User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jerome Kohl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Taille

Contrary to your recent comment the taille was indeed a Baroque English horn (of the straight variety); the oboe da caccia was the curved type. Badagnani (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the cor anglais was by (at least one) definition "bent", this does not hold water. And, contrary to your contention, the (French) word taille means simply "tenor, instrument of tenor range". More specifically, taille des hautbois means "oboe of the late 17th and early 18th century, resembling the ordinary oboe except that it was larger and pitched in F, a 5th lower. … Some models were made with the flaring bell of the oboe, others with a globular bell like that of the cor anglais" (Sibyl Marcuse, Musical Instruments: A Comprehensive Dictionary (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1975): 505. And why are you placing this comment on my talk page, instead of on the talk page of the article in question?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant the F oboe Bach wrote for, not the generic French term. Of course early instruments are not exactly equivalent to modern ones but Bach's Taille was essentially an English horn. Badagnani (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Bach's taille was essentially the same as Lully's taille [des hautbois]—a straight, flare-belled tenor oboe in F. As the Wikipedia article plainly states (citing the New Grove article by Michael Finkelman), the cor anglais only came into existence ca. 1720, "when a bulb bell was added to the oboe da caccia". Sibyl Marcuse states that the name did not first start appearing in scores until "around 1760". This name was indeed drawn, according to Finkelman, from an older Germann term for the the flare-belled horns played by angels in paintings of the Middle Ages—doubtless shawms of all sorts—"engellisches Horn, meaning "angelic horn". There is a distinction to be made (as Finkelman does) between the emergence of the instrument called cor anglais, and the (German) term "angelic horn", loosely applied to shawms/oboes of all sorts. The French word taille (for what it is worth) is cognate with English "tall", and is applied to viols (tenor viola da gamba), violins (tenor violin, or viola). The taille des hautbois was known in England as "tenor hoboy", and Purcell scored for it in 1690, a good thirty years before the invention of the cor anglais, and seventy years before the name first appears in musical scores. To claim that it is "essentially the same" as the cor anglais is equivalent to saying the tenor lute is "essentially the same" as a guitar.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jerome Kohl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 153 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Paul W. Whear - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Renaud Gagneux - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Costin Miereanu - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Richard Grayson (composer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Stephen Truelove - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Musique concrète

I liked the summary for your last edit. Lists of that sort make no sense because, short of listing everyone already discussed in the text, the list will be incomplete and presumptuous. It is far better to deal with the composers in the prose, truly indicating their notability with references, then a list with a heading that expresses what we believe to be obvious. Honestly, though, I have to confess that the names that now remain on that list are unknown to me. I have listened to almost everyone discussed in the article, but those few have eluded me, so far. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage lists of this sort anyway. However, if you are not familiar with the work of the five names remaining, perhaps that has mainly to do with their nationalities and, in some cases, ages. Three are British and, on the whole, UK electroaoustic composers have not had the degree of exposure of comparable composers from France, Germany, or the US. In Delia Derbyshire's case, this problem is exacerbated by the BBC's policy of anonymity for the work of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, for which she did most of her best-known work (as a science-fiction writer yourself, you will surely be familiar with her contribution to Ron Grainer's signature tune for Doctor Who). (On the other hand, perhaps I have spent more time watching to 1960s and 1970s British television than you have.) The Canadian Hugh Le Caine is probably more of an historical figure today, and his work was important more for technical developments than for actual composition, though Dripsody remains a classic work of the 1950s. I must confess that I myself know Jonty Harrison and Francis Dhomont only by their very considerable reputations, but I have been familiar with Denis Smalley's music for thirty years now, and you really ought to make an effort to hear some of his music, which is top-drawer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this response and the information it contains. My elder brother, now sadly passed, was a huge fan of Doctor Who and I distinctly recall hearing the tune you mention during one of his many viewings of the show. Of course, I was young, and had no idea what it was all about. Dripsody I have heard of, but cannot recall where I read about it. Dhomont I do know of, and I blame the late hour last night for having forgotten him. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tuplet knowledge

I've had since at least 1996 a comfortable knowledge about tuplets that are divisions of a beat. That is, a quarter note in x/4 time signatures, a half note in x/2 time signatures, an eighth note in x/8 time signatures, etc. Fot this kind of tuplet x:y, x is anything but a power of 2 and y is the largest power of 2 less than x. You're getting me used to tuplets that are divisions of a bar. An example is a dotted half note in 6/8 or 3/4 time. (6/8 and 3/4 are 2 time signatures with the same duration but different standard groupings of notes. How we group notes or which notes we give emphasis to does not affect the duration of a bar.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC) For this kind of tuplet x:y, y does not have to be a power of 2. Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. In fact, I believe the "Tuplet" article discusses these types of situation, and the precautionary notational devices that have been employed to ensure against misreading (sometimes called "Darmstadt notation"), where both numerals of a proportion are given. Extreme cases may even replace groups of 5, 7, or other groupings with a contrasting division (e.g., 7:5, signifying a septuplet replacing five normal-value notes). In more usual practice (thank goodness), about the worst one has to face is the "drag" triplet (across two beats), and it is amazing how many otherwise thoroughly professional musicians cannot do this accurately. In some earlier musical styles, dividing longer spans in this way was facilitated by the notation then in use. I am thinking in particular of a trio by Christopher Tye, titled Sit Fast, where the kind of nonuplet that sparked this discussion in the first place occurs toward the end in the top part. Although it ends up being an ordinary 9:8 proportion (across a 2/2 or 4/4 bar), it is approached by gradually more complex nested triplets, so that the transition is effectively from 6/8 and 3/4 bars. As the top part makes the final transition to nonuplets, the lower two parts suddenly regress to the original duple division of the bar. It is exhilarating to play, but far from easy to learn. Once mastered, however, you simply "know" what the proportion sounds like and, ever since I worked this piece up for a concert once in the early 1980s, I have had no difficulty at all striding down the street in a confident 4/4, while whistling or clapping the nonuplet division over the top. It is truly an "irrational" rhythmic relationship, though notated strictly with ratios!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

George Antheil

Hi Jerome and Happy New Year. I've looked again quickly at the Antheil article and wonder if, with a bit of work whether it could meet good article standard. What is certainly missing is a section on Antheil's influences, influence, legacy, style etc etc. I am ill-equipped to write such a section but thought you might be just the person. Would you be interested on collaborating on such a project over the next few weeks? --Slp1 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slp1, and a Happy New Year to you, as well. I am not very well-informed about Antheil, and my edits on that article have been mainly of a technical nature. I would be happy to collaborate along those lines with someone who is more up-to-speed on Antheil's history and context (those influences and so on), but I am not really in a position to provide such data.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded to respond to thank you, and say that I'm very sorry you don't feel up to the task here. But that's fine and very understandable. There are so many readily accessible googlebooks links etc that I hope that somebody knowledgeable about music and music history would feel able to do the deed sometime. If you can think of anybody, please let me know, and in the meantime, thanks for all your work. --Slp1 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

nope, not mine, again, it was a quick fix for a poor article, either remove, or change attribution to fair use. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can one claim fair use for photographs of this nature? Even if so, I believe this would run into difficulties outside of the United States.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, one can, check WP:NFC, the images are low resolution. Jurisdictional concerns are not relevant; though it is ideally you who will have to make the changes. Personally, my view is that rare images, of significant educational value, should be included, using fair use policy; and the guidelines appear to support this. Ultimately, tax payers (whenever/wherever) made all of this possible, therefore keeping this stuff locked up in a journal, or research facility, does not serve the interests of society as a whole. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall check those guidelines, thanks.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

changes made, one remains to be corrected, will do so when I recall source. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I have been reading the relevant documents and now better understand Wikipedia's rules for use of copyrighted materials of this nature. I am still not entirely sure that the Fair Use and other provisions apply, but this is really not my area of expertise, and I will be interested to see how the changes to the copyright tags may change the situation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

the rationales have now also been updated. In terms of meeting the requirements for fair use, they pass on all counts. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. I hope you are right, since these illustrations enhance the article greatly. I would hate to see them go.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Published by Walsh?

Hi. I think more work needs to be done as a result of this edit of yours. As an example, you write that Chrysander's sonata XIV (a violin sonata in A major) was published by Walsh as Op. 1 No. 10, however that's not the case when looking at the publication of Walsh's as mentioned in the article (in that publication, Op. 1 No. 10 is a violin sonata in G minor). If this is a question of a Walsh publication other than the 1732 version, then that should be explicitly mentioned. As it stands, the information is more confusing that it was. Perhaps the notes against Chrysander's sonatas XIV and XV should be removed until a suitable explanation is found? HWV258. 23:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the editorial notes to the Hallische Händel Ausgabe volume of the sonatas edited by Terence Best, and Best's article "Handel's Chamber Music", Early Music 13, no. 4 (November): 476–99. This material is by now very well-known. Walsh published the op. 1 twice, the first time ca. 1730 with a forged title page claiming the edition to be by Jeanne Roger. The problems here are that Roger died in December 1722, the engraving style of the edition is not that of the Roger firm, but rather of Walsh, the last plate used by Roger was number 495, and her successor, her brother-in-law Michel-Charles Le Cene, used the edition no. 534 (appearng on Walsh's forgery) for Vivaldi's La Cetra (1727). As if this weren't enough, the British Library copy of the edition (Lbm g.74.d) has an identical watermark to that of a copy of the Walsh edition of 1731–32 (Lbm g.74.c).

Furthermore, you will find on p. 479 of Best's article mention of the "tendency of later editors, among them Chrysander, to base their editions on the Walsh prints rather than the autographs", so the claim that Chrysander relied primarily on the Handel autographs (which, BTW, do not exist for every sonata in the opus 1, especially these doubtful violin sonatas) is inaccurate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's all fair enough, but there is still the issue I mentioned above. I still believe the current articles now conflict in saying that an A major sonata in one publication is the same as a G minor sonata in another publication. I'm happy to remove information from the article(s) to reduce the confusion. What do you suggest? HWV258. 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm ahead of you on this. I have edited the information in the box to point to the "Roger" edition, and I have also extended the label on the link to the facsimile of the 1732 edition, citing Walsh's own note, "more corect [sic] than the previous edition". Can you think of anything further that needs to be done?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. Perhaps if you've got a bit more time you could cast an expert eye over the Handel solo sonatas (Walsh) article? I'm sure there are some obvious changes that could be made to that. Should the article be renamed to reflect that it is about the 1732 publication?

I just created these two articles quickly because I got sick of linking to Walsh and Chrysander when I really wanted to link to publications created by them. Thanks again for your help. HWV258. 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I shall take a look at the Walsh article. Certainly he published many more collections of solo sonatas than just the Handel, and it is possible that he published more than one such collection in 1732 (it shouldn't be too difficult to find out). We really ought to be carrying on this discussion on the talk pages of the respective articles, where future editors can easily see what has already been discussed. If you don't mind, let us adjourn to those pages.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New Grove

I've just seen your comment about adding another New Grove reference to a composer article. Do please bear in mind that it's not such an easy option for some of us. My nearest copy of New Grove is in a library 30 miles away, so I for one have to rely on online sources. Best wishes. --Deskford (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not meant as a criticism of you, or of anyone else on the Contemporary Music Project, and I apologise if it sounded that way. Rather, it was aimed at the hundreds or even thousands of Wikipedia editors who, since 2003 and 2005 (in the cases of two of the articles mentioned), never once thought to look and see whether New Grove had an article on the subject. It is true that I have much easier access to New Grove, being five minutes away on foot and even closer online, and I have been one of "those editors" (at least, since August 2006) who could have checked up on these articles. Anhalt is not likely to have been one (I know him more by reputation than for his compositions), but I surely should have done something ages ago about Barlow and Abrahamsen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position, and apologies if I seemed to over-react to your previous comment! --Deskford (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries! You did not seem to me to be over-reacting and, as I said, I surely left the wrong impression myself. The bottom line is that it is good to see the resurgence of activity from the Contemporary Music Project, even if it means having the shortcomings of many articles on my watchlist pointed out!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

References in Living Persons

Dear Jerome Please assist me in making the page of Svitlana Azarova acceptable. I am not sure what I need to cite or reference where. What are the criteria for referencing biographical data which is readily available from her official website, from Donemus publishers, from sites of the musicians who taught her or plays her music? Will it help if she contacts you directly? (she is on facebook if you are the Jerome Kohl there) Thank you for you assistance - you obviously have a lot to do, I hope you will have time for this. Mplungjan (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the Jerome Kohl on Facebook. The Wikipedia guidelines for establishing notability can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. There you will find "Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic." In general, I take this to mean that personal websites or blogs, or sites owned by an agent for or publisher of the works of the subject of the article are not valid for the purpose of establishing notability. At Wikipedia:Reliable sources you will find a discussion of what constitutes a reliable, third-party source. In general, a listing in a respected music dictionary or encyclopedia (New Grove, MGG, etc.), an article about the subject in a peer-reviewed journal, or reviews in a major newspaper or magazine qualify as reliable, third-party sources. I hope this is helpful.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. As a young eastern-European composer she is not (yet) featured in New Grove or MGG. I have added resources from publishers, musicologists, Ukrainian music dictionary and CD-Rom based encyclopedia. Mplungjan (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite style

you may want to check out a discussion that's happening, I've left a comment that I'm guessing you will want to respond to : ) Semitransgenic (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ISBN for Kessler

Hi Jerome, Re: Montezuma (opera). Just wanted to mention that the ISBN that I put in the Sources for the Kessler book was the ISBN for the edition of the book that I used as the source for the specific page nos. I doubt that the page numbers are different in the different editions, so this was probably not important. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Yes, I know what you did. The real problem was the loss of the second ISBN, to distinguish the paperback from the cloth-bound editions. The number you substituted was simply the (older) 10-digit ISBN format for the (newer) 13-digit ISBN for the paperback edition. ISBNs can easily get completely out of control, especially in the case of multi-volume works which have a separate ISBN for each volume, as well as a collective one for the whole set, and are published in cloth, paper, and e-book form. Supposing an 18-volume encyclopedia, this could result in as many as 57 ISBNs (18 volumes plus a collective number = 19 times three formats). While the 10-digit ISBNs are still valid, and will remain so for some time to come, the 13-digit format is increasingly taking over, and listing both would double our hypothetical example to 114 numbers. In fact, if you take a close look, the 10-digit number is identical to the last ten digits of the 13-digit one, except (in many cases) for the final numeral, which is a "check digit". For these reasons, it is better not to list both 10 and 13-digit versions, and in fact unnecessary, since the one can be deduced from the other. (This is not true, however, for cloth/paper/e-book ISBNs for the same book.) If you have some reason to prefer the 10-digit form in the article on Montezuma, I have no objection in principle to making the change, only do please supply the version for the cloth edition as well as the paperback one (the pagination is the same in both cases).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not something I've paid enough attention to. I gladly defer to your edit. I probably only used the 10-digit number because it was less typing, so in the future I'll try to use the longer ones. (I shouldn't be so lazy!) It also seems like there are a proliferation of OCLC numbers as well. Do you feel we should only use OCLC numbers when ISBNs are lacking? (Thanks for all your help!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that using OCLC numbers (and the like) in addition to ISBNs is overkill. On the other hand, I am also noticing an increase in the use of doi numbers, and this is something altogether different, since it can link you directly to a digital source for the text.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Toshio Hosokawa

Hallo, dear friend of Stockhausen, I happened to look at Toshio Hosokawa and wonder why the "dead link" to his website (in Japanese?) is marked as such but not removed. - Concerning the link to the bagpipe (and string orchestra) music of Graham Waterhouse: the composition is mentioned in the last lines there, so I thought it helpful to refer. - How should we proceed with Andor Foldes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any idea why the Hosokawa link is marked "dead" but not removed (I am fairly certain I did not add that marking). I just now attempted to find an archived version, but the Internet Wayback Machine gives a "Server Error-wbcgi" message. I did not notice the reference to the Waterhouse composition in the bagpipe-repertory article. When I tested the link, I merely found that it did not direct to an article on that composition. Perhaps it could be re-linked as an added parenthesized note to the title, "based on [link goes here]"? I am unsure what I am to say about the article on Foldes. It needs to be expanded, and even what is there needs to have references added. There are three items in the "Sources" section that do not have corresponding inline citations. Perhaps that is a place to start?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer. You didn't mark the link, but I (being rather new here) wanted to know if this is generally done. I asked you because you are interested in contemporary composers. I think the information about TH given by Schott is good and the dead link could just be removed but didn't want to do so without asking. More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This being solved I wonder about the remark on TH in the 20st century list as Neo-impressionism, together with Dutilleux and others. The linked article refers only to visual art, - as much as I like the black&white works of Seurat, I am surprised. (I would not yet know how to find out who wrote the remark.) Curious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you already have the answer to your question about dead links but, just for completeness, as I understand things: The recommended procedure is to first check to see if there is a new URL, or else an archived copy at the Internet Music Database. If nothing can be found, then the link should be deleted. Second, I have often heard Hosokawa described as neo-impressionist, but of course the link to post-impressionist visual art is not appropriate. In this context, "neo-impressionism" refers to a revival of certain aspects of the music of Debussy. (Only Dutilleux's earlier music really falls into the same category.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the link question. - Do we agree that for both Hosokawa and Dutilleux the attribute is too narrow? (I don't know for the others.) Then what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the composer list, the column with attributes in it is meant only to be a rough guideline, not a comprehensive account of style (which, after all, could only rarely be summed up in a few words). In the case of Dutilleux, there should probably be something added, though I'm not sure what catch-phrase would cover his work after about 1960. In Hosokawa's case, I have not heard enough of his music to form an opinion about whether "neo-impressionist" applies to most of it or not. The real problem—as I see it—is with the link to post-impressionist visual art, which should be removed. Musically, the "neo-impressionist" label should put both composers in the company of Roussel and (early) Messiaen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So I removed the link in 5 cases, two French, two Japanese, one Mexican. I had added another composer, HK Gruber and left "remark" open, reading: Neo-romantic, neo-tonal, neo-expressionistic, neo-Viennese: he isn’t any of those things, ... - I wonder if his article should be moved to his professional name - as in de-WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Root motion question in major scale article

I don't know whether you watch Major scale or not, but I imagine that this is something you could lay to rest in a few minutes. Best regards, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear! No, I have not been watching "Major scale", but this is really silly. I should look more closely at the article, but it appears to me that this material has little at all to do with "major scale" (since root fifth relations are equally relevant to any and all scales used in functional tonality), and "strength" of progression is defined differently in different contexts. I'll see what I can do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it your high-quality attention. Next time I need a quick BS-meter calibration and sanity check, I'll be sure to drop by; hope you don't mind. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome, and, no, of course I don't mind if you drop by again!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kurtag

Thanks for adding substantially to Kurtág's references! Yesterday I got the list of RMF composers completed (yes, including Stockhausen), new "problem" Mauricio Kagel lacking citations. I copied his works and writings from de-WP to my sandbox, willing to translate some. Could you perhaps mark important ones, - it seems too many without some concentration? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am only too pleased to have added those references to Kurtág. The previous state was shockingly scant, especially considering the fact there have been two books devoted exclusively to his music. I am only sorry that I have not had time to seriously revise and expand the article based on some of these sources. The RMF article is very interesting, and somehow I have overlooked it up to now. Thanks for calling it to my attention. Concerning the Kagel article, I suppose you must mean it is lacking in-line citations, as opposed to references listed at the end, which are I think ample. I am not as familiar with the output of this very prolific composer as I might be, but I will take a look at the list in your sandbox. As I'm sure you already know, for really long worklists a common solution on Wikipedia is to make a "selected" list in the composer article, and then create a separate, complete "List of compositions by …". In these cases I personally much prefer to see the list organised differently from already-available-online versions. For example, if a publisher's website lists works chronologically, then either a categorized or alphabetical list should be made. Or, better still, a sortable table, as is found for example at the List of compositions by Béla Bartók.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping again. For the moment I selected some Kagel pieces for the article - very subjectively so for interesting title or instrumentation, easy translation - and transferred them from the sandbox to the article, looking forward for a more scholarly selection by you - or you know someone else who might know. Some films and Hörspiele should certainly be included as his specialty, and I wonder if his books were translated? In progress --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition some fun: a Match-citation of 1968 (but in German): "Und gelegentlich lädt Kagel den Casals der neuen Töne, der die Vorliebe seines Marx-gläubigen Sohns Stefan, 14, für Beatmusik teilt, mit Klaus Storck, einem anderen Kölner Cello-Professor, zu seinem "Match", einer Art "musikalischem Ping-Pong-Spiel", aufs Konzertpodium' wo beide Cellisten mit Musik-Fetzen abwechselnd gegeneinander ankämpfen -- der Kölner Schlagzeuger Christoph Caskel dient dabei mit Handzeichen, Pauken, Rasseln, Klingeln und Trillerpfeife als Schiedsrichter." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback?

Greetings -- noticing things like this, would you like rollback? It saves a mouse click. It's a nice time-saver, since it's a one-click fix for our daily graffiti edits (and the final screen shows the result so you can verify it was what you wanted to do). Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds useful. I'd not heard of rollback, and those vandalism reversions are getting very tiresome. Where do I go to access this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can do it. You should have it now -- look for the little "rollback" button on diffs, recent changes, and user contributions. See WP:ROLLBACK. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

John McCabe (composer)

See Talk:John McCabe (composer) about your citation tag placed on a reference. I'd be grateful for an explanation.--Klein zach 23:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC) [Moved here as more approriate. Was placed on userpage by Kleinzach, probably by mistake. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)]

I don't see any citation tags on any references in that article, either inline ones or in the reference list. Perhaps this goes back in the edit history some distance, when I asked for completion of the citation of the Oxford Dictionary of Music. That has now been resolved long since, I think.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is probably correct: Kleinzach's message is dated 3 Feb 2010. You indeed resolved this issue a while back. The message was on your userpage so I moved it here. I hope that's OK? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely the thing to do! For some reason, the addition to my userpage did not show up on my watch list, so I had no idea it was there. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

CTM scope review

Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:

We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:

It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 14:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish Requiem

As Polish Requiem was lacking citations I added a few and more - please have a look. A question is still open. Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added some "Further reading" items, most of which ought to take precedence over the record-liner notes presently being used as sources. I'm afraid I cannot answer your question about the added Ciaconna movement, about which I was unaware until reading of it in your query.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Wish I had more time to read. I tried to draw just facts from the liner notes, as for "who sings when?", some contradicting, some missing ... Any clarification and expansion would be helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing more! The order of movements is resolved, and I just added a quote from one of the "further readings" that I found online. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to have been of assistance, particularly in that you found a useful quotation to add. I did notice that you had discovered the place of the Ciaccona in the whole—as well as an arrangement for eight cellos of the Agnus Dei. (I heard the pre-pre-pre-premiere (or so) of just that one movement, many years ago—I think it was in 1982 or 1983.) The footnote reference to Chłopicka 1996 needs some adjustment to the formats, in order to conform to English bibliographical standards (a published book should be italicized, rather than enclosed in quotation marks, the city of publication should be given—in its English form, "Cracow—before the publisher's name, etc.), and it should no longer be included in "Further reading", now that it is a quoted source. Why don't you let me tend to these details. (I gather that you do not intend a separate, alphabetical list of "References", but rather prefer to have all bibliographical data included in the footnotes?)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me, I am glad! I am not a scientist nor familiar with bibliographical references. In this case it "looked" professional to me, and I just copied and got the Title in link. Next time I hope to know better. - Since Siegfried Palm I hear 'inline citation' as a kind of Credo. Not true? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Standards for bibliographical references vary by language and by discipline. German publications often do not name the publisher of a book, giving only the city of publication; this is not usually regarded as acceptable in English publications. Treatment of titles is also handled differently in German and English, but even just among English sources italics and the like are treated differently in the biological sciences (for example) than in the humanities. Regarding "inline citations", yes, these are becoming increasingly important on Wikipedia. The expression simply refers to source citations referenced in the text, at points where particular claims are made—as opposed to a general reference listed at the end of the article. Inline citations may be handled in a number of different ways, according to the preference of the editor primarily responsible for the article. I personally prefer parenthetical citations, but even when using footnotes I favour author-date format, which is concise and to-the-point. It also means that there will be an alphabetical list of all the references at the end of the article, so that a reader can see at a glance what sources have been consulted. In your work on the Polish Requiem article you have adopted the full-reference style within footnotes, so I have followed that format in my own small edits to the article. Although I regard this format as unwieldy (especially for Wikipedia), it has the authority of long tradition in the print media, and it is perhaps used by more Wikipedia editors than any other. The important thing is not the format, however, but that information is properly cited in every article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes

In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob du Bois

Hello Jerome Kohl: Nice work on the Rob du Bois article! Hrdinský (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It took a while, but I think it is an improvement on the version on the Dutch Wikilpedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date

Gingermint (talk · contribs) has added to the list recently and argued against the removal of red links (quite eloquently, actually). Perhaps we should just change the lead to explain that only those composers with a WP article are included? Easier to defend... --Jubilee♫clipman 05:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I have not been aware of Gingermint's arguments, but I have been working for years on the assumption that if a composer is notable but does not yet have an article, then step one is to write an article (actually very easy, if you don't go overboard and try to write a comprehensive article all in one go), and only afterward start adding him/her to lists. Certainly it would be much easier to defend deletion of redlinks if the list plainly states that only bluelinks are permitted. On the other hand, perhaps Gingermint is happier with the far more comprehensive List of 20th-century classical composers by name, which has long provided an alternative to the birthdate and deathdate lists, for the benefit of non-notable composers. It clearly states at the beginning that it "is an indiscriminate list", and includes some preposterously non-notable 20th-century composers, including me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Which one are you? Am I there?! I am going to review all three lists shortly. Perhaps now is the time to seriously consider the merger? What about the even more trivial list Dbunde has asked about below? Do we need to review that also? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which one am I? I am "Jerome Kohl (b. 1946)" (I use my real name on Wikipedia), and I was in fact a composer, up until 1978. Any editor is going to have a job finding documentation of this at all, though there is some out there, if you know exactly where to look (for example), let alone reliable sources demonstrating notability. You do not appear to be on the list, since there are no McIntyres on it. I agree that it is time to consider the merger, but it is going to be a much bigger job than the twenty-first-century-composer list was. The "even more trivial" list of composers of all times and all known and yet-to-be-discovered universes is not within the remit of the Contemporary Music Project, though someone ought to investigate it. There are some interesting problems there, however, when dealing with shadowy figures from early eras. For example, wouldn't you say that any composer's name at all that has survived for more than a thousand years could plausibly be deemed "notable", even if there is no known music by him/her? This reminds me. I shall have to take a look and see whether that list includes the composers Tapšiẖuni, Puẖiya(na), Urẖiya, and Ammiya.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your edit summary for this post... very apt! How about mine? Anyway, to be fair, half the names on the C20th lists are also not within the remit of CTM, the people having died over 50 years ago. I can think of many "composers in name only": Dunsta[b/p]le for one—what the heck did he actually write, anyway?! We mention his name to students when they study the late middle ages, then forget all about him. Why?!? My first questions, obviously, were rhetorical: I saw your name, of course (I doubt the source you cited establishes notabilty according to WP:MUSIC, though, as you acknowledge); and I'm as yet unpublished (unless "Twelve-year-old plays own compositions in front of packed school assembly" counts, not). Those ancient names are interesting, indeed, and I would say that a person is definately notable if they are still remembered after 500 years (let alone 4000 years!) but WP might beg to differ... Anyway, leave redlinks in for now, then? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sisyphus is also very apt! You are correct about half of the composers on the 20th-century list, of course (always providing that we don't re-define what "contemporary" means, again), but of course a criterion for inclusion in that list cannot exempt anyone who died before 1951. As for Dunstaple, his music has been very familiar to me for over 40 years. I first got to know him primarily for "O Rosa Bella", but it turns out this wasn't by him at all! Leaving redlinks in the list is the easy thing to do, but ultimately something really must be done. As it stands, it is an open invitation to self-promoters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment about Dunstable says it all and applies also to Perotin and Hildegard of Bingen, for that matter: what did they write...? Yes indeed, we need to avoid self-promos but they are the bane of CTM's life anyway... Anyway, I'll not tread on your toes here as you seem to be doing sterling work at present in adding and subtracting according to common sense. If you need any help, just ask --Jubilee♫clipman 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and your offer. In the case of historical composers, by contrast to our contemporaries perhaps, is that their music may or may not be known or important to us, but it once was known and important, and this importance is recorded in hustory books. What is more, from our perspective it is possible to see who was influential, both in the short and the long term. Dunstaple was instrumental in bringing the Contenance Angloise to the Continent, and in so dong became the visible link in an influence that changed the musical world forever. Without it, Dufay and Binchois are unthinkable, and without them, Josquin, and so on. Even if we only regard the three or four compositions attributed to Pérotin in Anonymus IV as reliable (or even none of them), we nevertheless know the much larger repertory of the second phase of the Magnus Liber Organi, which is "of the school of Pérotin", and through the manuscript transmission of this repertory, we again know of its immense and widespread influence (Scotland, Italy, etc.), both in the immediately following century, and down to Steve Reich today (directly in this case). By complete contrast, every single contemporary composer is enormously important and their influence will ring down through the ages—if you believe their press releases. If enough newspaper reporters believe their promotional literature, then they become "notable". All we can do as Wikipedia editors is accept their publicity—or keep them in redlink limbo if their agents are unsuccessful, no matter how much we may admire their actual music. This is what makes such a huge difference in the meaning of "notability" for the CTM.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

List of composers by name

You asked why I would remove Neil Meyers from the above page and not the other red links? Short answer is lack of time to check notability on all names, red or otherwise. I realize this page/list is trivial by its nature, however if it becomes awash in the names of composers who, at the very best, are marginal, it becomes not only trivial but useless. And I would ask you why remove Lexus Coachman (your edit from [17])?

I'm still newish to editing, so please let me know your thoughts on the above. Thanks! Dbunde (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, a fair question. Several, in fact. First, I removed supposedly 12-year-old Lexus Coachman because a quick Google search suggested this was a make of automobile, and so likely a prank inspired by Ford Prefect in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the case of the single name I restored, Neil Myers, I was able to confirm his existence. Given that most, if not all of the other redlinks are/were actually composers, however marginal, it seems arbitrary to pick on poor Mr Myers. What this list really needs is some criteria for inclusion/exclusion but, as I indicated in my reply to Jubileeclipman, above, this is a daunting task for a list covering so broad a historical span. One possible solution would be to set an arbitrary "longevity" limit—say, 200 years. That would take care of the problem of wannabes using the list for self-promotion. Unfortunately, it would also deprive the list of hundreds of genuinely notable composers, such as Brahms, Dvořák, and even (marginally) Schubert.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no - poor Schubert! I suppose it could be understood that notability, while applying to persons for whom pages are created, does not necessarily apply to inclusion in lists such as this? But yes, there probably ought to be some sort of criteria established, because there are many names added which seem to be self-promotion, which I do think should preclude a name from inclusion (Mr. Mustafa, the multi-instrumentalist, stands out; there had been a page and a number of other references (List of composers by name) to him appearing in a flurry some months back - and now he seems to be gone from the site). I would lean toward the argument of Jubileeclipman's above that the names should in fact have pages in order to be included (which would give this list a function of being an index of sorts to composers with pages on Wikipedia - give it more of a purpose and make it less than simply a list), and I'm not entirely sure I agree with notion that rather than remove a name, an article should be written. This would again run us into the notability issue on a number of the names. Anyway, my thoughts on the topic - I'm not sure about how to resolve this. Thanks for your feedback. Dbunde (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Add to that Robert Schumann, Richard Wagner, Claude Debussy... Even using Longevity=100 years would knock Stravinsky on the head, since his first major works are only just approaching their anniversaries (The Firebird later this year). 50 years might work better but that risks including some people that are still being assessed by the musicologists and critics... No idea how to solve this list's inclusion problems beyond excluding redlinks --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Hallman

68.81.92.31 (talk · contribs) has actually added this composer to several lists and articles. Possible self promo... However, the composer seems well enough established to remain on WP as long as he is listed as C21st only. Thoughts? I'll notify CTM and Composers also --Jubilee♫clipman 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. There is also no reason he should not also be included in the indiscriminate List of composers by name. His article does appear to list one reliable third-party source (the New York Times article), though I have not checked it yet to confirm its content. As far as I can see at first glance, all the other sources are self-published, and the tone of the article's prose in places is far from encyclopedic, but these are not fatal flaws.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the user hasn't listed the composer in List of 21st-century classical composers! I'll hold back on that addition until the other CTM/Composers editors have had a look. [addendum: composer already listed there.] I'll also try to find better sources for the article. AGF, for now then? Good --Jubilee♫clipman 17:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Following feedback from the Composers project, I have sent the article to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Hallman. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 18:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Rest

You've never bothered the one-week-old question at Talk:Rest (music). Georgia guy (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bothered"? Is that how you see me, as a troublemaker? ;-) As a matter of fact, "Rest (music)" is not one of the articles on my Watch List (I would have thought that the article on music notation would cover rests as well as notes. Don't tell me there is an article "Note (music)", as well? Oh, Lord! I see that there is!). Thanks for calling this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch!

Re [1]. No argument from me though. Best --Jubilee ♫clipman 06:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why "ouch!"? There is a Wikipedia guideline against indiscriminate lists, and another about providing sources for claims. This situation certainly falls under the latter, and possibly the former guideline as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

True enough. Probably a ream of policies, especially since it shouldn't be that hard to source claims such as "On David Bowie's 1979 album Lodger, Brian Eno used a looped prepared piano to provide the rhythmic basis of the track 'African Night Flight.'" Presumeably, there will be session diaries, newspaper interviews, biographies, or something to back up such a claim about a song from such a well-known album created by such famous musicians. The same goes for several of the other entries.

On a different, though similar, note (as it were): I have often wondered how it might be possible to prove that any pop or rock track has an unusual time signature. Even something apparently "obvious" as Pink Floyd's Money doesn't have an official score (as far as I'm aware). My guess would be that even the sources have been forced to theorise on the "likely" signature. BTW, reference #39 and reference #151 in List of musical works in unusual time signatures are not only identical but that source itself is a blog... Not too sure how it meets the criteria of WP:RS, unless this is enough? Anyway, there must be better sources for Money, surely? It may well be, in that particular case, that Gilmore wrote out the guitar parts and/or Mason wrote out some sort of drumming chart, being forced, in the process, to use 7/4 to "explain" the meter. Same must be true of All You Need Is Love (which uses that same source, BTW, alongside another, IMO, somewhat questionable source from About.com): George Martin is likely to have witten something out for the classical session musicians, at least for that coda. Thoughts? --Jubilee ♫clipman 23:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohdearohdearohdearohdearohdearohdearohdear! There is an enormous amount of discussion on this subject, over on Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures, and the portions I have contributed are already plenty without my trying to add more fuel to the fire here. Yes, this is a huge problem, and the quality of many of the sources is questionable. If you wish to pursue this matter further, I suggest we take it over to that talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to review the entire page, including the (1001) links. I'll also have to review to relevent policies and guidelines. Might take quite a while... After that, I'll give my assessment of the situation on the talk page. See you over there soon(ish) --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

what is your deal

You need to refrain from eliminating infoboxes on those articles. Unless you point out where it says that they are rejected on classical composer pages, then I stand corrected. I was simply building the article. Don't reply on my page, just do it here.Tinton5 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends which infobox was used and where: if {{Infobox musical artist}} in an article on a classical musician, then read the lead in its documentation. Cheers. (To Jerome: hope you don't mind my fielding this while I'm here?) --Jubilee ♫clipman 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, then my bad. Tinton5 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All's well that ends well, then—and thanks, Jubilee, I don't mind a bit. To Tinton5, may I suggest that queries like this are better placed on the Talk page of the article in question. That way, we don't have to guess which article it is to which you are referring.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. FWIW, there wasn't much guesswork involved... --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Found 'em both, then?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry and Adams? Yep! Any more? BTW, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC... --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No flies on you, I see! Those were the ones—no others (unless I was sleepwalking).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My original "no guesswork" comment actually referred to the type of box and type of article: that was a no-brainer. However, it only took me about 2 minutes to check the edit histories of you and Tinton to find the specific articles... I have eyes everywhere... (I am not this guy, though, so don't worry...) --Jubilee ♫clipman 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Feet of clay! (I had rather expected something along those lines.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as the Head of Gold comes as standard I'll keep the Feet as unfortunate collaterals... Cheers! --Jubilee ♫clipman 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's the problem with having the Midas Touch: you daren't ever scratch your head ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha!! No answer to that. --Jubilee ♫clipman 16:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Walsh edition...

Hi. Regarding your edit: Perhaps I'm getting the terminology wrong, but I'd like to describe how the notation as can be seen in File:WalshHandelSonatas1732Page1.jpg is vastly different to what is considered to be a modern notation of music (e.g. as seen in Handel_19_Sonatas_For_Various_Instruments.pdf). I'll remove "hand-draw"; but with what should it be replaced? HWV258. 02:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is perfectly true, but do try to describe things accurately. For one thing, "modern editions" may refer to computerized music typesetting of the past two or three decades, some of the poorer examples of which look absolutely horrible, or to the (in my opinion far more elegant) hand-engraved work in the 19th century made for publishers like Breitkopf und Härtel. In addition, there was an 18th-century process (not used by Walsh's engravers, who were professionals, capable of carving each page in copper—or in Walsh's case pewter—as a right-to-left mirror image of the printed result) which did in fact use "drawn by hand" music manuscript, which was the transferred to copper plates by soaking the paper in oil to make it transparent, and then tracing the images from the back side with a stylus, using a carbon-paper-like sheet that deposited wax on the plate. The copper surface could then be etched with acid to produce a serviceable plate. Telemann appears to have used this method to engrave his Getreue Musik-Meister and Esercizzi Musici, and Bach seems to have used it also, to prepare the Art of Fugue for printing. (In fact, it is the state of the surviving, unfinished manuscript that provided Christoph Wolf with some of the key information that the quadruple fugue must have been finished but later lost. Presumably, Bach died before the engraving could be completed by his sons, rather than before he could complete the composition.) It would also be useful to compare the quality of Walsh's engraving with the work of his contemporaries. In other words, do most 18th-century editions look pretty much like this, or were Walsh's engravers extraordinarily good or poor? I would suggest especially useful would be comparison with the editions of Jeanne Roger and her successor, Le Cene, but the work of the better French engravers of the time is instructive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Last work of the Chrysander XV Handel Solos publication?

Hi. I'm wondering if you would know to which of Handel's works the last piece in the XV Handel solo sonatas (Chrysander) publication refers? It is simply labelled "Sonata" and the instrumentation is "Viola da Gamba" and "Cembalo concertato". HWV258. 06:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, that takes me back a few years! Yes, I believe this is the viola da gamba arrangement authorized by Handel (but not actually made by him) of a sonata originally for violin. Yes, here it is, courtesy of New Grove: it is designated HWV364b, and is an adaptation of HWV364a, the Violin Sonata in G minor, published by Walsh as an "oboe sonata" (unplayable, since it includes notes outside the instrument's range), op. 1, no. 6. Thurston Dart is credited with the discovery in 1950 of a leaf of an autograph manuscript of the first few bars of the violin sonata, with a note to a copyist explaining how to adapt it for the viola da gamba. If this is not a unique occurrence in the troubled history of Handel chamber-music arrangements, then it is certainly very rare.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What I can't reconcile is that the last sonata in Chrysander's publication bears no resemblance to HWV 364a (Sonata VI) upon which HWV 364b is supposed to be based. HWV258. 10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I only know of the one gamba sonata, and that is the one in G minor, but there may be a story here. It should have looked at the table in the Chrysander article; it would have been helpful to know the sonata in question is in C major. I just checked Terence Best's survey of the Handel sonatas in Early Music 13, no. 4 (1985), and here is what he has to say (p. 484):

A sonata in C major for viola da gamba and obbligato harpsichord was published by Chrysander (HG, xxxxviii (1894), pp. 112-17), who, in the preface, says that he had two manuscript sources, both ascribing the work to Handel; however, stylistic considerations make this impossible, and it now seems that the sonata is the work of Johann Mathias Leffloth (1705-31).

In the referencing footnote to that sentence, Best says "See Alfred Einstein, 'Zum 48. Bande der Handel-Ausgabe', Sammelbände der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft, iv (1902-3), p. 170, and MGG: 'Leffloth'." You really ought to consult Best's article, where you will find a number of other spurious attributions, many long ago dismissed from the Handel canon. Walsh Sr's probably deliberate misattributions are bad enough, but Chrysander's well-meaning additions of sonatas of dubious provenance simply added to the chaos. His edition has been regarded as unreliable for more than half a century now, though I suppose it possesses a certain amount of historical interest. I certainly wouldn't rely on it myself if I were performing Handel.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your eyes are wanted

Hi Jerome Kohl. I'd appriciate your thoughts on this observation I made: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#2 articles on the same subject. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Aristoxenus#Elementa_harmonica

I won't intervene again on this point, but I urge you to reconsider it. Even when a complete exposition of the doctrines of Elementa harmonica is someday added, the existing section will not belong within it. The long quotation really belongs in an article on Plato#Unwritten_Doctrine, not in one on Aristoxenus: it is introduced, quite rightly, as important evidence about Plato's lecture and not about Aristoxenus. Meanwhile this is a sad mirage of a section on Aristoxenus' writings, with only the most tangential connection to that subject, and providing the most unpromising and uninviting basis imaginable for what "might also be added." I suggest restoring my edit and adding, above the existing section, a blank section (equal in rank) on EH with: {{expand|section with information about the content and doctrines of Elementa Harmonica}} Wareh (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I must confess an inability to read the Greek text quoted in that place, and insufficient familiarity with Plato to critically judge whether the content comes essentially from him or from Aristoxenos. I do think the entire section as it stands is singularly unenlightening about the Elementa harmonica (with which I am familiar in Barker's translation), and looks like a hollow attempt to appear erudite, especially when compared with the German Wikipedia article on Aristoxenos. I like your suggestion to put an "expand" banner but, if the quoted passage does in fact come from the Elementa (I have simply assumed that it does, but this should be verified), then surely it ought to be set under a subheading, rather than in a section of its own.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What you did is a good solution. Thanks! This is a more logical framework that may inspire contribution and growth. Wareh (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh-heh! Thanks. Maybe even I shall try to do something about it, instead of just sniping from the sidelines!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Give it a shot. I think I'm done after providing a basic mention of everything except for the most important thing, the surviving contents of EH! Wareh (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am tempted to "improve this section with information about the content and doctrines of Elementa Harmonica by expanding it"... but will refrain! ;) --Jubilee ♫clipman 20:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an old refrain! ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

String Quartet No. 4 (Carter)

Good work! I have reclassified it as start and removed the stub template --Jubilee ♫clipman 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! My mouth fell open when I saw how little was actually there in the "article", and of course I became angry upon seeing the notability of such a piece questioned. It didn't take long to scrape together that information.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article never existed until November: I created it after I spotted in the list of open tasks at WP:CTM but was unable at that time to do more than create a placeholder stub. There are also String Quartet No. 2 (Carter), String Quartet No. 3 (Carter) and String Quartet No. 5 (Carter). The latter is also one of mine and says little more than "this is a quartet written by Carter". If you get time... --Jubilee ♫clipman 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Well, while my mouth is just standing open doing nothing useful, I suppose I should get to work washing it out with soap! Somehow I was afraid that some of those other Carter Quartet articles were just placeholders, as well. I'll see what I can do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I'll see what I can do, as well, given that I actually created some of them. No. 5 was a tough one to source, IIRC, but then again I have learnt a lot about sourcing since last November (especially from my work during the BLP firestorm...) Between us we should be able to turn these articles into something more useful --Jubilee ♫clipman 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

David Schiff's book is probably the most useful—at least, the second edition is. For some strange reason, the Fourth and Fifth Quartets aren't even mentioned in the first edition of 1983 ;-). Meanwhile, we had better get weaving and catch up, before Carter finishes his Sixth!—Jerome Kohl (talk)

God... I got caught up elsewhere and forgot about these. Great work JK! I'll see what I can do to address the remaining concerns when I get a chance --Jubilee ♫clipman 21:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I am good at what I do, all right, even very good, but God? No, sorry to disappoint, I am not he/she/it! ;-) I have not yet gotten to No. 2, figuring that a great deal more is available on that one than on the more recent quartets, but all three of the ones I have added to could use more material. In particular, sections on Reception should be added.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Allah! (Hope that's not blasphemous...?) Actually, I wondered why you hadn't touched #2. I see what you mean... And the others will certainly bear a great deal more expansion. I might be off-line for a few weeks soon, BTW, as I am moving to my mum's (no reliable internet service) for a short while before "immigrating" to Scotland to care for my dad. Long story... Just so you know (and wonder where the heck I went if I do end up "MIA") --Jubilee ♫clipman 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah! Well, I think he's the same guy, so I'm still not he. As for No. 2, it was simply the lowest on my priority list for these quartets (for the reason I mentioned, not because I esteem it any less than the later ones), and other new articles have been occupying my time, notably Trans (Stockhausen), and another that isn't quite ready to release into the wild yet. (Just to be pedantic, shouldn't that be "emigrating to" Scotland? In any case, have a safe journey.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you "emigrate from" somewhere but "immigrate to" the other place. I might be wrong, but you got my drift anyway! And thanks. BTW, this diff made me laugh! As for me: I'm caught up in the MoS restructure and, {{{groan}}}, that (reopened) infobox debate... Deskford is offline, BTW: no internet or something --Jubilee ♫clipman 22:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wittener Tage für neue Kammermusik

Sorry to have disturbed your nice growing article about the Carter quartet. Next time I will write my article first, then link. I will look for Witten references tomorrow - another German article without one ... but we might study the FU Berlin research. - Shouldn't Arditti be linked the first time they are mentioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd support linking Arditti Quartet as being especially pertinent to those articles --Jubilee ♫clipman 23:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arditti was already linked in the Fifth Quartet article; I have added a link in the Fourth Quartet article. I had looked for an English article on the Witten Festival and discovered there was none. Of course I had no idea one might have been in the works. (Also, my apologies to Gerda for the "fuer" instead of "für" in the ref lists in the articles on Rob du Bois and Harry Sparnaay. That's what I get for cutting and pasting from online sources without proofreading for content! I even had a copy of Diederichs-Lafite's ÖMz review in front of me when I added those references!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! My question wasn't linking Arditti or not (yes for sure) but doing it the first time they appear in the article. - Believe me or not, only when I looked up Witten's website for the name I saw that is today! I will go now and add a bit. (Yesterday - my end of the world - I was so tired that it didn't occur to me that something was reverted, thinking it was my usual sloppiness. "In the works": I saw the festival at musikFabrik, looked if more appearances justified an article, decided yes rather soon, then started linking to not have to go over the pages again. Next time s.a..) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

By now I added to this and changed a bit in musikFabrik but it still sounds German. I found some interesting info In Nomine that I more or less copied to Witten - lacking a source though, not understanding the note in brackets. If you have some time could you please check, also for terms like Klanginstallation, - perhaps there are even articles on such things that I don't know. More composers might be added but I take a rest for the moment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I was the editor who (fairly recently) added the information on the Witten In Nomine Book to the "In Nomine" article, the confusing bracketed information is probably my fault. I shall have a look, and see if I can remember what I meant! I never, ever add anything to an article without a source, so I suspect what you are referring to is probably a parenthetical citation. If this is the case, you will find the full bibliographical data in the list of references at the end of the article. I shall also glance over your work on the new Witten Festival article, and the one on musikFabrik. If there are any awkward phrases, I will do my best to smooth them out. ("Klanginstallation" in English is just "sound installation". I don't know who got there first, but one is obviously a simple, literal translation of the other.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Yes, that was my work on the "In Nomine" article, all right, and that article does indeed use parenthetical referencing. The full citation for "(Blaich 2004, 4–5)" you are seeking is to pages 4–5 of the item by Blaich (published in 2004), found in the list of references:

Blaich, Torsten. 2004. "Zwischen den Zeiten: Zur Geschichte der 'In nomine' Kompositionen". Booklet notes, pp. 4–8, for In Nomine: The Witten In Nomine Broken Consort Book. Ensemble Recherche. 2-CD set. Kairos 0012442KAI (Also in English and French translations, pp. 8–11 and 12–15, respectively).

This is a method of citation frequently encountered in English-language sources, particularly in scholarly journals and books. I have never seen it used in German, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-binary time signatures

You say something is in a time signature with 48 as the bottom number, violating the rule that the bottom number of a time signature is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, or 64. How do you write the beat note (which would be a "forty-eighth note")?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have been trying to figure this out myself ever since it flashed up on my watchlist. I think a "forty-eighth note" would be a dotted hemidemisemiquaver (i.e. a dotted sixty-fourth note) since there would be forty-eight of those in a semi-breve—assuming my maths is correct. It does make sense but is certainly extremely unusual --Jubilee ♫clipman 14:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm. My maths is wrong: 48 dotted hemidemisemiquavers gives you a dotted minim (32) plus a dotted crotchet (16) i.e. it is a quaver too much. Maybe it is a joke time signature like the Telemann 3²/₂/4? Or is there a logical explanation? --Jubilee ♫clipman 15:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that matters with respect to the item I restored to the List of Oddball Metre Signatures is that its existence is documented. Composers, being composers and not logicians or mathematicians, have sometimes chosen simply to violate "the rules" in order to be provocative. In other cases, they have their reasons for using unconventional denominators (as well as numerators). Have a rummage through Brian Ferneyhough's scores, and I'm sure it won't take you long to find dozens of examples. For an explanation of what to count, or the philosophy or logic behind the choice, please don't ask me, I don't know, but Ferneyhough does not do this sort of thing simply to thumb his nose at "the rules". For more examples, see Time_signature#.22Irrational.22_meters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, maths. British terminology makes this slightly more difficult than the German practice of naming notes as fractions, but it really is not very complicated. Since there are 48 48th notes to the semibreve, that makes 24 to the minim, 12 to the crotchet, six to the quaver, and three to the semiquaver. Therefore, the counting unit would be a demisemiquaver triplet. Le Gassick is no prankster, and found that this meter most closely represented a characteristic rhythm found in a traditional jazz context. It is the equivalent of a 5/4 bar shortened by one demisemiquaver triplet. As Gilmore says of the two rhythms mentioned in the cited source, "Bringing them off in performance, however, is more a question of feel than of metronomic precision. The whole point is not to square them out to the familiar jazz rhythms to which they approximate, since that would destroy the compelling, rather asthmatic rhetoric that results". You can hear what it sounds like by listening to the recording mentioned in the citation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Twelve-tone techique - Roger Sessions

"Sessions he did not actually use the twelve-note technique as conceived by Schoenberg"? Most articles or books about Roger Sessions - and I believe I've read most of them - describe his technique after the fifties as "twelve-tone technique". "Later works in the 1950s used the 12-note technique, as exemplified by works such as the Symphony No. 3." (http://www.presser.com/Composers/info.cfm?Name=ROGERSESSIONS). Even Montezuma, which was originally conceived as a non-serial work, was allegedly eventually converted into a twelve-tone harmonical language. I find it astonishing to think that so many articles could be wrong, even if they would be just confusing twelve-tone technique with serialism. ~~Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.222.189 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly there are many articles that are confused or at least very superficial on this. Call me a cynic, but I have long ceased being astonished at how many articles can be wrong on such matters. (In only takes one misconstrual, and quickly a dozen more spring up, all repeating the initial mistake. Soon it seems that "everyone agrees", when in fact no one has critically examined the first claim.)

The best source on Sessions is Andrea Olmstead's recent biography (cited at the point you mention in the Wikipedia article), which quotes extensively from the five recorded interviews with Sessions in the Columbia University Oral History Collection. Olmstead develops at some length Sessions's initial skepticism about Schoenberg's technique, and eventual admiration for both the technique and the man, but also makes it very clear with quotations from the composer himself and examples from his music that he never found Schoenberg's technique suitable to his own needs. You may wish to take issue with Olmstead and Sessions both on this point, but I would guess you have not actually examined the scores of either of the works you name (the Third Symphony and Montezuma) if you believe either of them is constructed from a tone-row. I have not spent as much time with the score of the symphony as with that of the opera, but it is plain to me that Sessions's technique in both cases is practically the same approach as Hauer's tropes (Sessions used the word "scales" instead): that is, the twelve pitch classes are grouped into sets—usually hexachords—within which the composer freely sets the order. This can still be called "twelve tone" (as Hauer certainly did), but it is not Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique, by any stretch of the imagination.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I brought up the subject less because of disbelief than because of astonishment. I'm probably going to read Olmstead's biography after I find a copy to shed some light on this matter. I did read extensively about Montezuma in some publication, whose name I can't remember, which contained examples from the score, but apparently I'm too much of an amateur to have paid attention to where Sessions' methods differ from "the" twelve-tone technique. I was surprised by the revelation of the relationship between Sessions' and Hauer's music, given how quickly Hauer's solutions fell into disregard, not least thanks to Schoenberg himself when he dismissed them. Sorry about not citing sources; I have a habit of not memorizing who wrote what and where. ~~Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.222.189 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And now I found out that even Imbrie and Babbitt - two who should know better - are saying it. They are saying what all the encyclopedias and journals are saying.

"Roger Sessions eventually adopted the 12-tone method once he was convinced that it would in no way interfere with his personal style, and that he could adapt it to his needs at all times. This was during a time when many other composers were similarly influenced. It was thought that the future of music might well lie in this direction. Among these many others, I also attempted to write music using this technique. I found it intriguing, but eventually I decided I could do just as well without it. (Roger himself stated at least that he “reserved the right to commit rape or mayhem on the [twelve-tone] row”)." --Andrew Imbrie.

"When he (Sessions) returned in 1951 to teach at Juilliard one summer – remember? – to lecture at Juilliard and I saw him there in New York, of course – he began writing his solo Violin Sonata, which was about as explicitly a 12-tone work as he ever wrote. --Milton Babbitt

I suppose this technique, which Imbrie "also attempted to write music using", refers here to a technique practically identical to Hauer's one with groups of unordered pitch collections. So we might as well blame the students and the acquaintances of Sessions himself for "being wrong" on such matters, rather than the articles written by journalists and encyclopedians. The source of such misconstruals is nothing less than his two most orthodox students. ~~Threadstarter

Yes, that is about the size of it. Sessions may have contributed to the confusion himself, by occasionally referring to "rows", when what he really meant was "a pair of 'scales'" (that is, two hexachords, the notes withing each to be ordered freely during composition). These can of course be written down like a tone row, but it has to be understood that the order of the notes within each half is completely arbitrary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that Sessions wasn't too familiar, if at all, with Hauer or his music, and basically just saw himself constantly using his right to "commit rape" (hmm, that sounds oddly out of character) and "mayhem" on a technique conceived by Schoenberg, so far in fact that inversional and retrograde transformations lost their their harmonical function and all that remained was the transpositional transformations, which Hauer, as I understand, did not even in his longest pieces take advantage of, contributing to all the criticism and dismissals Hauer received, not least from Schoenberg himself. I have no reason to believe that Sessions or these students of his ever have made a distinction between two different techniques, rather than just a distinction between two different applications of "the" same technique, which they refer to as the twelve-tone technique. In any case I have no information about which solution Imbrie tried to use, and Babbitt, who stuck to ordered successions of rows and hexachords, never even explicitly expresses beyond implication in this interview that Sessions ever wrote using "the" twelve-tone technique. (ie. What was about as explicitly a 12-tone work that Bach ever wrote?) Excuse the speculation. ~~Threadstarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.222.189 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Waldhorn

Referring to your Chamber music edit: Waldhorn is a German term (but not THE German term) for horn. The most frequently used term in German is just Horn. I don't understand why the German article on the instrument is called Waldhorn and not de:Horn (Instrument) but that's not for you to think about. I would assume that some horns can be called Waldhorn, others not, but don't enough to be sure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This has always been exactly my understanding—just as in English we usually say "horn" but sometimes say "French horn". The statement that the Waldhorn was a predecessor to the French horn was entirely incorrect. They are both terms for exactly the same instrument. According to Sibyl Marcuse's Musical Instruments: A Comprehensive Dictionary, the earliest use of English term "French horn" is from 1681; the earliest German use of "Waldhorn" is 1596. Both refer to the same type of instrument. Also according to Marcuse (article "Horn"), the "hooplike", wide circular form of horn did not emerge until the early 17th century, and was transformed considerably up to about 1660. Interestingly, throughout this period the French term for this instrument was trompe (and still today, the Spanish term is trompa). At the time Brahms composed the horn trio (1865), the valved horn was well established, even if some "purist" performers still insisted that the valveless horn has a superior tone (and in his 1906 orchestration book Widor recommends that the student practice writing for the natural horn in order to better appreciate the instrument's true character, and as late as 1943 Britten specifies natural horn for his Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings). Brahms composed his trio with this natural horn in mind, but the terms "Waldhorn", "Horn" (German), "horn" (English), "French horn" applied equally to both the natural and valved instruments by that time. Indeed, many of the finest valved instruments of that period (and up through the first third of the 20th century) had originally been natural horns, fitted only later with valves. Today, since the rise of the period-instrument movement in the 1960s and 1970s, we often say in English "natural horn" to distinguish the valveless instrument from the common orchestral valved horn, but this is a recent development. In the 19th century, a valveless horn could be specified with terms like the French cor de chasse or the German Jägerhorn, but this would certainly mean the comparatively crude hunting horn, played Schalltrichter auf, with its wildly out-of-tune seventh, eleventh, and thirteenth partials, rather than the more cultured orchestral (natural) horn, played with the hand in the bell to modify these notes (among other things). Brahms certainly did not have the hunting horn in mind!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed info. (I didn't mean to question your edit, btw, only the phrase the German ....) Would you have as valuable information about the cantata in general, an article in a sad state? Or know someone? I asked on Classical music, so far without response. Dealing with Bach I wrote my own, but getting to others like Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel, I am returned to the general one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

When writing edit summaries, I don't always pay as close attention as I might to niceties of grammar, such as whether I am using the definite or an indefinite article. (In fact, I am horrified to see how many simple typos end up in those summaries!) I have never looked at the Cantata article, but I shall do so now that you have called my attention to it. (My heart sinks at your description, however.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

musikFabrik

Looking at de-WP: it looks as vague there but in a different way, it's a language that I don't speak, terms such as Produktionsfeld. - I can't explain the picture, would prefer to see people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't speak German? I assumed you were a native speaker of that language. Well, I can look there and see if there is any useful information, but there are two very nice photos of Mediapark 7, both of which I put on the Klang (Stockhausen) article, precisely because musikFabrik listed their studio as being in that building. It also houses the KOMED Hall, where portions of Klang were performed by musikFabrik recently.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Smile, I speak German, sure, but a don't speak a language with terms like Produktionsfeld, this "we want to say things differently" style. I don't see a connection between the pic and the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Leider, die deutsche, daß ich spreche (als Fremdsprache, natürlich) ist gerammelt voll mit Wörtern wie "Produktionsfeld". Well, after a little research, I have discovered the photo was added with no explanation whatever, probably by a vandal. The German Wikipedia article has no photo, as I'm sure you know. I have replaced it with one of the images of Mediapark 7 that I mentioned. I agree that it would be better to have photos of the performers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Webern

Hello, I dug into the Anton Webern site where you had a citation problem and DID find references to the son and his death - and have come to the conclusion that World War I was a typo missing a second I. I've corrected it. The site is locked away in "Flash" code so its hard to search for particular items there. . . --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem with http://antonwebern.com - the PDF file (that can be downloaded from the icon at the top right of the Biography window) has an additional paragraph that says: "In February 1945 his only son, Peter, was killed in a strafing attack on a train. When the Russian Army neared Vienna, the composer and his wife fled to Mittersill near Salzburg, where their three daughters and grandchildren had sought refuge. Webern was accidentally shot and killed there by a soldier in the U.S. occupation forces." The paragraph does not appear in the web window. I have written to the site owner to point this out.

And thank you for the copy edit. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That explains a great deal, thank you. However, that site does not appear to be very reliable. For example, it describes Heinrich Isaac (the subject of Webern's doctoral dissertation) as a Dutch composer. If whoever edits that site can assume "Franco-Flemish" really means "Dutch", then who knows how many other mistakes it contains. I would recommend relying instead on the comprehensive Moldenhauer biography, or the New Grove article on Webern.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice I didn't bother re-entering it as the source since yours was fine. I mainly wanted to make it clear I wasn't pulling it out of thin air. Of course, then I immediately ruin any reclaimed credibility by mis-summarizing what I DID find there. Thanks for the further correction! Cheers --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Corect

Sorry for the Handel solo sonatas (Walsh) "corect" thing, I was doing a mass clean up of typos and didn't stop to take in the subtlties. My apologies. Iangurteen (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. This is a recurring problem on Wikipedia, since the quantity of text is so vast, and bots cannot be programmed to carefully read every article they come across, nor can a human guiding a bot search be expected to take the time to do this. The "sic" probably should have been there in the first place, or the word should have been protected from bots (and well-meaning editors) by a hidden-text flag.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Triplets

Now - Cantata improved thanks to two helpers - would you kindly rewrite Tuplets in a way that someone who only wants to know about triplets (CM) gets a fast and simple answer before being frightened by terms like irrational and abnormal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it is standard practice to put alternative terminology in the lede immediately following the term chosen for the article title, it will be difficult to avoid presenting the correct and normal (in my view, but I was overruled on this) term "irrational rthythm" before moving on to a discussion of triplets. However, it may not be unreasonable to move the discussion of triplet up to the beginning, and it would certainly do no harm to include mention of them in the lede as the "most common" kind—as indeed the paragraph on triplets already does.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)