Talk:National Repertory Orchestra

Incorrect information about orchestra around 1978-80s

@Voceditenore: You wrote, "The orchestra hired its first business manager and placed an emphasis on stipends and scholarships which allowed the students twelve-hour days devoted to practicing, rehearsing and performing in concerts. They also began giving concerts which depended heavily on pops programming in open meadows, city streets, shopping centers and parks." What is your source for that information? It is incorrect. In 1978, 1979 and all the years since (I don't know about before that), the orchestra has been a totally paid for orchestra, i.e. full-scholarship plus room and board, and in some cases stipends. Indeed several of the players already had professional and when they were off in the summer they came to play in Colorado Phil. Your prose implies that orchestra members paid to be there. That is not the case. We were paid to be there. Furthermore, the concerts did not include any significant amount of pops concerts. Maybe one during the whole summer? We played concerts of major orchestral repertoire approximately every three to four days. So over the course of the eight weeks, there were probably 15 or 16 different programs of major orch repertoire. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 04:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. In my view it quite clearly states that before 1978, it was part of Charles's philosophy that all the students should work for their room and board, regardless of their ability to fund it themselves. After the restructuring in 1978 it was no longer the case and that all students received stipends and scholarships which allowed them to rehearse and play full time. Note that the pop programming referred to the extra concerts they started giving in parks, shopping centers, etc. I have made that clearer now. All of this is sourced from the Bakemeier article which is in turn sourced from the archives of the NRO, contemporary press articles etc. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

On a separate note, Cohler ("TheClarinetGuy"), please do not add "notable alumni" without a reference. It degrades the article. WP is not based on "personal knowledge". The fact that Elizabeth Pitcairn and Yolanda Kondonassis attended the CPO/NRO is mentioned nowhere in their WP articles. I eventually managed to find references for both. In future, I will remove all unreferenced additions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. But (1) in other lists of notable people associated with a page, I have not seen citations for each person used and while I understand your point that the linked pages don't mention NRO, I have seen that quite frequently on highly rated pages, and (2) I thought those individuals are mentioned in the same source paper you mentioned above? I know I found them in a thesis type paper on pre-professional training orchestra. I will be sure going forward to always either verify that the referenced page includes a mention, or to add an independent source. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding notable alumni without WP articles

@Voceditenore: Why do you say not to add alumni without a WP article? The section is for notable alumni. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the WP definition of notability much like your previous adamant misunderstanding of the usage of the {{Infobox musical artist}} template. If you read WP:GNG it says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Furthermore, WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Furthermore, WP:NEXIST "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." There are copious secondary sources all over the internet about the famous trumpeter Michael Sachs. So if you would like to add more secondary source citations for his name, be my guest, but please revert your edit immediately as it decreases the quality of the article. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 16:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is standard practice in such sections to list only people who currently have articles on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: According to whom? That is not what WP:LISTBIO says, which agrees exactly with what I have stated above. Over and over again we seem to be running into this problem that you believe that your opinion trumps what the clearly written WP written policies state. Shall I get the opinion of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music --TheClarinetGuy _talk 23:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)