Talk:Introduction and Allegro (Ravel)

Introduction and Allegro
Introduction and Allegro
Septet by Maurice Ravel
	Maurice Ravel in 1910
Native name	Introduction et allegro pour harpe, flûte, clarinette et quatuor
Key	G-flat major
Catalogue	M. 46
Composed	1905
Dedication	Albert Blondel
Performed	22 February 1907
Scoring	harp; flute; clarinet; string quartet;

A fact from Introduction and Allegro (Ravel) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that on a commission of the Érard company to show off the expressive range of its double-action pedal harp, Maurice Ravel composed Introduction and Allegro for harp, flute, clarinet and string quartet?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/March.

Wikipedia

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
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 12 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kswaim00 (article contribs).

Melos recordings

The Melos Ensemble recorded the Introduction and Allegro twice, first for Decca in 1961, then later for EMI in 1967. I've tried to make this clearer in the "Recordings" section. I suspect the personnel listed are those in the later recording, but I can't find any listings online to confirm this. The Gramophone archive used to be useful for this kind of thing before it went behind a paywall. --Deskford (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi all, I'm Kswaim00 and I will be revising this article as part of my class on chamber music literature this spring. I will be slightly expanding on each section and adding more of an analysis to the page. I look forward to editing this page with you all! Kswaim00 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Maurice Ravel & Lily Laskine 1935.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

In preparation of Ravel's 150 birthday, I gave this article - which I co-wrote when it went to DYK more than a decade ago - an infobox, copied from other Ravel compositions, compare Gaspard de la nuit. It was removed as "clutter". I don't agree: Seeing how the composer looked around composition time seems helpful to me. The catalogue number, the key and the dedicatee seem helpful at a glance, and not in the lead where they would be clutter. The repetition of the facts from the lead in a predictable format is helpful for readers who just need facts and don't want to search. What do others think? Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I co-wrote" is pretty rich. You have contributed 1.7% of the article. Someone else, ahem, has written 86.7%. Not that these statistics are relevant to whether to clutter the page or not, but a little honesty here would be welcome. Tim riley talk 10:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Kindly look at the clause "when it went to DYK", 2011 that was. Thank you for expanding. Kindly look at arguments of accesibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line is accessible to all. - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have the key, the catalogue number, the dedicatee, and if we'd add them to it, it would no longer be concise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't have factoid trivia? Excellent. So much the better for the opening para. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that the key of a composition is trivia? - I come from articles such as Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart), Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven) and The Oceanides (not talking about Bach cantata FAs). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the key, but the rest. And the way to deal with that is to add the key into the opening line, not forcing in a box for it. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Tim: this is about IB's... honesty is never needed! The important bits about the piece are in the opening paragraph (and mostly opening line), so repeating them and stuffing in factoid trivia seems a backward step in article development. About the only thing I would take from the IB to add to the article is the image, but that doesn't really need a whole IB as an excuse to add. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would add the key to the opening sentence of the article, and add the image, but factoids such as the dedicatee and catalogue number don't need to be in the opening sentence, and creating an infobox for them would be repetitive and not helpful. Indeed, it is misleading in setting forth the original instrumentation but failing to explain that the harp is the key instrument in the piece, whereas the Intro clearly explains and contextualizes this. Incidentally, why is "Flute" capitalized, but the other instruments not? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fixed flute, my bad - happy birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]