Talk:Der Rosenkavalier discography

Der Rosenkavalier with Carlos Kleiber in AUDIO CD: Strauss , Richard : Der Rosenkavalier - complete Munich , Nationaltheater 13 July , 1973 ; Live Recordings Bavarian State Orchestra & Chorus Marschallin : Claire Watson Baron Ochs : Karl Ridderbusch Octavian : Brigitte Fassbaender Faninal : Benno Kusche Sopie : Lucia Popp Orfeo ; C 581 083 D(3CDs) (2008) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvitchev (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding recordings only available via streaming

@DJRafe: What is the rationale for excluding certain recordings just because they are only available in streaming versions? Robert.Allen (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963) defines a discography as "a descriptive compilation of phonograph records by groups"; Random House Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1991), has "a selective or complete list of phonograph recordings, typically of one composer, performer, or conductor". However, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2006), has "a comprehensive list of the recordings made by a particular performer or of a particular composer's works"; New Oxford American Dictionary, Third Edition (2010), has "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings, particularly those of a performer or composer". It appears definitions have changed over time from a list of phonograph records (i.e., discs) to simply a list of recordings. Since recordings are not tied to a particular physical format (such as tape, discs, hard drives, solid state drives, etc. and are transferrable from one format to another), the definition no longer specifies the physical format. Wikiproject Opera guidance on recordings to exclude (Article guidelines#Recordings) is only concerned with copyright issues. Presumably the streamed recordings provided over the web by services like Medici.tv, Carnegie Hall+, Met Opera on Demand, Paris Opera Play, Royal Ballet and Opera Stream, or Glyndebourne Encore, do not have copyright issues. As time passes, it seems likely that more of these streamed recordings will never be issued on disc, or even in downloadable formats. That does not mean we should omit them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert.Allen: IMHO, the reason for excluding recordings available in streaming versions is that such recordings (e.g. Metropolitan Opera, Glyndebourne) is that such versions are only available from the parent production source, and so cannot be acquired independently from said parent production source. Moreover, streaming versions of concerts or operas are not independent commercial products with UPC's or other codes that are a physical product that one can hold in one's hand. Perhaps that reflects an older mindset about physical product versus virtual product, in the age of audio and video streaming.

The same principle applies to books and to films with articles on wikipedia, where it is acceptable to put in the External Links section a link to the publisher's page about a given book or the film studio's home page about a given film, but it is not acceptable to cite the publisher's own page on said book or the film studio's page on said movie as a Reference citation in the wikipedia article, because of the inherent conflict of interest and commercial purpose in the primary page dedicated to said product. With that in mind, and going back to streaming opera, to put the link to a Video-on-Demand page for a specific video within the main body of the article is not acceptable, again IMHO, because such 'References' are invariably direct advertisements for the product.

However, in the spirit of something akin to compromise, I would modestly suggest migrating such Video-on-Demand links into the External Links section of the article, as that will make clear that such links are directly links to commercial products for purchase. I will watch for further discussion. Thanks for reading, DJRafe (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DJRafe: Thank you for your response. I was looking for relevant policy and found this: WP:REFSPAM. I think these links should remain in the citation, since I used them to obtain information. I did not add them as advertisements. Obviously, this is a judgment call for other editors. I do sometimes subscribe to these services but am not otherwise connected to them. Also, spam does not belong in external links either. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article tabulating the recordings of an opera ought not to exclude streamed recordings. Independent reviews are preferable as references, but a) they may not be readily available; b) they often lack details of cast, production, publication. Citing the Met's database is no different to citing a book's ISBN or any publication's OCLC entry – they show the item exists and provide publication details. They don't constitute advertising any more than listing catalogue numbers does. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]