actually perform it. - kosboot (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kosboot: actually, lists of people are specifically excluded from the "don't remove redlinks" guideline. We did talk about it, above. If you have changed your mind since 2011 that is understandable, but don't act like this simply came from nowhere when your claim is so plainly false. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that User:Justlettersandnumbers has saved me the trouble of inserting all those New Grove references, not only for the Medieval theorists, but the later ones as well. Thank you so much! (I think the anonymous names can also all be referenced, in case there are any left over.) User:Kosboot also has sharpened the discussion. Might I suggest that the productive way of proceeding in such cases is to use the "citation needed" tag first, rather than wholesale deletion of redlinks? That at least gives editors an opportunity to demonstrate the notability of names, while they are still visible, instead of having to consult earlier versions of the page to discover who has been removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(this apparently failed to save earlier, who knows why) The whole rule-following thing is borderline disruptive. WP:LISTPEOPLE is a guideline, not a rule; it provides useful advice which can safely be ignored when there's a reason to do so, as (obviously) is the case here, a list of people selected for their … notability. Every single named person in the list is clearly and demonstrably notable by Wikipedia standards; all but two (Ornithoparcus and Vanneo) have a biographical article in Grove, the principal work of music reference in the world. At the cost of a ridiculous expense of time, I've now (a) checked that and (b) added citations. However, I'm less than convinced that anonymous authors merit inclusion here – knowing a person's name is pretty much the basic requirement for starting a biography. So I've left those for someone else to cite if they can be bothered. It might be preferable to treat them in a group pretty much as Grove does here.

It's quite a shock to see how many really significant theorists we don't have an article on … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am shocked, as well. Regarding anonymous authors, I notice that Anonymous IV has got a "biographical" article, which provides slightly more biographical detail than the article on Jacobus of Liège. The question of including anonymous authors on this list (as opposed to writing "biographical" articles about them goes straight to the point of what this page is about. As User:VQuakr said (or as I infer him/her to have said), it is a question of whether this is a list of interesting historical personalities who happen also to be music theorists, or a list of the authors of the most important writings on music theory. I am assuming the latter, but perhaps I am misguided as the to consensus of editors here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for anyone to determine who are "the most important" except by one's personal choice of criteria, inadvisable for WP. As I see it, this is a list of people who wrote at least one work on music theory. As for all the anonymous people, it is not inconceivable that using current techniques of literary criticism that one could detect biographical details from their writing. But yes, I generally feel these anonymi should be eliminated....which then prompts the next question: for these "treatise only" authors, should there not be an additional List of anonymous works concerning music theory? - kosboot (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You surprise me at least slightly. Do I infer correctly that you are also advocating the deletion of the "biographical" article on Anonymous IV? I do agree that "most important" is a ridiculous proposition, just as trying to list symphonies or operas in order of importance would be. Wikipedia's standard has always been notability, full stop.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all -- personally I think the notability guideline is way too narrow. - kosboot (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

...which of course is not very relevant to our discussion here. Anonymous IV should probably be moved to Treatise of Anonymous IV (unless there is a better name for the work), as the person does fail WP:BASIC but the work is notable. VQuakr (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, this gets very interesting. Following the guideline WP:COMMONNAME, the usual term for the treatise is the same as for its author: Anonymous IV. As it happens, there are at least three other anonymous treatises referred to as "Anonymous 4" (sometimes also used instead of the Roman numeral for the fourth anonymous treatise in volume 1 of Coussemaker's Scriptorum de musica medii aevi), though when "Anonymous IV" (or 4) is used with no disambiguator, it cannot be confused with the fourth anonymous treatises in Coussemaker's volume 3, Gerbert's Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica, or Wolf's series of anonymous theory treatises. I would say the best thing is to leave well alone, but if we must get pedantic, the scholarly differentiation is usually made by citing Coussemaker, volume number, and then the anonymous moniker, e.g., "CoussemakerS i: Anon. 4" (or, in the case of Gerbert or Wolf, "Gerbert Anon. 4" or "Wolf Anon. 4"). However, none of these can really be considered a "popular" name in common circulation, as the designation "Anonymous IV"hasbecome.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if this was simple anyone could do it. WP:COMMONNAME is one of five naming criteria listed in that policy. Another one is WP:PRECISION, so if the other Anonymous 4/Anonymous IV works are notable some sort of disambiguator should be used (and if they are all roughly equally notable, Anonymous IV should be a disambiguation page to assist with navigation between them). VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, they are not all of equal notability. Neither are Mozart and Beethoven, of course, though which is the more notable may be a matter of some contention. Disambiguation is one reason that some writers follow Coussemaker in numbering the anonymi in volume 1 with Roman numerals, but recent lexicographical trends have eroded this useful method. The obvious disambiguator would have to be "Anonymous 4 (Coussemaker Scriptorum de musica medii aevi volume 1)", "Anonymous 4 (Coussemaker Scriptorum de musica medii aevi volume 3)", ""Anonymous 4 (Gerbert)", and so on. Of course, if we wish to distinguish between the author and the treatise, we could make the disambiguators a little more specific ...—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the current customary manner to identify anonymous manuscripts by their initial words?

You would have to ask a professional librarian, but many manuscripts with familiar names might not likely be recognised by their opening words, such as "Johannes Dei gracia rex Anglie". This is also true for some music-theory treatises, and of course there are some opening words (such as "De musica", "Tractatus de musica", etc.) that are fairly useless in identifying particular treatises. In the case under discussion, I doubt whether even many musical medieval specialists would recognize the opening words, "Cognita modulatione melorum".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Every list needs objective inclusion criteria; lists should not be indiscriminate. For the last ~6 years (since just after the creation of the article), the established consensus was to use bluelinks. Inclusion in Grove is another objective inclusion criterion, jut not one that had been discussed before. There seems to be way too much focus on changing the article right now rather than discussion of a possible change to the criteria. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's kind of what I was suggesting above, Kosboot, but I don't have any strong feeling either way: if the notability of various anonymi can easily be established then there's no burning reason for them not to stay in the list. Good list, by the way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Change to a timeline?

It seems to me that what this page really wants to be is Timeline of music theory. Timelines are more flexible than a list of people (here is an example with lots of unknown people but notable accomplishments), and since this list is chronological anyways converting would be pretty painless. In particular, it lets the list focus on the year of the work, and then provide whatever links are relevant and known (name of work, location, associated styles, author) without artificial or uninformative entries. It would also be amenable to brief description of each entry, which I think would be a big improvement both for the entries that currently provide no navigation links and those that link a whole lot of information (ie a FA-class article on a composer). VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Timeline of music theory is too broad. This list began as a list of people who wrote on music theory. The inclusion of anonymi makes broadens the scope from exclusively "person" to include "treatise." Ideally, it would be great to have a list of all the writings on music theory. Although possible, that would be an exhausting thing to create. - kosboot (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

*notable treatises, which is a finite and objective criterion. It may be that this article was intended originally to be a list of people, but if utterly non-notable "anonymous" authors are being included it is because of their work, not because we intend to have biographies on them. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Let us not forget that anonymi are people, too—we just don't know what their names happened to be. What difference does it make if we call someone Odo of Cluny, Pseudo-Aristotle, or Anonymous 3.24259? If their theories are regarded as important, then they are entitled to the same respect as any other human being. Or animal. Or tree. Or outcropping of stone. So long as their writing is significant.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to be a little more pragmatic. Is this list intended to provide Anonymous 3.14 with an entry for posterity, or to help a reader understand why their work was important and navigate to what Wikipedia has to say about it? An entry with no bluelinks does very little to assist with the latter, and an anonymous author probably fails WP:GNG even if their work does not. VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding Links

I've been working from the bottom and got up to Zaccaria Tevo (no page). All without links do not have a page. I corrected some spellings (fast typing, eh?) and added links that direct to the correct pages with some variants on the name. I will return to this later tonight. Devin.chaloux (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't type at all: I scanned the pages in the back of the book, then did OCR. But I plead guilty to not proofreading. -- kosboot (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah! But wait -- not so fast! When you link a name, you also have to 1) add a category on the article page (e.g. German music theorists) and 2) then have to add the banner on the talk page and hopefully assign a class (my guess most will be stub or start). -- kosboot (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: If you're starting at the end, the banner tag should include a |listas=lastname, firstname parameter so that the name will be alphabetized under the surname not forename. -- kosboot (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we classifying them by ethnicity? I'll go back through the ones I have done already once I get a clarification. Sorry about that. Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Second thing...are we classifying the "stubs" or "stars" in terms of music theory or just in general? Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the previous people classified them by nationality, so I figure why not maintain that. Personally I think that's not a great decision especially for pre-1600 theorists (who all wrote in one language), but it's already done. That's one of the reasons I felt strongly about this list's creation - that one should be able to see all theorists on one page. As far as stubs vs. starts, I've found that people tend to be offended when I gave a stub classification to an otherwise well-written article doesn't contain any mention of theoretical work (it's not so bad for the 19th-20th centuries, but you can imagine the reactions when you call an article on a saint a stub). So if the article is a reasonable size, I call it start. Only if it's really just a paragraph do I call it a stub. (I keep the assessment page handy to make sure: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_theory/Assessment.) -- 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is reason enough to continue doing it, for the reasons you've already stated. But in the meantime, I'll put them in. This can always be reverted. Devin.chaloux (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for these antiquity ones, unless there is any reason to denote a nationality to them, I'm going to wait. I think it becomes more clear in the Renaissance time period. Devin.chaloux (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For now, I'm just linking up the pages, that way we won't have to have too many browsers up when adding in the stubs. Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Adding all of the links to the page (for the ones that have pages). This should make it easier to go through and add the stubs/starts as needed.

Not quite... You forgot to provide links for the anonymous treatises. I added the one for Musica enchiriadis, and will go and see of the others have articles.

On another subject, a list as long this one should probably be divided by period (like kosboot did on the project talk page), as, in my opinion, it just looks better that way. Something like Antiquity (Is St. Augustine really the earliest theorist we can think of, though?), Middle Ages, Renaissance, 17th-18th Centuries, 19th Century, 20th Century-Present, perhaps? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You caught me. I skipped over maybe two of them because I was coming up with no luck, I figured it wouldn't apply to the rest. Anyway, this should make it easier to start adding the categories. I'll start tomorrow. I just finished a book and have some downtime before I feel like tackling Lewin's GMIT (eeks!) Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree I think it's important to have sections. --Kleinzach 02:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it seems Musica enchiriadis is the only anonymous treatise with an article, so  Done (for now). —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So now that all articles are linked, is there another method to identify which ones need banners/categories? Regarding chronological boundaries: I tried that, and I can't figure out a way to make it look neat, because there are many instances of overlapping. Is someone born in 1490 a 16th century person? what if 1489, 1487, etc. When I see a heading, I expect a clear delineation - and you can't have that with people's lifetimes. But if someone wants to do it - go ahead - I won't remove it. And I think there are a handful of other articles on anonymous treatises - I'll have to find them. -- kosboot (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's better to go by era for the earlier ones where exact birth/death dates may not be known, but I would say someone born in 1490 would be a 16th-century person (i.e., living most of their life in the 16th-century), and anything they wrote/published would almost certainly be (unless they were a real wunderkind). For earlier than '90, well, take Schenker or Schoenberg for examples: though born in 19th century, their theorectical works were all written and published in the 20th, so to me that would make them 20th-century theorists (and in the case of Schoenberg, I've never heard anyone object to calling him a 20th-century composer).

About to sign off now, but I'll give the section thing a try tomorrow, if no one else has by then. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 03:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done, although I have to admit it's somewhat arbitrary...How does it look now? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good, though it might be good to have even more sections. How about splitting the 17th and 18th centuries? --Kleinzach 01:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If a good place can be found, sure. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sortability

Have you considered using a sortable table? You then would not have to choose how to organize the people on the list, since they could be sorted by the reader by style, name, birth year, era, geography, etc. VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses! This page is only 2 days old! That's an option that can be considered when the list is a more developed. --Kleinzach 01:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! We're on it. Currently we've got bigger fish to fry, like getting these theorists all marked in our project. But I do like the idea! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has done a lot of work in a short time, a very nice job! I've been here about 10 minutes, but if it was wanted, I would be prepared to try to convert this to a series of sortable tables. If it were to be done, what columns would be needed? I started something similar at List of writers on horsemanship, a much smaller topic and very incomplete. The default sort order is date of first publication, and that I found to work well. Would Name, Dates, and Works be enough here?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the date field for many people is that it's very vague and inconsistent; some are known to be "flourishing" within a 10-year span; some are known only by death, etc. A think a table is merited when you have several fields, each one of which is potentially valuable. You don't have that here, so even though I applaud your enthusiasm, I don't see the point of doing it here. Better to create or expand an article or two. ;) -- kosboot (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Georg Muffat

The Wikipedia page lists his birth as 1653. This list has 1553. They agree on 1704 as a death date. I'm thinking that the Wikipedia page is right in this case, but do you mind checking User:kosboot in your source? Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That might have been my error, or a typo. Yeah, go with Wikipedia or (sometimes Wikipedia is wrong) the Library of Congress authorities file (authorities.loc.gov) or the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) http://viaf.org/. I've seen links to these in some Wikipedia articles, so I gather they will eventually be integrated into all biographies. -- kosboot (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed that when I put the headings in. I just noticed one even more impressive than Muffat living to be 140 years old: Johannes Kepler, who, according our list, was born in 1671, but died 41 years earlier (1630)! Certainly one for Ripley's Believe it Or Not. Since the article on him has his birth in 1571, I'm going to correct it to that and move him up to the top of the 17th century. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Selection criteria and referencing

The selection criteria and referencing of this kind of article can be controversial. On the one hand some editors may challenge the rationale of the list, and on the other there will inevitably be people who try to add a lot of obscure (and possibly unverifiable) names.

The List of major opera composers and List of important operas are good examples of fully referenced — though arguably 'over the top' — exclusive lists. For a more inclusive list — "of notable works that have articles on Wikipedia, or on another encyclopedia" — see the extensive, but less conventional, The opera corpus. --Kleinzach 02:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You've done such a good job with the opera material that it provides a good basis here. I'll start thinking of ways to phrase things in as airtight as possible way to avoid dissention. -- kosboot (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing we do have on our side is History of Music Theory texts. I believe this is where User:Kosboot got the initial list from. It starts getting tricky when we have to add theorists, of which there are many 20th-century theorists who are still missing in this list. I do however love that opera page, and The Opera Corpus is a really cool feature. Anyone challenging the rationale of this list however probably doesn't appreciate why this list is being created in the first place. Hopefully it would only take some convincing to get them on our side! Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Progress

I started from the bottom (though I did start at the top too before I realized I was running over User:kosboot. I've stopped before Georg Vogler. I plan to return to this later in the evening but I need a break! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just finished round 2 - need another break. Made it all the way up to, but not including John Wallis. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Since it appears we've met paths now! Awesome work everyone! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure - I'm heading forward chronologically, and I've completed Sweelinck. The division of the list into chronological headings is very nice! -- kosboot (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I met you last night. I did a lot of work! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note

Was looking through the WikiProject Watchlist and saw someone removed the category in John Wallis. Before putting it back in, I sent a message to the person who reverted it. Hopefully we will get that restored promptly. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

He didn't remove the banner - perhaps an oversight. -- kosboot (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert the category; I'll write something on the talk page. -- kosboot (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New 20th Century Theorists

I went through the Category: American music theorists and added a few. I added people's names I recognized. A few people in that category though are borderline not notable and probably should be considering deletion for them. I'll probably be adding more in the near future. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we not know birth years for Schachter and Cohn? I sorted your additions for chronology, but as there are no birth years for them either here or in the articles I put them at the bottom. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 03:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, just had to revise my new edition with yours! They're not on Wikipedia, but I'm sure Schacter's is in one of his books. For Cohn, I have no idea. Send him an email! He's important though, surprised at how lacking his page is. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that "Edit conflict" annoying? ;)

Unfortunately, we need a reliable, published source. Speaking of which, we now have theorists on the list whose names may not be included "in published books discussing the history of music theory"—at least not those cited under "Sources". Shouldn't the intro be reformulated to reflect this? Should "or notable enough to have a Wikipedia article" be added to the stated criteria for inclusion? Or something else? What are the inclusion criteria for more recent and contemporary theorists? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say their notability should at least involve a published book - although that then excludes someone like Ernst Oster. -- kosboot (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't leave Oster out. Yet, I see the dilemma. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 16:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Carl Schachter was born after 1930, so there's not many public sources (like the US Census) that can indicate his birth year. But on April 2, 2012 the 1940 census becomes available, so we'll see then. Richard Cohn is about my age, so he won't even show up in the 1950 census. -- kosboot (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We might just have to wait for a published source, like a bio in the back of a book. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 16:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Kofi Agawu - Ghanian music theorist, but I'm debating creating a new category. He's the only one of notoriety and probably will be for a long time. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Next steps

I'm glad this list has attracted attention and additional conributions. A number of editors have pointed out to me that just a list of names falls below Wikipedia's standards. So I think the next steps would be to turn this list into a table. The columns (or fields, if you think in database terms) could be name, dates, (nationality?), notable publications - and what else? I modeled this list on the Damschroder bibliography and he always includes a bibliography of "writings about" - although I suppose those could be the citations that the banner is complaining the article lacks. Additional thoughts? - kosboot (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have in mind something like this. Or perhaps there can be a separate column for works and for "known for." Let me know what can be done to enhance it.

Name	Date	Known for
Archytas	428–347 BC	naming the harmonic mean; may have been the first author to describe the Quadrivium
Aplypius	flourished 360	Introduction to Music (Εἰσαγωγὴ Μουσική)
Aristoxenus	born c. 375 BCE, flourished 335 BCE	Elementa harmonica
Archestratus	early 3rd century BCE	describing the pyknon
Ptolemais of Cyrene	probably 3rd century BCE	wrote concerning the proper roles of reason and sensory experience in the study of music
Eratosthenes	circa 276 BCE – circa 195/194 BCE	calculation of the tuning of the degrees of the tetrachords
Didymos	first century BCE	chromatic tetrachords
Cleonides	probably first century AD	Introduction to Harmonics (ἰσαγωγὴ ἁρμονική Eisagōgē harmonikē)
Ptolemy	circa 100 – circa 170	Harmonics
Augustine of Hippo	13 November 354 – 28 August 430	De musica (on music as a liberal art)
Martianus Capella	early 5th century	On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury (De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii)
Boethius	480–524 or 525	De institutione musica
Cassiodorus	485–580	Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum

Or perhaps this?

Name	Date	Major writing	Known for
Archytas	428–347 BC		naming the harmonic mean; may have been the first author to describe the Quadrivium
Aplypius	flourished 360	Introduction to Music (Εἰσαγωγὴ Μουσική)
Aristoxenus	born c. 375 BCE, flourished 335 BCE	Elementa harmonica
Archestratus	early 3rd century BCE		describing the pyknon
Ptolemais of Cyrene	probably 3rd century BCE		wrote concerning the proper roles of reason and sensory experience in the study of music
Eratosthenes	circa 276 BCE – circa 195/194 BCE		calculation of the tuning of the degrees of the tetrachords
Didymos	first century BCE		chromatic tetrachords
Cleonides	probably first century AD	Introduction to Harmonics (ἰσαγωγὴ ἁρμονική Eisagōgē harmonikē)
Ptolemy	circa 100 – circa 170	Harmonics
Augustine of Hippo	13 November 354 – 28 August 430	De musica
Martianus Capella	early 5th century	On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury (De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii)
Boethius	480–524 or 525	De institutione musica
Cassiodorus	485–580	Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum

Table format

I chose the 4 columns but removed most of the citations - making it a good opportunity to use Grove/Oxford and other reliable sources. - kosboot (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

William Sethares

I added William Sethares to the list of 21st Century music theorists.

• Sethares has had a Wikipedia bio since 2009, which introduces him as "a music theorist;" hence, he is already considered to be a "notable" music theorist.
• On Google Scholar, compared to Richard Cohn, who is already (quite deservedly!) on the list:

• Sethares' his most-cited single publication, "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale" has 730 citations, which is more than Cohn's most-cited single publication (464).
• Sethares' total number of citations across all publications (5621) is higher than Richard Cohn's (3311).

So, if Richard Cohn belongs on this list—which I heartily agree that he does!—then William Sethares does, too. I am not arguing for Cohn's removal, but rather for Sethares' non-removal.

Sethares is indisputably "known for" TTSS, given its high (for music theory) citation count.

Do you not have some connection to Sethares, JimPlamondon? If so, you are expected to disclose it whenever discussing him or his work, and to refrain from making any article-space edits relating to him. The preferred approach for COI editors is to make an edit request on the relevant talk-page(s), adding a {{request edit}} template if you like. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Conflict of Interest: I have co-written a number of academic papers with Sethares, many years ago, starting after the first edition of TTSS was published. I have cited TTSS in perhaps 7 papers -- fewer than 1% of its citations. Hence my providing hard evidence (e.g., Google Scholar citation counts) to support my claims of Sethares' notability.

The selection criteria and its rather unfortunate result

Right now, the selection criteria is "publication or (especially with pre-15th-century theorists) dissemination of written theoretical work by western musicians, and their inclusion in published books discussing the history of music theory."

Personally I have a hard time understanding what this cluster of words say, neither do I understand the inclusion of "western" there. Now, interestingly, pre-Renaissance composers are quite diverse, but somehow non-Western theorists are basically not featured after 1500? I'm not exactly sure if this is because of the criteria, but either way this is missing some pretty verifiable non-Western names.

My understanding of inclusion criteria for these things (in general) is that if RS can be found talking about someone's contribution to music theory, they should be included. I'm unsure as to why this article does not conform to that norm. Uness232 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcomed/encouraged to do something about it. - kosboot (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have time right now, but I may get around to doing that. The reason why I asked this right now is to get the previous consensus, in the "is there a reason for this?" fashion, not that this is a vital page that attracts a lot of viewers so that this would need an urgent fix. Thanks anyway though! Uness232 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well right now there are a couple of Arab theorists so the "criteria" isn't exactly being followed. That being said, I'm not sure there are "pre-15th-century Western music theorists" other than Arab and (some, but not many) Chinese and Persian figures. Aza24 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, to be fair. They might not be as well-studied in Western literature (unsurprisingly) and therefore many might not have English pages, but I'm pretty sure there are many more pre-15th century (I believe you meant non-Western) music theorists. I do not know much about Chinese music traditions, but of the Near and Middle East, I can think of Qutb-al Din, Hadji Büke, Maraghî, al-Ladiqi, Shirvani, Plousiadinos, Mehmet Agha and Behrâm who have at least one RS and are not featured in the article, although I am sure there are more. (I've realized later on that one or two of these might have died in the 15th century, but either way I think my point still stands). Furthermore, as this list includes many figures whose main focus was not on music theory, like Roger Bacon, it might actually be fair to include rulers of Middle Eastern countries who have written musical treatises.

However, that was not my main point at all, I think it's okay that more Western theorists are mentioned in English Wikipedia, as it is in a Western European language. However, what I am more uncomfortable with is the sheer absence of non-Western theorists after the 15th century, which I find perplexing. The 17th and 18th centuries are probably the golden age of Middle Eastern music, for example, and I see zero examples of Middle Eastern theorists from the 15th century onwards. Examples from this era (that I know of, so they are likely to be Ottoman or Byzantine) are much more plentiful: including Cantemir, Papadopoulos, Abdülbâkî, Chalatzoglou, Kyrillos, Yekta, Ali Ufkî, Itrî, Tanburî Moshe, Osman Effendi, ‘Isa, Kadri, Kiltzanidis, Çengi Yusuf, Seydi, Peloponnesios (almost forgot Kevserî) and more. Moreover, the Middle Eastern rulers argument still stands and is even more important in the 18th century. Uness232 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article goal that even suggests exclusion of non-Western music theorists. Those of you who think that way are getting upset because you're inventing your own straw man. Stop complaining and start editing. - kosboot (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion relies on publication or (especially with pre-15th-century theorists) dissemination of written theoretical work by western musicians, and their inclusion in published books discussing the history of music theory.

I'm pretty sure that this definition (although very unclear) is likely to exclude non-Western theorists.

However, I understand your frustration with my lack of action (although I do not appreciate the tone), so I will start editing by deleting the sentence mentioned above, and I will come back to this article when I have more time. Uness232 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a very fair response, considering I said "other than Arab". Regardless, I've added the three Byzantine theorists I know of and will try and add more in the future. Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the theorists that I have added are mostly not Arab: from the above examples, Qutb-al Din, Maraghî and Shirvani are Persian; Hadji Büke, Mehmet Agha and Behrâm are Turkic; al-Ladiqi is Arab and Plousiadinos is Greek. Despite this, I think I get your point, as until the Timurid Renaissance, art music in the Middle East was mostly from what would now be the Arab world, although I'm not sure if that is how you meant it. Either way, I think we should be more focused on expanding the article with theorists we do find rather than counting how many there are from each ethnic group. Thanks for your work on the article, Uness232 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I was grouping many groups together under the guise of "Arab", but I think we understand each other anyways. A couple of things: I'm working on the ancient music section in my sandbox as we speak, by the way. I had rewritten the Barbad article a few weeks ago; many theorists are mentioned in it, so I'll check if they have been included. Also, I removed Roger Bacon as he is not a "music theorist" in any sense of the word—I'm seriously considering removing Augustine as well. I know he has rather influential writings on music, but as I understand it, they might be more under the guise of musicology; in addition, it's telling that his Wikipedia article says virtually nothing on his music commentary. It seems awkward to call him a "music theorist". Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to be inclusive in here, and I would argue that, for people whose identity as a music theorist is debatable, exclusion might actually hurt our goal. I support the removal of Roger Bacon, though. Uness232 (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that user:Uness232 removed all the redlinked individuals. How are people supposed to know to identify and create articles on them? I think by now it's generally accepted that editors should NOT removed redlinked items because it indicates what needs to be done (see multiple issues of The Signpost). - kosboot (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

While I was not the one who removed the redlinks, and would have no problem with adding them back, I would like to say that not all of the redlinks were removed, just the unsourced ones. As there is no way to verify the works of such individuals, I can understand why @IronGargoyle removed them. Uness232 (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting?

I see someone created a list of medieval music theorists and I'm all in favor of altering the format to meet that list (which could be merged). But then I was thinking about sources. I agree there should be a separate column for sources, but might it be improved if one created more than one column? Namely, a columns for those listed in Grove, perhaps a column for those listed in MGG? The advantage for users would be an indication of coverage in both these sources (the leading sources for music information in English and German). Thoughts? - kosboot (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That was me who created that list! I would be against a merge, primarily because I would expect we don't want to list every niche medieval theorist in this general List of music theorists one. And in this sense, the scopes don't coincide, since "medieval music" generally means "Western European music" (see here) vs the global Post-classical section. In general though, I would prefer the format of the medieval list, mainly because I think there is something to be gained with the nationality columns, especially now that we have Greek and Chinese theorists in the same section. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24, you recently renamed the list of Medieval theorists as "Post-classical theorists," but this really begins to pose a major problem, e.g. compared to the Classical music article, in which you want classical music to begin ... precisely at the time of "post-classical" theorists. I can understand your concern of including non European theorists, a point that already was discussed about the Classical music article itself, without that we reached any constructive conclusion.

Music theory is today under attack, mainly in the US, because of a supposed European, or Western (and white) supremacism, and I suppose that the incertitude here on WP is an indirect result of these attacks. One should however not confuse the present-day situation of music theory and that of one or two millenia ago. This is not a problem that we can solve on WP, as it certainly would count as "original research". The fact remains, however, that the number of non-Western "post-classical" theorists remains quite restricted, and this cannot merely be considered the result of some modern Western supremacism – nor of the fact that we would miss the relevant information.

One might argue about what we call "music theory", and admit that some early non Western writers wrote about aspects of music that could be considered of the order of music theory. I do believe, however, that the whole idea of (1) writing (2) about theoretical matters (3) concerning "music" in Antiquity mainly is Western, or better said Greek. There is no supremacy involved in this, nor anything to be proud of, but the fact is that the Greek spent much more time discussing and writing about what they called the "musical system," which involved tunings and intonations. The fact is that "music," in Greek Antiquity, mainly meant the science of numeric ratios – a matter that may not have been of important concern in other cultures.

There is an obvious tension, for instance in Persian or Arabic music "theory" of about a millenium or more ago, between writers who dealt with systems as in the Greek tradition, and others more concerned with music properly speaking – for instance between al-Farabi and Zalzal (a tension that reminds of the one between Pythagorean and Aristoxenian Greeks of a few centuries earlier). But this, once again, obviously is too close to "original research" for WP.

The problem remains of calling "post-classical theory" a theory that belongs to the period that you yourself defined as "classical" – with the additional problem that defining music of the European Middle Ages as classical does not mean that the classical music of other cultures developed at the same time. One might speak of "post-Antique" theory, but for the fact that Western Antiquity may not be at the same time as that of other countries. I don't really know what to do, unless aknowledge (and say) that our chronology mainly is Western. I would not dare try to figure out what "post-classical" might mean, say, for Chinese, or Indians, or Persians... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a rather simple reason I renamed it that I assure you has nothing to do with the modern-day state of music theory. See Post-classical history, the term is a real historiographical categorization for world history studies. The term 'medieval music' almost exclusively refers to Western music during the middle ages (see [1]), that is, any book on 'medieval music' will basically only cover Western Europe (not expressing judgement on that) with some exceptions that I will not waste time explaining here. Therefore, in the context of music, having a 'medieval theorists' section would imply the need for only Western European theorists (which is what the List of medieval music theorists article that I made already does). If we want to include other theorists (which threads above seem to suggest that we do) we have to use a broader more global term like "Post-classical". This is all it is, most of this 'music theory is under attack' stuff you bring up is rather inapplicable. Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. But I don't believe anyone in the musicological world uses the term "post-classical" to mean anything other than "music after Beethoven." - kosboot (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, but then no one uses 'medieval music' to say Al-Kindi, so there's no ideal solution here. I also really don't think it's a big deal, and seriously doubt that any of our readers will care... :) Aza24 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes they do. As a compromise, I suggest we use centuries instead, something like 8-16th centuries, or even years: 700-1500. - 12:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Kosboot:; categorizing by centuries is a much better idea. I would like to take issue with what @Hucbald.SaintAmand: is saying here however; if the concept of writing about music theory is supposedly Greek (and this is markedly wrong, I would believe), then this does not explain why there would be more Western music theorists. Until the Age of Enlightenment, the Western (or, more appropriately, Latinate) world did not entertain the works of Greek authors nearly to the extent that Hellenic and Arabo-Persianate societies did. I do not think that music is an exception to this. Uness232 (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Changed, done, easy solution and no 'attack' on music theory. And no, I will never believe that readers care as much (or at all) about some random trivial section name as we (apparently) do. Like Uness, I take issue with Hucbald's characterizations above. I'm not really sure what they're going for and the only way I can really interpret it is needlessly bringing down non-Western cultures. Believe it or not Hucbald, it is quite possible for one to able to appreciate, respect and admire multiple cultures at once, including Western, Chinese, Persian, Arab etc. The idea that "non-Western "post-classical" theorists remains quite restricted" is complete nonsense, there are loads of Arab and Persian theorists, who (as Uness said) analyzed Greek works for more effectively than their European contemporaries. Indian and Chinese theory is just as old (in some cases, predates) Greek theory. This is all notwithstanding how little any of this has to do with the word 'post-classical'... Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Eric Sams

I agree that Eric Sams is not a theorist. In fact he's not even a musicologist. Here's the entire entry from Grove written by Stanley Sadie.

(b London, May 3, 1926; d London, Sept 13, 2004). English writer on music. He studied modern languages at Cambridge and entered the civil service, becoming a Principal Officer in the Department of Employment in 1953. His musical studies are based on his interest in the relationship between music and language, both in the text settings of the Romantic song composers and in the more general field of aesthetics and inquiry into the nature of musical expression. Much of his work in the field of the lied is concerned with a close analysis of analogues between verbal meaning and musical motif; in his studies of Schumann he carried this particularly far with his discovery of a cipher system used by the composer. Sams’s interest in musical cryptography also led him to a solution of Elgar’s ‘enigma’. In 1989 he wrote and presented a television film on music ciphers and their use by Brahms, Elgar, Schumann and others. A penetrating and well-informed reviewer with a witty and allusive style, he wrote for the New Statesman (1976–8), and in 1977 was visiting professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Sams was also a noted authority on Shakespeare and his texts.

- kosboot (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers is using evidence of his writings on Schumann; I don't think this has to do with music theory. Motivic identification (or "ciphers and music codes" as the Eric Sams WP article puts it) is a musicological line of study, if at all. This is similar, to say, scholars who identify and catalogue themes in Wagner's Ring. There is not music theory involved in this. Again, sources need to call him a "music theorist". If he was one, Grove would certainly call him that, and it is extremely telling that they do not. His work seems to be full of fruitful and valuable material, but not music theory. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning: if a source calls him a theorist, fine. Lacking that, he doesn't belong on this list. - kosboot (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed him. If we can't have this bare minimum of being called a "music theorist" (which is extremely practical), then this list will never work. Aza24 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Choice of Theorists

I have to question the choice of theorists on this page. Why is Philip Ewell here, when Wallace Berry, David Lewin Walter Piston, Saul Novack, Robert Morgan, and Leonard Meyer are missing. This list needs to be more inclusive or more exclusive. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, do you know... anything about Wikipedia? The answer to your needlessly bad faith and clearly provocative question is the same reason that half the entries don't have references, because no one has added them yet. Either do it yourself or stop complaining, and bringing Ewell out of nowhere into this says a lot about your inability to engage in productive conversation. David Lewin is included already, by the way. Aza24 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

When I put up something you just take it down. I prefer to be your critic. I repeat: this is a poor list. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't made any edits to this page. I told you the reason they're not there, if you have nothing productive to add, then don't add anything. No one wants to hear your whining. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't be working om an article unless you have the knowledge to do it right. A first-year graduate student would know that Wallace Berry, Walter Piston, Saul Novack, Robert Morgan, and Leonard Meyer belong on this list.

Concerning Ewell you state "Russian and twentieth century music, as well as rap and hip hop." Ewell has not done any notable publication in these areas. He shouldn't be on the list 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This list is for music theorists with Wikipedia articles or references that establish notability. Ewell has a Wikipedia article so he is on this list. This list is incomplete—how many times do you need to hear this??? You are wasting everyone's time with your repeated assertions built on nothing but your own ignorance. Go away. Aza24 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Piston, Meyer, and Novak have wWkipedia pages. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)