User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Welcome!

For Prof. Kohl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Louis_Monod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.12.169 (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jerome Kohl, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I have read your edits to Karlheinz Stockhausen with great interest.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Glad to have you working on the serialism page - good edits and well done. Stirling Newberry 04:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You should do your user page, so people know more about your interests and experiences. Stirling Newberry 12:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good thought. I've only been registered since early August, and am still finding my way around the system. Jerome Kohl 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your edits to the

Thanks! That will be a good guide if anyone is looking for analytical writings about it. I have a question though. It's been a while since I read Boulez on Music Today and I don't have it on hand (is it still in print, even?); I was wondering if you could explain "pitch multiplication". Was this using each of the pitch numbers in the row to reorganize the pitch order within the rows used for pitch in the music? (I can't remember.) We could probably use a section about this at Twelve-tone technique. - Rainwarrior 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, pitch multiplication is quite a different thing, involving chord generation by combining subsets of a row or collection. (It's actually something of a misnomer, since mathematically the operation is addition, not multiplication). I'll see if I can come up with something coherent and not too involved, but whether it really belongs under twelve-tone technique is another question. Jerome Kohl 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if it is an obscure technique then it need not be defined at

Le marteau sans maître

, as a passing reference to "pitch multiplication" is annoyingly vague.

I've found some interesting lisp code here that claims Boulez's pitch multiplication is to take two sets and add each element of set 2 to each element of set 1 and collect the results without duplicates. (e.g. { 1 4 7 } x { 2 3 } = { 3 4 6 7 9 10 }) Is that an accurate description? (I would word it differently in the article, but I want to know if this is the correct operation.) - Rainwarrior 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct operation. I didn't know about that site, so thanks for pointing me at it. Jerome Kohl 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We apparently already had an article called Multiplication (music) (which wasn't in very good shape). I cleaned up what was there and added a section on Boulez's technique. Perhaps you'd like to look it over? - Rainwarrior 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I've added a link from the appropriate place in the

Boulez article. I think maybe the part on the other type of mutiplication (M1, M5, M7, M11) might benefit from a slight expansion to include something of its history (Herbert Eimert, etc.), but I'm going to have to look more deeply into this than I have so far. Jerome Kohl

21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you "corrected" the name "Robert Fink" in this edit, though I am wondering if it might have been in error. There is a UCLA musicologist named Robert Fink who has written extensively on 20th century music (e.g. his book "The Language of Twentieth Century Music"). I think there is confusion as to whether it was this Robert Fink, or the Bob Fink who had been inserting links to his website into the article at a later date. You can see in this edit that the original reference to "Robert Fink" was made by Stirling Newberry, and the links to Bob Fink's greenwych.ca website were added much later. I think it is more likely, however, that the original reference to Robert Fink was actually intended as the musicologist who specializes in 20th century music. (That said, it still needs a "citation needed". When I can get to a library I'll probably look up Robert Fink.)

I only noticed this because I have been having recent problems with Bob Fink, who has been inserting material from his self published books, and links to his website into pages all over wikipedia, and I've been trying to clean them out, so I've been doing a lot of digging through page histories lately. - Rainwarrior 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I only "corrected" that link because of the inserted references elsewhere in the article, which directed me to the Bob Fink article on Wikipedia. From what it said there, it seemed plausible that it was this Fink who was the one making the claims. I don't know the UCLA Robert Fink.--Jerome Kohl 08:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It looked plausible, yes, but I just got word from Stirling Newberry saying that he did mean Robert Fink, and not Bob Fink. - Rainwarrior 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sterling Newberry still needs to cite a source where Robert Fink said what he is alleged to have said.--Jerome Kohl 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to have a citation. I've mentioned that to him. - Rainwarrior 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A search of RILM turns up 25 articles by Robert Fink (always assuming there aren't two or more authors of that name), but nothing specifically addressing this question. He seems to focus on three areas: American minimalism, popular music, and teaching/administration. I suppose it is possible that somewhere, in one of these articles, he makes a passing reference to the impossibility of atonality. I have to confess I am interested to see whether his position is that (1) atonality is an abortive concept, and all music described as such is really "tonal" in some sense of the word, or (2) all things labelled "atonal" are outside the realm of "music". He does have one article on Schenker, who once famously proclaimed that a piece by Stravinsky was in fact not music, because it failed to conform to Schenker's tonal model, so perhaps the latter is a possibility.--Jerome Kohl 18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you added some calls for citations at Trio theory. That page, though, is just a duplication of material Bob Fink inserted into Musical acoustics, so you might want to give that a look over too since it's the same stuff. (If you feel adventurous you might take a look at the talk page, but it's got pages and pages of Mr. Fink's argument on it.). - Rainwarrior 07:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rainwarrior, for the heads up, though in fact I am aware of this. It seemed to me fair to straighten out the formats and documentation of the Trio Theory stuff, even if it is nothing more than one of the latest retread-retread jobs of a conception already beaten to death in the 1950s, 1930s, etc. (with the Naturton aspect of course going back to Hugo Riemann in the 1880s and 90s). I'm compiling a list of references to this earlier material, but it's now over 200 items, and may be a bit too long a list for a wikipedia entry on such a stale latecomer. Still, he may appreciate someone supplying all the sources he fails to mention for the ideas contained in his little article. I mean, somebody has got to do it, since he seems incapable.--Jerome Kohl 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To Jerome Kohl:

I feel it's necessary to tell you that Rainwarrior is not telling you the whole truth about myself (Bob Fink).

He told you that I have listed my "self-published" works on Wikipedia but he has has neglected to tell you that most of my major work is NOT self-published.

Here are three major examples meeting Wiki standards:

1. I was invited to write a special article, and it was published in Studies In Music Archaeology III, a huge 670 pp book (2003) of the archaeology study group of the International Council On Traditional Music, -- the proceedings of its 2000 world music archaeology Conference in Germany.
2. I was published in Archaeologia Musicalis a separate journal of the same international study group. You can find both the above international book & journal titles in WorldCat at http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/search?q=%22Archaeologia+Musicalis%22&qt=owc_search
3. I have been invited to write an article again in the Spring of 2007 by a new musicology academic journal in Turkey.

I am not a member of these groups, but was invited (unsolicited) to their publications because of my reputation in the field of the origin of music and my 1997 Internet essay The Neanderthal Flute -- which received so many hits that the publisher was able to raise money on one of the websites for publishing the essay in hard-copy. I have never paid anything to a publisher for publishing my work.)

In addtion, I was asked by Nature Journal in 1999 to be a juror for them regarding an article on the 9,000 year old flutes from Jiahu. I have dozens of e-mails from the editor to prove this unsolicited invitation.

My books on music origins were published by a small Detroit publisher in 1970. They sold out my books, and sold their imprint to a buyer (not me) in Saskatoon. At the same WorldCat URL above, if you list my titles: Universality of Music, & Origin of Music Essay, & On the Origin of Music in the search, you'll find about 1/3 to one-half of the several hundreds of books we know are catalogued in major world libraries. (Not all foreign or smaller libraries list holdings with WorldCat).

Finally, if you Google these terms (+Fink +"Neanderthal Flute") Google will return over 3,300 websites of reviews, links and comments about my work on that title.

If you want a much fuller detailed matter of my background, reviews, credentials, published articles in other journals, magazines, and the media, see: Talk:Musical_acoustics and click the contents there on the section "9. Notability....". I also have a university degree in music (Wayne State University), but decided I couldn't take the jingoist atmosphere at that time to go into teaching & PhD work. I joined the anti-Vietnam war movement instead. But I kept up my studies.

I only mention this to prove that Rainwarrior -- for reasons I cannot understand -- is omitting the full truth. Perhaps when my publisher (and others, including myself) began looking into Wikipedia to see if there was a place for the half-century of research and knowledge we had -- we didn't know the rules, and Rainwarrior has found to his horror that many links (relevant to the articles where they were placed) were "all over " Wikipedia, listing my published record and websites. We stopped doing that when everyone jumped down our throats. I realize you think my views are "retreads," but fairness for other verified views is supposedly a Wikipedia goal. R's horror at newbie procedural mistakes doesn't justify withholding the entire story. (And the wheel is still a viable invention despite needing retreads from time to time, especially when the older conception or tread fails to answer certain problems that the current ideas solves.)

But looking into the Wikpedia policies, we see that the rules are aimed at blatant promotionalism & outrageous huckstering rather than at well-meant educational goals, and that indeed, if relevant and reputable, sometimes owned websites can be justifiable as sources of reading and useful information.

To Rainwarrior I ask he respect his own Wikipedia rules and guides. And here, citing part of one: ("You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work..."). Rainwarrior should therefore not "clean out" every Greenwich reference that may actually be informative and useful, behind our backs, as a private crusade against me, without a chance for comment from any opinion other than his own. I trust he will do that so that we can know and replace with proper citations and sources those he cannot abide for concrete reasons.

Regards,

Bob Fink

P.s. I am prepared to negotiate with Rainwarrior regarding Musical_acoustics if he has any desire to look at a constructive give & take or compromise. I'd like to end this time-wasting and debilitating dispute. My e-mail is [email protected]. Or use Talk if you prefer. --Bob Fink 65.255.225.37 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jerome. I happened to notice some of the work you've been doing and would like to point you to my user page where I've collected very basic information (birth/death dates, nationalities) on about 40 composers that I feel should have more Wikipedia representation. Perhaps you will find some of the work that I've already done useful. I hope so. —Middlepedal 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Middlepedal, good to make your acquaintance. Thanks for the heads-up about your list, I will certainly keep you in mind should I come across any of the data for which you are looking. A few of those names are familiar, though at the moment I don't have anything to add. The additions I have made to the 20th- and 21st-century lists have mainly come about due to wikipedia articles I have written recently, though in some cases they are merely composers whose names it occurred to me were missing from those lists while I was glancing through them.--Jerome Kohl 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered moving over to Citizendium? Things are really nice over there. I used to spend so much time on WP deleting simple vandalism I never had time to actually produce content, but on CZ one can dedicate one's time entirely to writing, see my articles on Norgard for example. Also, since you appreciate formal music scholarship, CZ with its philosophy of heeding recognized experts above Joe Random might impress you. CRCulver 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Never even heard of Citizendium, but I will check it out on your recommendation.--Jerome Kohl 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you added back those hideous "[page number]" bits to the Cope references on the

Hi Doctormatt. Of course those intrusions look terrible, but it is the only way this poor wiki-novice knows to make such a tag, when the book citation itself is already present. Removing the tag makes it appear that the person responsible believes the problem to have been corrected. When I first tagged those incomplete cites, they had been in place for a very long time, and I did not have the patience to go through the entire article history to discover who had first inserted them. I do not have a copy of Cope's book handy, but I do have the Cage, and will make an effort to find that page citation (though the book lacks an index, making this a challenge). Between the two of us, perhaps we can soon transform the manure pile into a rose bed.--Jerome Kohl 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for adding the Cage page number. I should have the Cope book in a few weeks; when I get it I'll be sure to fix those references. Cheers, Doctormatt 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As you seem to know this subject if you have time could you compile a selected discography of Stockhausen please? I am interested in getting to know his work and wouldn't have a clue where to start. Thanks in advance. SmokeyTheCat 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up". Somehow, I hadn't noticed there was no discography at all. I've added a link to Bernard Pulham's comprehensive discography (see the Talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen page), which is not the selective discography you are asking for, but it's a start. I'm not sure I'm the right person to be asking to make such a selection, simply because I know the subject too well. As a result, even Bernard's comprehensive discography can sometimes seem too selective to me, though you may find it overwhelming. I'll give this a think, and maybe some other kind souls who have a little more distance than I do will contribute, as well.--Jerome Kohl 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! Have you ever heard of this? It gets three Google hits aside from Wikipedia itself, but is being persistently pushed into counterpoint and another article by a series of anon IPs. I've had a creepy feeling I'm the only one with counterpoint on his watchlist, but I noticed you edit the article once in a while--and also have some expertise in this area. I keep reverting him, but I just want a reality check to make sure this isn't something significant that's new. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of "homosynchrono" counterpoint, no, but then, what do I know? I only have PhD in music theory, and a few years' experience teaching counterpoint at the college level. Still, the etymology seems correct, though the offered definition appears a bit screwy. It sounds like an alternative definition for various sorts of canon (augmentation canon, retrograde canon, etc.). I would concur with your decision to revert this guy's persistent attempt to insert this nonstandard term. You could be correct about your being the only person with counterpoint on you watchlist ;-). I have about 150 articles on mine, so I have to be careful about adding more. You are correct, of course, that I have from time to time tweaked this article. I tend to get diverted here from

Kontrapunkte (which was originally a mangled article title—no hyphen—for Kontra-Punkte, by Stockhausen), as well as from diverse other articles of music-theoretical nature on my watchlist.--Jerome Kohl

04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is that not overtagging? Have you read the references in the references section? Not everything needs a cite, especially not some uncontroversial ones as you have tagged. If you believe some statements are false, remove them or mention them on the discussion page. But this seems overtagging and also (minor point) makes the article look ugly. Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and apologies that I reverted a second time. I did not realised this was the second time which I always try to avoid. I though it was some other article where I removed those tags. Garion96 (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, a "References" section (or Bibliography) is simply a convenient, central list with the publication details of sources used in an article. It is no substitute for notes or inline citations, which are necessary for providing the specific page in a book (for example), where the information can be verified. It is possible that some of the tags were for relatively trivial things. Well and good, so remove them and explain your reasoning. For the rest, it is not so much that I believe the statements to be false as that they seem unsupported, and I would like to know where that data came from. With a wholesale removal, I am left with two alternatives: (1) painstakingly re-edit the entire article or section, marking only what I believe (on this pass) to be the most flagrant unsupported claims, in the hope that you and/or other editors will agree they are necessary, or (2) simply revert to the "overtagged" version, and risk starting a revert-edit war. The second option is obviously a lot easier for me.--Jerome Kohl 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing is preferred, but for non-controversial statements/facts it is not mandatory. Asking for 9 citations in one paragraph is excessive. I did asked for more imput on the mailing list. See [1] for someone who agreed with your tagging and [2] for someone much smarter who agreed with me. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I know which of those two correspondents I agree with, as well ;-) Now at least I know which tags you were referring to, and I feel that (for example) it is important to indicate where to find out about the availability of those piano rolls. Searching through everything in a long list of references is just not on.--Jerome Kohl 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Within limits, I do agree with you. But asking for 9 citations in one paragraph is still too much, even in academic papers you don't encounter that often. Searching in a reference section, although citing is preferable, is not that bad. Garion96 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nine calls for citations in a paragraph, of course, does not necessarily translate into nine citations (since it is possible—even likely—that two or three facts come from a single source), and a usual procedure in any case is to collect citations at the end of a paragraph, except where the context demands more specific placement. The comparison to academic papers is, I respectfully submit, not very relevant, principally because Wikipedia is not written by "experts" but, rather, by "anybody", which makes the need for verifiabilty more acute than for academic papers, not less so. Searching in a reference section can indeed be "that bad", and in fact usually is. In the present case, for example, there is an undocumented reference to Robert Craft's embarrassment at Stravinsky's behaviour in restaurants. I do not recall this particular anecdote (though I remember one about a wrong telephone number and a truss that needed repairing), and might like to track it down, not so much to confirm its accuracy as to find the context, and possibly other similar stories. The Source list includes two enormous books by Craft, plus one of the conversation books with Stravinsky, and the "Further Reading" list (which may or may not have been thoroughly vetted for whether or not it contains "references" to the article) has one more of the conversation books. I am fairly certain that the indexes of these books do not include items like "Stravinsky, annoying personal traits," so tracking down the citation would involve skimming through perhaps 1000 pages of material. With items not tied to an author's name (the question of availability of those piano-roll recordings, for example), the problem is greatly magnified, but even an unpaginated reference to Taruskin can be virtually useless if the subject is not specific enough to warrant an index entry, since his two volumes come to over 1,700 pages. At present, this article does not have a very long reference list, but it can (and probably should) grow, which will only make the problem worse over time.--Jerome Kohl 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Little late reply. As before, I do agree with you that citing is better. Tagging the article with {{

fact}} nine times in one small paragraph is excessive. :) Garion96 (talk)

20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, someone else just informed me; and I don't think it's clear yet. Here is the link to my talk page where I was told about this.

At first I misunderstood the post and responded a different aspect - the copyright issue is clarified in the 3rd indented reply.

If you wish, you're welcome to add a note to the discussion on my talk page so we can figure out what to do about the questionable copyright status of the text. Best Wishes... --Parsifal _Hello 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

... I replied on my talk page to your note about the copyright issue. --Parsifal _Hello 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am very happy for the great improvements at that article, Would you agree to move it to Electronic music (classical and experimental), since there is one named Electronic music (dance and popular)? We should thank User:Susume-eat for having been bold, ha made important changes and now we can see the good implications of his work. he seems no longer active now.Doktor Who 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would cautiously endorse this move, mainly on grounds that I am uneasy with the use of the word "classical" all on its own in this context, since we often use the expression "classical studio technique" to refer to the way electronic music was produced in the 1950s and early 1960s, before the advent of synthesizers and computer-music technology rendered the cutting and splicing of tape largely obsolete. There is, however, still the problem of the article titled simply Electronic music, whose historical section largely duplicates that of the present article.--Jerome Kohl 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the word "classical" is not appropriate here. But I don't think we should use the title Electronic music (classical and experimental), because there exists Experimental music that is not electronic. Also, there is erudite or serious electronic music that's not "classical," and as you mentioned there is also "classical studio technique" that has a different meaning. So the current title of the article is not appropriate.

It was previously titled

Electronic music (classical)

is left over from that).

What do you think of the prior title,

Electronic art music? There is also a non-electronic article, Art music that serves partly as a disambiguation or navigation page, to organize serious music and link to pages such as Classical music

, but that article needs a lot of work too.

Then there is also the main article at Electronic music that as you also mentioned, overlaps this one a lot. That article though needs to be enough of an overview to lead to articles both in the serious/erudite side and the popular areas such as Electronic dance music and others. Due to those popular associations, that article attracts a lot of "churn", like the main Music article, with all sorts of strange things appearing there often. I think it's best kept as a flexible navigation page, with only short summaries of each area, so the funny stuff that gets put there can be easily seen and fixed, and the deeper topics have their own pages.

One more page that also overlaps is Electronic musical instrument, so, it seems... there's lots to do!

In any case, back to the main point here. I concur that

Electronic music (classical)

is not the right title for that article. However, whatever title is chosen should not be based on the way the electronic popular music genres are organized currently. They have a different kind of hierarchy, and also, those article titles may not be settled at this time, so they should not be used as a template.

I'm interested in your thoughts on all this. Would you like to continue this discussion here, or perhaps at

Talk:Electronic music (classical)? --Parsifal _Hello

07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the contents of electronic music in the academic/classical tradition and the electronic pop, rock and techno scenes and styles must be kept fully distinct and separate even in their historical sections. An article regarding the history and development of music technology should keep both the "sides" together. The title of

Electronic music (classical) could be simply Electronic music. I agree to continue this discussion in articles' talk pages. Doktor Who

23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let us continue this in the talk pages of the respective articles. Just one parting question, however, before we adjourn to more suitable premises: if "Electronic music (classical)" is to become just plain "Electronic music", then what is the present "Electronic music" to become?--Jerome Kohl 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-edited to remove a comment I had just now entered here. It now no longer applies, because I saw you already moved this to the talk page; I will join the discussion there. Thanks for your work on this. --Parsifal _Hello 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for cleaning up those references I added. I've never used that streamlined format before. It looks much better now that the booklist can be seen all in one place.

About the [sic] words... two were typos, I've now fixed those. This one: "avante-gardism" - I copied out of the book, that's exactly how they wrote it; I wondered about it but decided not to second-guess the publisher. The one on the Brian Eno reference I didn't add so I don't know about that one. --Parsifal _Hello 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As you might have gleaned from my user profile, I served a 16-year sentence as editor of an academic journal, so I have a fairly good idea of what works and what doesn't in footnotes and bibliographies. That said, there are a variety of formats in standard use, and Wikipedia probably uses all of them at one point or another, but the nature of Wikipedia makes certain conventions hazardous or even unusable. Devices normally used in print media to reduce the bulk in footnotes, such as "ibid.", "loc cit.", and shortened references after the first appearance, are not possible where a new intervening footnote might be inserted (unintentionally pointing a "loc cit.", for example, to the wrong reference), or where an initial reference may be deleted, leaving a string of "[authorname], [pagenumber]" cites without an antecedent. Reproducing the entire bibliographical entry in every footnote is unwieldy, as I'm sure you found out. Similarly, I have learned not to use the conventional 3-em dash as substitute for an author's name after the first entry, when several items by the same author occur in a bibliography. A later edit by someone who does not understand this convention can end up attributing a book or article to the wrong author (e.g., see the edit history for Pierre Boulez from around 6–9 August of this year, where one of Steve Heinemann's articles suddenly was attributed to Boulez!).

I marked those sics as much for my own reference as anyone else's. Unfortunately, the book in question is checked out of the library here, so I couldn't verify the misspellings. I'm sorry to inform you that this popular book is full of this sort of thing—it is not what I would call a reliable source, and these citations should be replaced by better ones, if they can be found. When quoting verbatim, we never "second-guess the publisher". That's what a "sic" is for.--Jerome Kohl 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining about that; I see we need to avoid the usual shorthands to assure that footnotes don't get separated from their publication sources.

I the meantime, there were changes again to the article title, so if you like, please have a look at the talk page and article history. It appears that your name was invoked as an authoritative implied endorsement for the change. Maybe you'll like the change, but I hope not. I find it confusing and inelegant. --Parsifal _Hello 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The

Please don't apoligize for asking, but I'm afraid I can't be of much help to you. I don't know any Wikipedians with knowledge of Japanese, nor do I have any familiarity with the language myself. As for "genres", I am totally baffled by the terms you use. I have never heard of "Gothic and Lolita" or "Visual kei", which I assume must have something to do with pop(ular) or commercial music(s), which is/are quite outside of my areas of interest and expertise.--Jerome Kohl 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to take the opportunity to thank you for your edits to the

Thank you for your kind words. It is encouraging to know there are people who appreciate your work.--Jerome Kohl 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome. If I can ever be of assistance, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! ---

The'FortyFive'

23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What 'Jazz' needs is a lot more sensible, accurate [and 'sober'!] contributors like you, Jerome Kohl. It's currently a 'mess' which seems a great pity and no-longer-an-easy 'mess' to save. Have you the time and energy? It would be good - well done so far! cn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.108.69 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm keeping this article on my watchlist for the time being, and may occasionally make an edit. Jazz is not an area of particular expertise for me, however.--Jerome Kohl 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've changed the references on

I disagree about it being confusing. Personally, I find hyperlinked footnotes to be distracting and annoying, especially when all they contain is an author-date citation. As for changing formats, I believe it is Wikipedia policy to continue with whatever form was originally adopted for an article, until and unless some good reason has been brought forward and discussed on the article Talk page. I saw no such discussion here, so I reverted your format changes.--Jerome Kohl 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a read up on this and I'm happy to leave the referencing as you had it. Sorry for the bother!

Dancarney

14:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help with this. Ceoil 07:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. It was nothing more than mechanical editing, really.--Jerome Kohl 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you've been editing the chaconne and passacaglia pages, perhaps you know or have researched this. I've always heard Brahms's 4th's last movement refered to as a chaconne (with the fact that he 'ressurected' the form in the finale of the Haydn Variations). Even Gerard Schwartz in his Musically Speaking series [3] calls them both that, without even referring to passacaglias. So, any of those books you're referencing mention it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have most often heard that movement referred to as a chaconne but, if you are asking whether it might be a passacaglia instead, then you ought to look up the New Grove "Chaconne" article by Alexander Silbiger, who makes it plain (in section 7: "The chaconne and passacaglia after 1800") that the modern distinction between a bass-line ostinato passacaglia and a harmonic-sequence chaconne is entirely artificial, and can be traced "to a handful of ‘rediscovered’ pieces by the German masters, especially Bach’s Passacaglia for organ and his Chaconne for unaccompanied violin". Silbiger mentions the Brahms as being "perhaps the most famous latter-day example", but carefully avoids making a distinction between the names. He does say, citing Raymond Knapp's ‘The Finale of Brahms’s Fourth Symphony: the Tale of the Subject’, 19th-Century Music 13, no. 1 (1989): 3–17, that Brahms took as models Buxtehude’s Chaconne in E minor and the final chorus of Bach’s Cantata no.150. The latter is not specifically labelled either "chaconne" or "passacaglia" in the score, but in the conversation between Bülow and Brahms described by Ochs and cited by Knapp it is described as a "ciacona", so I suppose the weight would have to come down in favor of "chaconne", but the distinction really is entirely academic.--Jerome Kohl 20:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps the two articles SHOULD change...thanks though, either way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear about what you mean but, yes, the Passacaglia article in particular needed to change. It was an embarrassment, what with the unverified (and unverifiable) claim that it was originally a form of street dance. However, if you are suggesting that my statement about the distinction between passacaglia and chaconne being an academic one is reason for the two articles to be merged, let me hasten to clarify that I mean this in the context of Brahms's 4th in particular, and the 19th/20th-century chaconne and passacaglia more broadly. They are quite distinct forms in the 16th and 17th centuries, and only start to become blurred in the 18th. The complete confusion of the two is a 19th-century phenomenon, based on reviving the form(s) based on too-small a sample of 18th-century models (three or four pieces in all, and all by Bach and Handel). There is of course that 20th-century "textbook" distinction to which Silbiger refers (I believe it was fabricated by one of Willi Apel's graduate students for an early edition of the Harvard Dictionary), but this is based on an even smaller sample (two pieces, both by J. S. Bach, as Silbiger states).--Jerome Kohl 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Er no, just referring to the Brahms 4th issue. Certainly they need seperate aritcles in general. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call on removing that bit about Rick Wright from the Stockhausen article. Had I noticed it, I would have removed it myself. I reverted an anonymous user's addition of Wright to the prominent students list earlier today. What I find particularly amusing about all this is that the Rick Wright article (about whom I know next to nothing) claims that he is a self-taught pianist! So, he is both an auto-didact and a prominent student of Stockhausen?! Truly remarkable. Cheers! ---

Exactly so. Whoever it was who inserted that claim (which is not made in the Wikipedia article on Wright, BTW) has had nine months to verify it, ever since I tagged it back in February. It was your reversion of the anonymous addition that reminded me after all these months of the claim in the "Popular culture" section, so thank you for your scrupulous attention.--Jerome Kohl 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I would be fascinated to learn that Stockhausen influenced the members of Pink Floyd, if there were reliable sources for it. But, it is nothing more than speculation to say Rick Wright was a "student" of Stockhausen---which I assume is meant in the vague student-from-a-distance sense of one who has studied someone's work in an informal manner. For our purposes, that simply will not do. ---

The'FortyFive'

19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jerome and RepublicanJacobite - I noticed your discussion and found a couple references with a mention of this, though no further details are included:

"The group's organist, Rick Wright, in particular acknowledged the influence of Stockhausen;""

page 141 -- Macon, Edward L. (1997). Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Oxford University Press.

ISBN 0195098870

.

"Rick Wright and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd were admirers of Stockhausen."

Page 222 -- Bayles, Martha (1966) Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music , University of Chicago Press.

ISBN 0226039595

.

I'm on minimal editing schedule currently, so can't work on this further, but I thought you might find the above interesting. --Parsifal _Hello 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, of course, but "influenced by" is a far cry from "studied with". As the Wikipedia article already notes, many jazz and popular-music artists have expressed (or are claimed to have expressed) admiration for Stockhausen's music at one point or another. Perhaps these citations can be added to that list. Thank you.--Jerome Kohl 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it may seem like vandalism, but The Process of Weeding Out is indeed a 12-tone piece, especially the title track. I hope you're not letting any kind of classical bias keep you from letting this stay on the page.

I hope I am not letting any such bias creep in, but (1) from what I could learn, the person listed as the composer was merely the lead guitar player in the band, (2) The Process of Weeding Out appeared not to be "a piece" but rather "an album" (you have now clarified to me that it is both, but persist in referring to the album as a "piece"), and (3) I could find no evidence of 12-tone content. Your say-so is not sufficient, since this constitutes

WP:Original research, in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Further, though I do not know this particular band, I am familiar with a group called Twelve Ton Method, who claim to use Schoenberg's 12-tone technique but, on listening to the pieces in question, it is clear that they are nothing of the sort. So, claiming something to be twelve tone is not the same thing as it actually being twelve tone.—Jerome Kohl

01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I intend to write an article about you, as a Stockhausen expert. Do you know if I can use information or even text from your user page? I am referring to WP policies and general copyright laws.--Atavi (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that

WP:RS#Self-published_sources would rule out the citation of user pages. You would have to find better sources than that, and this may be difficult in my case.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I think I'll leave it,...--Atavi (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I note you reverted my revert?

The revert was because there were apparently attempts to revive it underway.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To expand on what Sfan00 is saying, check the IMSLP forum. Quite a number of threads explain that the shut down is only temporary -- that's why the template was changed rather than deleted. Though the two links I see in your history that were removed don't belond at the moment. I'll go stick em on their articles' talk pages. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jerome Kohl, I’m glad to meet a fellow Wikipedian who is interested in avant garde music and theory! I’ve set up a Wikiproject to focus on these articles. I thought I’d ask; Would you be interested in joining

Thanks for the invitation. I've had a look at the proposal, but I'm not sure just what "joining" would involve. It also seems to me that there are some serious definitional issues (the linked article Modern music, for example, for all its brevity is in considerable conflict with the parallel French article, as well as with the list of categories declared as relevant to the proposed project), but perhaps this is best referred to the project's Discussion page.—Jerome Kohl 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as a relatively newcomer to Wikipedia I’m somewhat inexperienced in setting up a project page. What you see is essentially a draft. I’ll do my best to correct these problems. Feel free to change anything you see, this is after all in the early stages of construction.

Joining would simply imply writing your name on the

WikiProject Contemporary music is meant as a way of communicating and collaborate on a subject we all work on anyway. The project will also try to help standardize contemporary music articles (improving categorization, formatting, naming conventions, et.) and will be a place other users can seek help if a particular article requires expert attention. Best, --S.dedalus (talk

) 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've seen references to similar groups from time to time, but never became curious enough about them to investigate how they worked. I'll sign on gladly. See you there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! See you there. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.