User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 2

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.

Thanks for your attention to the article In Nomine at the end of December, as well as your comment on the modern compositions. I removed the passage you queried that characterized the pieces as "often rather slow and meditative." -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome! As for the "often slow and meditative" remark, I was quite mystified by this, but thought perhaps it was a citation from some or another verifiable source. I therefore didn't want to just remove it, without giving the person who placed it there a chance to justify the claim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't object if he's in the Spectral music article. Only the most notable ones should be in the spectral section of the Contemporary classical music article. I just objected to his removal on the apparent grounds that it was just a made-up name, without moving him somewhere (but he's already in the spectral article). Badagnani (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my edit note read "removed redlink with no evidence of notability". If this suggests to you that I believed the name to be a made-up one, then you are reading into it things I certainly did not intend. I meant just what I said: it was a redlink, and I found no evidence of notability—certainly not on the same level as Grisey, Murail, Dufourt, etc. So, then, since you say "only the most notable ones" should remain in the CCM article, do you agree that Hurel does not belong there?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. There are references for Waschka, but I didn't come across a reference for a quintet by Waschka in Wikipedia or the web in general. I could have missed it. YRDailey (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. I can't find any reference to a wind quintet, either. If you haven't removed him again already, he should be. But, hey, next time, mention in your edit summary what it is that you couldn't find.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerome, you are eager to establish in Wikipedia a new form of radio art. As a German radio producer I can ashure you, there is no difference between a

) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am neither eager, nor do I wish to establish anything whatever, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, concerning any "new form of radio art". I merely observe that the (English) Wikipedia makes this distinction, and as long as it does, links to the

Hörspiel (at least, as practised at the Westdeutscher Rundfunk in Cologne in the 1970s and 1980s, when Amirkhanian was creating for the Hörspiel department there text-sound works that were in no meaningful sense "plays") is a much more inclusive category than "radio play". Perhaps this reflects a difference between Cologne and Berlin, where your user profile says you reside. (Possibly you are therefore personally acquainted with Georg Katzer, the subject of the article with the link actually under dispute here, and know his opinion on this matter. I do not know him myself.) If you feel strongly about this issue, then the correct procedure would be to put a "proposal to merge" on the two articles. If there is editorial consensus, then the "Hörspiel" article could be subsumed into the "radio play" one, perhaps with a short and well-documented section explaining the (disputed) difference.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard Skempton

Thanks again for your help. Actually, I thought you'd just tell me where pages begin/end in the originals.. you really didn't have to do all that work figuring out where specific statements came from. But thanks :) The article is in very good shape now. Jashiin (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you felt the necessity to state your opinion that H. Owen Reed's article was "absurd." He's quite a good composer, but one whose biography isn't very well known because there hasn't yet been a biography of his life published in book form. I played some of his compositions at a festival in the early 1990s, and he spoke about the background behind some of the pieces (such as "Spiritual," which was based on his hearing of black church singing as a young person in Missouri), and also mentioned his trilogy of operas based on Native American stories. When I began this article, I called him (he was 95, but still very sharp) and told him I was writing it, and asked him to fill in some of the background which is not in the published biographies, and to tell me more about the Native American operas. Some of the facts you question are in various websites, and others come from Reed himself. We do welcome artists to comment and correct incorrect information (while, of course, avoiding any possible conflict of interest), and in this case I solicited him for this purpose. He uses the Internet, and after the article was finished he took a look and commented that everything was entirely accurate (and he remarked on what he perceived to be an "amazing" number of links). I don't believe he had been familiar with Wikipedia before my communication with him. Badagnani (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I should not have used the word "absurd", but in any case I did not apply this word to the article, only some of the claims made in it. The correct word would have been "unverified". I would have thought that an editor of your experience would be aware of the

reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Do please try to find verifiable sources for these various claims.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he is so elderly and that these facts were apparently ones no one had ever asked him about (and may never again) seemed a good reason to

) 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations now found (and added) for all but three items. Badagnani (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerome,

That reference mistake stemmed from the fact that I wanted to make the article formatting consistent with other Stockhausen works' articles. I took the Texte reference from another article, changed the volume number from 3 to 4, but forgot to change the title of the actual article. Sorry about that! As for the descriptions of the butterflies, they're given by Stockhausen himself in that particular article, so I guess the cite quote template can be removed.

The Herbstmusik, Harlekin and In Freundschaft articles are not in the works; I just thought I'd leave them as links so that when someone creates those articles, they won't have to go through the process of searching for something like "harlekin stockhausen" (as I had to, with "amour stockhausen", to find the Formula composition article) to determine where they should put links to the newly created article.

--Jashiin (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did rather expect that was what happened. (I recognized the copy from the Mikrophonie (Stockhausen) article, which I created. It was especially conspicuous because you kept the "1971a" designation, without there being a "1971b".) However, you have now pointed out to me that the year is wrong, since vol. 3 was published in 1971, but vol. 4 only in 1978! As to removing the "cite quote" template, that should be done only when the citation of the quoted words, with a page number, is put into the text. (It is not sufficient, for example, to put The Complete Works of William Shakespeare into a bibliography, and then quote "If music be the food of love" in the article without specifying which play, act, and scene it comes from.)

Too bad that you are not preparing articles on the other three pieces. I thought you might be a clarinetist with a special interest in the repertoire (though Herbstmusik would be a lot to ask for). As to the redlinks, I think you will find that they only work in one direction. Someone creating an article on Herbstmusik, for example, will not find your Amour article any faster simply because it is redlinked there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

turns out I misread Stockhausen's remarks. I know, I should've known better than to create an article with a source I can't really read (I don't speak German), but I just love Amour too much. As for the N'Gor reference, I didn't have a map and had to rely on Web sources, which seem to mention the island more frequently; I'm not sure what to do about this. You're probably right though, the town seems a much more likely place to be referenced simply by "N'Gor".

As for the redlinks, I think you misunderstood. I meant that after someone creates Herbstmusik, for instance, they have to search for pages that mention the work, and when they find such pages, they have to edit them, linking to the newly created article. By leaving the redlinks you facilitate this process; noone will have to edit the article in order to include the link, because the link is already included and will function automatically.

Finally, thanks for fixing the Amour article; usually I try to be a little bit more accurate about my sources, but this time I guess I was too tired.

--Jashiin (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For someone who doesn't speak German you have done extremely well with the Texte 4 article on Amour! This is why I didn't just change the N'Gor reference, as I did with "living" to "vacationing"—I assumed you had found a source that I didn't know about. N'Gor Island appears to be a popular resort for surfers, which explains the greater number of web references, but I don't know anything about N'Gor itself except that it is very near the Dakar airport.

I do see your point about redlinks (I have had to do searches like that many times myself) but, when you create a new article, how can you tell whether any references to your subject "out there" have been redlinked? You will still need to search them out and check to see if they are linked, so a redlink only saves the need to put in the appropriate markup. The other thing about this (of which you may be unaware) is that there are some editors out there who hate redlinks so much that they make a deliberate effort to remove them. In some cases, this involves not only removing the link, but the item marked, as well. (For example, in lists of supposedly "notable" people or things, a redlink can signal non-notability.)

Finally, you are very welcome for the edits I made to the article. I was very pleased to see someone create an article for this piece, which was not particularly high on my own list of Stockhausen articles to create. You may wish to know that your contribution inspired me to finally create a long-overdue article on Hymnen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First, just to clarify that there IS a composer called Robert Mackay (not just a Canadian businessman) - he works in the UK and is based at the University of Hull, Scarborough. Though I agree he may not qualify as sufficiently notable for such a brief list (whatever 'notable' means.)

Secondly, while I'm relatively resigned to not being sufficiently notable to make onto your list of Electroacoustic Composers, I am a bit sad not to have made it onto your more comprehensive list of Acousmatic Composers. Granted, this means that you have never heard of me, and I should probably just take the hint!

Anyway, thanks for all your efforts. Best wishes, Andrew Lewis 12:06, 13 March 2008 (GMT)

I don't have a clue what you are referring to—I don't "own" any lists. Instead of posting this message on my Wikipedia user page, why don't you put this comment on the Talk page of the article in question, where all editors interested in the subject can see it? As to what "notable" means, it is defined fairly clearly and at length here: Wikipedia:Notability. Best wishes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to your very extensive editing of the lists of composers in the articles

Le marteau, apparently without causing offence, but I will refer future comments to the discussion on these pages, as you request. (Also, being fairly new here, I wasn't aware that people "own" articles. I must look into that.) Andrew Lewis. Penmon (talk

) 11:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no offence taken. I only thought that your remarks might be of as much interest to other editors working on those lists as to me.

I'm sure that I must have made the deletions you mention, but with 400 articles on my watchlist I can hardly remember every edit. I recall that there was a fairly heated discussion about non-notables on the Electroacoustic music list—or was it about the list of Stockhausen's notable students, or perhaps both? I really do not remember editing Robert Mackay, but from time to time I have discovered upon checking a bluelink that the person in question is not who he is supposed to be. When there is no disambiguation page and I do not recognize the name as a duplicate or cannot easily find any composer of that name, I may jump to the conclusion that it was put in as a prank. Editors on Wikipedia, particularly anonymous ones, are not all above such a thing (see the recent history of the article on Mendelssohn's Reformation Symphony and its associated Talk page, item headed "Forgery?", for a particularly clever example that passed as fact for months before being uncovered).

My reference to "owning" was in response to your statement about "my lists". I did not even create those lists, nor do I caretake them with any particular diligence. You are of course quite correct about the diffrence between the two lists. The "more comprehensive" one seems to me better described as "indiscriminate", which is fine with me, personally, but strongly discouraged in Wikipedia guidelines. If Mackay was once there, and I removed him, then please feel free to put him back, with a comment in the Edit summary to the effect that he is, indeed, a composer. However, be careful to distinguish his name from the Canadian businessman with a qualifier, such as "Robert Mackay (composer)", so that the name will not bluelink to the wrong person. (If you are not yet familiar with the markups necessary to make the entry display as just "Robert Mackay", you will find them at Help:Link#Wikilinks.)

If you expect to take a continued interest in contributing to Wikipedia, I encourage you to

register. Apart from the reasons given at that link, an anonymous edit tends to raise suspicions (at least for me it does) more than one from a registered editor.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, that's very helpful. Andrew Lewis. (I would have registered under my own name, but it seems it's taken!) Penmon (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you replied to a "citation needed" mark in the

04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It wasn't meant as a comment to other editors, but as a reminder to myself. At that moment I didn't have access to the relevant information, and expected to get back to it later the same day. Then I forgot all about it, and that was—what—a year or more ago now? Sorry about that. I will go tend to it now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! When looking into the "Composuition Background" of the work, I find that those two paragraphs are useless. I suggest to remove all of those. Please take a look at the discussion page for more details. Thanks:) Addaick (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that I have no idea why you have put this on my talk page. I have never contributed to the article in question, apart from tagging the talk page for the Contemporary Music project. If you find defects in the article, then you should try to improve it (as I see you have done). If other editors working on the article disagree with your changes, they will let you know soon enough.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First, please forgives my rudeness. The fact is that since I am not quite active in Wikipedia and therefore I am not used to know a quite number of users which are working for classical music especially for contemporary music. When I look into to the list that anyone once had edited the page, I find that most of these users(including the user who tags the clean up template) are not actually likely to know about music. So I decide not to ask them for suggestion. I know you are a member of contemporary music so I decide to write to you. Please again forgive my annoyance to you. Addaick (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You were never rude! Please do not think that I felt you were, and I apologize if my response gave that impression. I was merely surprised that you seemed to believe that I had something to do with editing this article. I now understand your motivation a little better.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I just wanted to say thanks for your work on the Stockhausen article.

I didn't mean to cause problems by nominating it for Good Article status - It just seemed like a good article that deserved some recognition. I notice you've been responding to the reviewer's comments, with continuing improvements - but please don't feel any pressure about that. It doesn't really matter if it gets GA status or not, the info is just as valuable either way. That said, the improvements you've been adding are making an already good article even better. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and please don't apologize. A lot of missing documentation was needed, and your nomination has resulted in the impetus for me to provide it. I've given enough trouble along these lines to something like 400 other articles—I can scarcely complain when my own additions to this article come under the same scrutiny!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been doing a great job addressing the points I've brought up during my review. I apologize for it taking so long, but I have been very busy lately. Without a strong background in music, copyediting is a little difficult, but the article is surprisingly accessible for such an unconventional composer. You commented on my copyedits going beyond the sourced information, which I believe was in reference to Stockhausen's reason for going to the teachers' training college in 1942. The only change that I made to that sentence, though, was adding a comma. If I've created an error somewhere else, please let me know. I definitely don't want to change any of the meaning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. As to the issue of your copyedits going beyond the sourced information, you are mistaken. I was referring to your change claiming that it was Stockhausen's own choice to go to Xanten. Kurtz says only that "Karlheinz's relations with his stepmother were not always harmonious, so in January 1942 he became a boarder at the LBA (teaching training college) in Xanten" (Kurtz 1992, 18). From this evidence, it could just as well have been the result of an official adjudication, as the result of a court case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I was trying to say in my post above. As you can see from this diff, my only change to that sentence was adding a comma. The article already claimed that is was Stockhausen's choice. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be darned! You're right! That phrase jumped off the page at me, and I'm surprised I never noticed it before. Well, it's corrected now, in any case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jerome -- I was pleased to see that you converted my citation formats in the edits I made to the Stockhausen article, thanks for doing that. But I was surprised that you then removed my edits entirely on the grounds that they duplicated existing material in the article. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't otherwise mention Stockhausen's belief that he was of extraterrestrial origin; besides his comments on the 9/11 attacks, it's probably the thing for which he's best known in popular culture. I certainly think it should be explicitly mentioned in the article. What are your thoughts? Goldenband (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I was mistaken about there being something there already about the Sirius story, you are entirely correct. However, the sources quoted could be improved on, and certainly should include Robin Maconie's view on the subject, as well as a direct quote from Stockhausen himself, rather than second and third-hand journalistic reports. I'm afraid the citations were what really set me off in this instance, partly because of the formats that didn't match the rest in the article. I had only just finished converting your earlier formats, I didn't notice that this new addition was from the same person. Let's work together on this, starting with getting those citation formats right.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts: I have now read those two sources, and the one by McEnery does not actually support the claim that Stockhausen believed he was "of extraterrestrial origin". McEnery clearly believes that Stockhausen believes this, but the quotation from Stockhausen offered merely cites a recurring dream as the inspiration for the composition Sirius. McEnery's overall reliability is questionable, based on a large number of contrary-to-fact claims (Stockhausen did not grow up in Kürten—he moved there from Cologne only in the early 1960s; he did not accompany Nam June Paik on the piano in Originale; Simon Stockhausen is younger, not older than Markus Stockhausen, and Majella is not Karlheinz's only daughter; Aus den sieben Tagen was written in Kürten, not Paris, and is not for the piano; Samstag aus Licht does not end with an orchestra strike; etc.). The other item, written by Tom Service for the Guardian, actually claims that Stockhausen denies having been born in the Burg Mödrath (which is a building, not a town, as Service seems to think), but Service contradicts himself by saying it is "listed as his birthplace on his biography". We really must find better sources than these.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, and I think I've found something better. This is from Richard Friedman's review of several Stockhausen-related items in the first issue (Vol. 1, No. 1) of the Leonardo Music Journal, 1991, p. 108: "Remember, Stockhausen did say in 1978 that an inner revelation told him he was 'educated on Sirius, that I come from Sirius, but people laugh at this and don't understand it, so it really doesn't make much sense to talk about it.'" Does this suffice, do you think? Goldenband (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, and that in turn seems to come from Stockhausen's own Toward A Cosmic Music. Goldenband (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work! Friedman of course is still a second-hand source, but Cosmic Music is Tim Nevile's selection of items from Stockhausen's Texte, so that looks like primary source material. I'll have a look there. In the meantime, I've found citations in Mya Tannenbaum's conversation book, David Felder's 1977 interview in PNM, and one other interview (power failure at work cut me off there, just as I was getting organized). It all makes a very interesting juxtaposition with the journalistic reports you cited originally.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. It sounds like your research will nail down some heretofore-elusive facts about S. and Sirius. I look forward to seeing the results in the article! Goldenband (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The first step is done: I have created the article Sirius (Stockhausen), which contains the basic information, without the misinterpretations. I still need to track down Robin Maconie's interpretation, which I believe is in a radio interview (though a print or online source would be better), and follow up some more primary sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging some of the "facts" in the trecento composer articles -- I'll try to find sources for as many as I suspect I can find them for and cut these sections for what I am pretty sure we can't. Better no information than incorrect! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I don't doubt the accuracy of most of the things I tagged—it's just that verifiability is Wikipedia policy, and this has taken on considerably more weight in the past year or two. This can be particularly frustrating when an article cites no sources at all, or names one or two generally but does not have any inline citations—and there are a lot of older articles out there like this that haven't been noticed yet. In these cases (for music articles), I go straight to New Grove, and anything I can't verify there, I tag. This is as much for myself as for other editors, since I don't usually have the time to do a proper search (RILM, OCLC, JSTOR, Music Index, etc.) immediately, but may be able to do so in a day or two.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerome Kohl, thanks for your work and comments on the Microtonal Wiki. Can I ask you favor? If you have a chance to get around to it, I'd be grateful if you'd check the latest

article. I believe it's slowly getting away from the "kooky agendas" feeling it had before, and spent some time in the university library checking contents. (Not that there's anything wrong with kooky agendas, they just don't belong on Wikipedia).Frank Zamjatin (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been following your edits, and they seem entirely productive so far. I presume by "kooky agendas" you are referring to the "xenharmonic" group. I am not sure I entirely agree with you about this characterization, given that the context is Microtonality and not (say) German Symphonies, or Piano Repertoire, where just about any view on microtonality is liable to be seen as "kooky".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for all your contributions on the Paul Jacobs article. You will probably have gathered that I am a Wikipedia newcomer so your various prompts and additions have been extremely useful pointers. Any comments you have about how to improve the article generally would be welcome. I've rather run out of sources for the time being. Ideally I'd like to flesh out the section on commissions / first performances, which is light at the moment (i.e. which Berio, Henze etc and when?). Is there a simple way of appealing for information? - Thanks again Dmass (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Dmass

You are very welcome, Dmass. I did imagine you might be a bit new, perhaps not so much to Wikipedia as to forms for documenting sources, which is the area I have "meddled with" the most. As to locating more sources, you might start by creating a user page of your own, and also add an appeal on the Talk page for the Paul Jacobs article. Then you might consider joining (or at least posting an appeal with) one or more of the appropriate editorial project groups, such as the

Contemporary music projects (for which I have just added tags to Talk:Paul Jacobs(pianist)), or the Biography project (which was already tagged). For research of your own, I imagine you have already tried Google searches combining "Paul Jacobs" with the names of each composer in your list. Do you have access to Grove Music Online? If so, the composer articles there (or in the print New Grove) would be a good place to check, since the work lists may have information on first performances, and commissions may be mentioned in the body of the text. And don't forget the bibliographies to the New Grove articles, which are almost always useful. For Henze in particular, you will want to consult his autobiography, Bohemian Fifths, and for Berio, David Osmond-Smith's biography, which are listed in the References section of the respective Wikipedia articles. Happy hunting.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the suggestions. I will follow them up! All the best - Dmass (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) dmass

thank you for your contribution to the Bartók text, I put a reply on the talk page of Bartók RobertKennesy (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Disagree at talk page before rash editing. 2. As a former lutenist you should know who is Tim Crawford. Galassi (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This an example of T.Craword http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/XXII/3/527Lute88 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The COMPLETE Colburn interview is at http://polyhymnion.org/swv/intervista.htmlLute88 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made no "rash edits" that I am aware of. It would help if you would mention which article you are referring to—I have over 450 on my Watchlist—but I imagine you must mean Musical historicism. I don't know where yoiu get the idea that I have ever been a lutenist, but it makes no difference at all whether I do or do not know who Tim Crawford is, in any case. See Talk:Musical historicism for my position, and please answer my specific points. Finally, it is pointless to direct my attention yet one more time to the complete Colburn interview, since I have repeatedly made it clear that I have thoroughly read it, and even have quoted from it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I should clarify the way these are used on opera articles. Sources are general and provide information running through the article. References are specific. In Venus und Adonis one fact was challenged so I added a reference. You will find this system is used throughout WP, so I'd be grateful if you could leave the (actually quite useful) distinction in there. Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, OK. I was struck by the identical date (different year) for the Japanese (concert) and German (staged) premières of Venus und Adonis. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make about this "system" between "References" ("specific"?) and "Sources" ("general"?), which you say is "used throughout WP". I would be happy to adhere to this system, but I don't understand it. Could you point me to the appropriate reference in the Style Manual, or does this apply only to opera articles?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re first point, I assume it must have been intentional, unless the German date is wrong.

The opera corpus will give you links to most of the operas. You can see the Source/refs practice (doubtless less than consistent) there. In haste. Reg. --Kleinzach (talk

) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the German date is wrong (it was only specified as "January 1997" before, and it was when I went to look it up that I was startled to see it was the same day and month—the fact that the source I found it in was Japanese made the coincidence all the stronger).

I had not been aware of the opera corpus list, and my experience with WP goes back less than two years. Amongst the 500+ articles I have made contributions to in this time, I have only once seen this distinction made (in the article

Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (opera) uses a "Notes"/"Furhter reading" distinction. I have only turned up one example (Die tote Stadt) that has both a "Notes" section and a"References" section that duplicates the items in the notes. Show Boat

, on the other hand, has "Notes" and "Refrences" sections, both containing footnotes.

In the case of the Venus und Adonis article, I do not see this double-list system (not a problem when the article is this short, I suppose), but I did see two in-text citations in addition to the footnote citation you kindly inserted, and I simply followed the Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles instruction: "Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected." On the other hand, perusing the other articles on Henze's operas, I do see a consistent pattern there, so it might make sense to override the WP guideline in this case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your long reply. I've just seen it today (9 May). Thank you for going into this in such detail. Basically you are right in pointing out that our referencing/sourcing/citing (call it what you will) are poor. Most of the time we have been following existing practice (or adapting it) without writing down rules, and yes, we have been inconsistent. Those rules we have are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats. I wonder whether you might like to join the Opera Project and participate in developing copy-editing guidelines? I'd be delighted to see another trained editor involved in maintaining standards. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been following some of the discussions on the Opera Project, but haven't yet taken the time to go back over all of the discussion about reference formats. When I have done so, I will consider your invitation to join. For the moment, I am concerned about the possibility that one project may—even if with the best of intentions—be attempting to impose stricter standards than the ones prescribed or suggested by Wikipedia policy or guidelines, and that this project could thereby come into conflict with a other projects with overlapping interests (such as the Classical Music or Contemporary Music projects). But let me discover more about the history of the project before I start worrying about nothing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a member of the Classical Music, Contemporary Music and Composer projects. We've tried to coordinate our activities as far as possible and in some cases have shared guidelines. II don't know of any problems that have occurred regarding referencing. In the case of the opera project, the archives have been indexed so they are readily searchable. The only relevant discussion I actually remember was here. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
I always look forward to your edits, but I'm a little confused about some of the unreferenced tags you've put up: the boxed text says "does not cite any references or sources", which seems to me not to apply to Bluebeard's Castle which has citations in various formats as well as a bibliography. But obviously I'm understanding this differently from you. Could you explain what "references" and "sources" mean? All the best, Sparafucil (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How very strange. Can this have to do with different browsers displaying things differently? All I can see is a section marked "Further references", and a short list of "External links". I see no citations at all in the text, nor any bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It might not be anything as astonishing as a browser problem, unless you're seeing a blank section under the title "Further references" (It is an odd title, isnt it?). Would you agree that it could just as easily be relabeled "Bibliography"? There's currently a discussion here that might benefit from your perspective. Another example is Leben des Orest, which I had thought I made adequately clear was based entirely on the piano score listed at the bottom as the Source. The tag implies there's something that wants fixing (and is used to automatically list articles on "to do" lists), but I'm at a loss for how to do so. Sparafucil (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha. No, I see those items under "Further references", all right, but it was precisely the odd heading that made me suppose these were "further reading" items, not actually used as a basis for the article. If in fact they are references depended on for the article's substance, then I would agree wholeheartedly that the heading should be changed to "Bibliography", and the tag to "Refimprove" (since there are no inline citations as yet). Thanks for the pointer to the Opera Project discussion, of which I was unaware. I will have a look at it. As to the Leben des Orest article, it was one of about 50 that I tagged in fairly rapid succession. I'm afraid I didn't scan the text very critically, and I now see that virtually everything in it must come directly from the score or libretto. There is one detail, however, that cannot plausibly come from a score published in 1929, and that is the date of first performance, in 1930. I suppose that means a "refimprove" tag is still warrented, and surely the New Grove Dictionary of Opera article ought to be added to the ref list. (Leben des Orest, BTW, is the only one of Krenek's operas that I have actually experienced in the theater, in the Portland Opera production in the mid-1970s.)

What I am looking for in all of the articles I tag (provided that the article text is more than just a placeholder) is (1) whether there are any sources names at all, and (2) if there are named source, are there any inline citations for facts . In the former case, I am tagging "Unreferenced", in the latter case "refimprove". I believe this is the correct procedure.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we're basically on the same page then. I personally prefer inline fact tags to non-selective use of refimprove, which I've reserved for serious cases involving inconsistencies. I should raise the issue of automated To Do Listing on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera; it's become rather clogged because every tagged article is listed.
Orest has been added to by others, but I suppose the date is right; I recall it was the same day the Alp-diary cycled premiered in the afternoon. I'm very jealous of you for having seen any Krenek opera live! Being thus qualified, would you like to take over Leben des Orest? ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah-hah! Well, Leben des Orest was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, though I have to say I was greatly disappointed, both in the production and the music, which is far short of the measure of Karl V (now there is an opera I would like to see in the theatre!).

It is possible that the piano-vocal score was registered for copyright in 1929, but the printing was held up until the first month of 1930, so they could include the first-performance information; alternatively, the data may have been included speculatively, in the hopes that nothing would go awry in the weeks or months between the printing and the actual première. In any case, we have New Grove to fall back on as an authority.

I, too, prefer to use specific inline fact tags, but sometimes I'm in too much of a hurry, and other times there are so many undocumented claims that I just can't see spending the time it would take.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Kleinzach got the date from Grove when adding that paragraph. The note I included about the premiere cuts being now prefered would have to be from a post-1930 printing of the score, however. It would be to the publisher's advantage to have a later date for the copyright, and I suspect the 1929 plates were reworked for reprints without adding the new date. This is little different than the situation with the "n.d." Chouens scores, where later editions with added material have to be cited according to the number of the final page.

It would be fun to run across a Krenek festival one day, but first I have to plan a European trip around Licht. Sparafucil (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Later printings of the score could well account for the discrepancies, but it is nevertheless well to avoid the appearance as well as the fact of dubious references. Fortunately in this case there is no shortage of alternative sources for the performance information. There is also the difficulty, in the case of the variant versions of scores undifferentiated by date, that I may cite data from my copy of the score that is absent from your copy. This casts doubt on the reliability of the citation, if the particular variant edition cannot be specified by something apart from the year of publication (for example, an inscription like "7. verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage" on the copyright page).

Having done a few European trips around Licht myself, I'm glad to hear you have your priorities right!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, one could add "copy of uncertain reprint date in the collection of the San Francisco Public Library as of 2007", but I havnt noticed this becoming standard practice...
Do you know what's up now that Dresden and Essen both seem definately off? A friend with whom I did Luzifers Traum (back in 2000; that couldnt have been the US premiere, though?) is going to Kurten this summer; perhaps I'm missing a last chance. Sparafucil (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For Prof. Kohl: your editorial concerns regarding the J.-L. Monod biography are completely justified; however, the facts regarding Monod's bio. and pedagogy are entirely correct and can be confirmed after extensive due diligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.25.223 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I trust that what you say is true. Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The Monod article as it stands is a flagrant case of undocumented claims (however true they may all be). It is also rambling and repetitious, and would benefit from a thorough rewriting.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the case of the current Wikipedia citation on Monod, there lacks a sufficient "written" history with documented, "verifiable facts" to Monod's legacy; and thus, the text by all appearances is an assemblage or "collage" of various events during his impressive career. Monod's oeuvre indeed represents a relatively unknown "counterpart" and an antithesis to the voluminous work written on his former classmate at the Paris Conservatoire, namely Pierre Boulez. Nonetheless, much of the music-related issues raised in the Monod citation are provocative and relevant in contemporary music today and the challenge posed to musicologists would be to substantiate by fact-checking all that has been purportedly "true" regarding his extraordinary musical legacy. There has been too much "hype" written on Boulez and the so-called Darmstadt School: the post-Schoenberg school in which Monod has promoted has not only been under-represented but also requires a revisionist history that would focus solely upon music-related issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.25.223 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This may well be true, but none of it changes Wikipedia policies or guidelines.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the highly extraordinary case of the life and legacy of Monod's, I'm afraid we must occassionally reconsider the overly rigid rules laid forth by writers/editors of Wikipedia and assume that all statements made on Monod are true until proven otherwise. Monod's legendary career has yet to be written and the public would be at a great disservice to readers if various significant information on his oeuvre would be omitted merely for reasons of some ill-adequate rules in Wikipedia. The facts are that some artists have transcended the media and accompanying hype: Monod is one of those rare artists who has had little interest in generating publicity; unlike his avant-garde peers and former colleagues from Paris and Darmstadt, who extoll in media support and have made careers with the hype. The fact that far greater attention has been paid in the media for ex. to the careers of Boulez, Stockhausen and Nono does not necessarily validate their musics, nor is this attention any indication that Monod's oeuvre is of lesser merit; on the contrary, the media has not only made a "living" for themselves, but also for those whom they have classified as the avant-garde. The prudent and ethical choice would be to publish as many details on Monod as available in Wikipedia, since few studies are currently available on Monod, until rigorous analysical research is undertaken on his life and legacy. In fact, the over-emphasis upon recognizing avant-garde music has caused an unfounded bias and prejudice towards the more sublime music of Monod's for example, wherein a certain musical aptitude of Western polyphony is assumed. Whereas, much of the music of Boulez, Stockhausen and Nono for example tend to be vacuous in consideration to musical development and musical narrative - their musics must emphasize wide swings of emotional content with clever dynamics to maintain any measure of audience interest. The challenge is for the serious listener and musician to discern musical meaning in Monod's oeuvre by undertaking analytical and scholarly research in his complex music - a much more daunting task than promoting the superficial hype of avant-garde music. Thus the followinmg deleted passage deserves consideration until proven incorrect:

A central tenet of Monod's compositional system consists of "prioritized" pitch classes within derived sets or series, that have hierarchical properties and relations for contrapuntal treatment and harmonic development. However, unlike diatonic tonality with major and minor scalar functions - wherein tertial harmony is based upon resolutions of chordal relationships - Monod's harmonic order is combinatorial and uniquely derived from specific hexachords with intervallic relationships to subdivisions of the tritone and the third.^{[citation needed]}. Although few studies have yet to be undertaken on the harmonic and contrapuntal implications of the hexachord divided into the tritone and the third, Monod's compositional oeuvre derives from the syntactic significance of pitch organization that is formally manifest in his application of "prioritized" treatment of pitch classes, not unlike the syntactic language and late serial music of Stravinsky. Unlike the music of his compatriots, such as the music of Boulez, which has received international interest and notoriety with frequent performances for its trendsetting agenda, Monod's music is by comparison 'purist' and more accurately described as "modern classicist"^{[citation needed]}- an obvious difference being the classically derived, narrative function and developmental characteristics noted in Monod's music, which is entirely absent in the transient and ephemeral, "avant-garde" musics of Boulez and his peers.

With all respect, anonymous writer, you are wrong. There is no justification for transcending Wikipedia policies or guidelines based on individual cases. I am not myself acquainted with Mr. Monod's compositions, so I cannot comment on the claims you make for them but, if they are so worthy, then surely someone will have published credible articles or books about them, which may be cited to support their superiority to the established canon. I find that the anonymous editor who has been mainly responsible for caretaking the article on Henri Dutilleux has done a splendid job in very similar circumstances. I suggest you observe his/her work and follow the example.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks and discussion about Bartók. Although admittingly at first a bit annoyed at the many citation needed-s you added, I see how they already improve (my contribution to) the article on Bartók. I'll do my best and find sources for everything you challanged. But a few will prove hard for me. I am for instance absolutely positive that I read a quote from Bartók to following extent: "My highest aim at present is to make a synthesis of the three masters: Bach, Beethoven and Debussy" This stuck with me as I was surprised, and almost shocked at Bartók's esteem for Debussy during at least some period. But whether I'll find it back... not by searching via book indexes so far.

I would be very happy if you strengten the article with a general text on Bartók's placement in music history. And also if we could go a bit deeper than the present structure of 'biography' in chronological order and 'music' discussed in chronological order. I have some ideas about general characteristics of Bartók's music but they are my own, so I don't dare to add them, as you'll immediately ask for a citation which I don't have. (I added them already to the Dutch wikipedia).

Also, I would be happy with your critical reaction on my article on Out of Doors (Bartók)

RobertKennesy (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I sympathize with your initial annoyance. I have felt the same myself on numerous occasions but, like you, I have seen in the end how proper citations not only improve articles but—in the particular circumstances of a "publicly edited" entity, as Wikipedia is—are essential. I agree completely that a section discussing the overall character of Bartók's music and its historical position would be highly desirable, but do not shrink from adding this yourself. I am dismayed (though not entirely surprised) that the editors of the Dutch Wikipedia do not yet raise such issues.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I finally found the quote showing Bartóks esteem for Debussy. I think your contributions to Wikipedia are really great. I am not sure though that everyone shares your view that every sentence needs a reference. Maybe soem think the idea behind Wikipedia is that contributors write based on their own knowledge, not merely make a selection of literature quotes. But there is a thin line between own knowledge and opinion/tendentious phrasing/errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKennesy (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jerome. I see you're more active in music-article editing than I have been, so maybe you can answer this question. About the citation to Grove Online at

) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my personal preference to cite the print edition of New Grove, for precisely this reason. Very few people with subscription access to Grove Online will be unable to gain access to the print New Grove, and surely every last one of them will know that their online access will take them to the same material. Not all editors agree, however. Consequently, when I find a citation of Grove Online, I almost always respect the decision of the editor who put it there. I believe it is Wikipedia policy (it is certainly common in practice) to always put a warning label on a website that requires subscription access. The problem is compounded with that template you used, because it assumes unrestricted access and puts the link on the article title, rather than on the name of the source (in this case, Grove Online) The template is of course unable to distinguish between the URL of title links and generic website links and, as far as I know, there is no way of manually overriding this aspect. I never use Wikipedia citation templates myself, because inevitably exceptions like this arise, with which the template is incapable of dealing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Professor Kohl. I was pointed to citation templates when I started editing here, but you are the second editor with a scholarly background who has advised against them. I'll re-think my usage of them. As for Grove, I think I'll cite the print version from now on. Dekkappai (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fine points! — Robert Greer 00:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sixteen years' experience as an editor of an academic journal have finally paid a dividend! ;-) Seriously, though, the French titles of several Stravinsky works are inconsistent amongst themselves. For example, although we have

Le roi des etoiles, Trois mouvements de Petrouchka, and Les noces (not to mention the Latin-titled Canticum Sacrum, the capitalization of which is a bit debatable). Capitalization of French titles is all over the place in the List of compositions by Igor Stravinsky, as well, though this is less traumatic to fix than article titles.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My area of interest is

Balanchine lived long enough to do so more than anyone else in the business. Isn't that what re-directs are for? — Robert Greer (talk

) 03:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

cross posted from Talk:The Firebird

You are right about the eccentricity of City Ballet's orthography vs. the accepted transliterations — the French best reflects the pronunciation of Чайковский … But Balanchine studied in

16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tschaikovsky vs. Tchaikovsky

I've finally tracked down origin of the spelling, Tschaikovsky:

How should the name of the composer of the music for “Serenade” be spelled? Most Westerners now spell it Tchaikovsky, but City Ballet took up, during Balanchine’s lifetime, the spelling Tschaikovsky. Why? Because that’s how the composer spelled it when he was in New York in 1891. (My thanks to the reader who sent me a copy of his Carnegie Hall autograph from the Pierpont Morgan Library.)

NY Times article by Alastair Macaulay, June 1, 2007

— Robert Greer (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous! Thanks for that, and for cross-posting it! I wonder how he spelled it when he was in Italy in 1887?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with my article

) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for working on that article! Could you maybe find time to look at Etudes Australes and Cheap Imitation too? These two and Music of Changes are the ones I've been working on lately. Jashiin (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I started the Regina stub long ago but never got around to putting it in proper shape. Everything in it is taken from the "References" linked at the bottom of the page - or from Kobbe. Of course, the article isn't cited properly or in good Wikipedia style, but if you're looking for sources for facts or critical judgments, you can find them all in the linked articles. Dybryd (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not so much looking for facts or opinions on my own behalf as thinking that other readers might benefit from having the right source pinpointed for them. Though the Wikipedia Manual of Style does allow for "general references" of this sort, when direct quotations or possibly controversial positions are put forth, it is strongly recommended that a citation be given. If, as I suspect will be the case, the References section will grow over time, it will become increasingly difficult even for editors to locate such information. Even at present, there are four sources listed, and now you tell me that there is an unlisted source (what is Kobbe? Kobbé's Complete Opera Book? there have been at least ten editions of this! Is the 2008 Des Moines production documented in it?), and one that only a specialist would even know about, let alone think to check on the off-chance that a doubtful opinion might be verified there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, the article - really just a longish stub - is not cited properly. I haven't edited much in a while, but I noticed the activity on the page and thought it might be helpful for those now working on the article to know where to look for the sources. Dybryd (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. Could you add to the Reference list the edition of Kobbé you used, with publication information? It would be helpful. Even better would be to place intext citations for any data that was drawn from this book.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book anymore - but all I got from Kobbe was the cast list and other basic information, which could be cited to any current edition. Dybryd (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind stating your concerns about references on

) 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to do some work on the resulting merge, it's a bit of a mess right now but given time it should come together. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the References list seems to have disappeared. I think I can eventually recall most of the missing items, but I'm worried about "Anonymous 2007". I'm off on vacation and will not be editing for the next few weeks, but hope to see lots done when I get back—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

have pulled over bibliography from the EAM page, commented out, will sort. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That is most helpful.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jerome. I noticed your edits to Arthur Benjamin, including changing the spelling of this word to the French original. I wonder if this is really justified in an English-language context. We normally dispense with French (and other languages') diacritics - cafe, not café; role, not rôle; etc. It's virtually always spelled premiere in English these days, mainly because it's become a fully-fledged English word. In a French-language setting, naturally you'd use première, but English Wikipedia isn't such a setting. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Première" is not, in my experience, ever spelled in an English-language context without the accent grave. The same goes for the other cases you name (and I cannot imagine who "you" might be, who "normally dispense with French (and other languages') diacritics", fully fledged English word or no. For example, "café" in my part of the world always carries the accent; so does "rôle". Perhaps you live in a region where this is different. The OED does not recognize the version of "première" without the accent grave. I take that as an authoritative statement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. To answer your question about who "we" is, I was referring to my experience of reading books, newspapers and magazines from the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada and other places, as well as uncountable numbers of online sources, over a rather long time. To be stricly correct, perhaps I should have said "I have noticed on many thousands of occasions that it's a widespread and normal practice to do without the accent; I have followed that example, and up till now have never come across anyone who hasn't shared my experience". I have some other points to make, but rather than doing so here, I've sought some guidance at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Diacritics with words imported from other languages, and you're more than welcome to contribute there. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the general view seems to be that the unaccented "premiere(d)" is the preferred spelling. Although he did live for long periods in other countries, Benjamin was an Australian, and the unaccented version is certainly the normal Australian approach. I'll adjust the article. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It still looks odd to me without the accent, but since that seems to be the consensus. . . . —Jerome Kohl (talk)

Thanks for your additions - I just wanted to inform you that unlike the other two articles on Cage's etudes, this article is far from perfect, I never really got around to work on it. So if you don't like something, feel free to change it in any way.

Speaking of etudes, I noticed the "Premiere(d) vs. première(d)" here and would like to ask your opinion on how to spell "etudes", i.e. should it be etudes or études? This always bothered me, but since English is my second language and the Internet doesn't qualify as a good source of information on correct spelling, I could never figure out which way is the right way. --Jashiin (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that the other articles are perfect! As for "etude" vs. "étude", I got kind of squashed over the accent in première, didn't I? So maybe I am not the one to ask. The OED gives only the form with the accent, but cites two examples without it—both capitalized, and the earlier of these citations (1837) specifies the word as French. (In French, accents are sometimes omitted on initial capitals.) Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Online both also give only the form with an accent, but The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition) gives it only without. The main thing is to be consistent within any given article. Of course, when citing titles in languages other than English, the rules of that language must be applied.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this. I'm wondering why you are concerned about all these passages. Reg. --Kleinzach 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In the orchestral world, the Italian names of instruments have special significance, because traditionally a score is noted only with the Italian name of the instrument. It's not universal any more, but it's still very likely that when you pick up a sheet of music, the name of the instrument will be in Italian. That's my reasoning that it's important enough for a separate line at the top of the infobox. And it would have been nice to have a discussion before you started reverting all my additions. Acsenray (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It would have been helpful had you provided the customary edit summary, but I still have to disagree about adding Italian names to the infobox. It is true that you may see "violino" instead of "violin" in an orchestral or chamber-music score, but most of the instrument names are not that different: oboe, for example. In other cases, the usual Italian instrument name is almost never found outside of actual Italian editions: ottavino, for example. This sort of name confusion should be cleared up in the article text, as it is in the Oboe article, for example, where the French and earlier English terms are specified. There it can be explained that the reader may find in German or French scores the names "Bratsche" and "Fagott" or "alto" and "basson" instead of viola and bassoon, in Russian scores "Скрипка" (skripka) and "Флейта" (fleita) instead of violin and flute, in Czech scores "pikola" and "hoboj" instead of piccolo and oboe, and so on. (These things can also be gleaned from the links to articles on the instruments in other languages.)

As you yourself say, using the Italian names in orchestral scores is not a universal practice. I would add that it never has been, though it was once more widespread for English and American publishers than is the case today. French publishers rarely if ever have used Italian instrument names, and much more serious confusion for the anglophone orchestral musician is caused by the French "tambourin", "tambour de provençe" and "tambour de basque" (which I see even the French Wikipedia does not properly explain). German scores are slightly more likely to use Italian terms, but by and large use the German names. If you are going to start sliding down that slippery slope, then I would propose that, in addition to Italian, at least the French and German terms should be added to the infobox captions, though I shudder to think what that will mean for the article on the double bass, which already has ten alternative English terms in the infobox caption. Why should orchestral scores be privileged over other places where instruments may be named, anyway? Though all three instruments occasionally crop up in orchestral scores, I notice that the Italian "fisarmonica" is not mentioned anywhere in the article "Accordion", "cornamusa" in the article Bagpipes, nor "chitarra" in the article Guitar, let alone the confusion caused by the Portuguese calling the latter instrument viola. (And I once saw a cringeworthy translation of a Brazilian newspaper review that had Gustav Leonhardt playing a recital on "nails", which I suppose is slightly more likely than on carnations—cf. pt:Cravo.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Ernst Krenek about the changes to the references. --Kleinzach 10:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you've added all 13 operas that appear in the Eaton biography to

00:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, absolutely no intention whatsoever to write these articles—at least, not all of them. Thanks for explaining the parameters of the opera corpus, which I did not find explained anywhere on that article. I will immediately begin removing the hundreds of operas I and others have added over the last few months for which there is no clear intention of adding separate articles for.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The explanation of

The opera corpus is at the beginning of the list: The principal works of the major composers are given as well as those of historical importance in the development of the art form. . . . This list is intended to be a selective one of notable works." Please be cautious about removing titles that have been inserted by other editors - especially contemporary works. Including lists of titles attached to the biographical articles is really useful and appreciated. Some of these lists are very detailed, see Category:Lists of operas by composer. --Kleinzach

08:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming number of redlinks misled me. Would it be fair to say that any redlink that has been on the list for over a year ought to be removed, until and unless someone actually writes an article? I'm not sure what you mean about "including lists of titles attached to the biographical articles". Surely you do not mean including them here, since this is precisely what you are objecting to in the case of Eaton.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to Eaton, I presume that when you say "covered by Grove" you mean there are separate articles on those three operas in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. To me, Grove means the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, and the article on Eaton there gives more space to Herakles and, especially, Myshkin than to Danton, Cry, and The Tempest, which are to be sure all mentioned as important works which, along with Androcles and the Lion, established Eaton's reputation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerome, There's a discussion at

) 10:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I have been silently following that discussion with interest, but have now added my two-cents worth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am doing some edits on the Rite of Spring article, mostly consolidating and expanding the dance info. I noticed you made recent edits, and your talk page section titles indicate you you might be able to save me some time on a music edit on Le Sacre. I saw Bernstein's "Six Lectures at Harvard" back around 1973 (on PBS television, and I am guessing what I saw were these lectures). He analyzed the rhythic structure in a section of Le Sacre, and it was not the conventional discussion of the final movement. I am only looking for his quote that I recalled with a hyperbolic (but true) qualitative assertion, for general readers. Before I plod through his "The Unanswered Question - Six Talks at Harvard" looking for it (hoping what I saw were his six talks), do you know of it? EricDiesel (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have never seen those lectures (in those days I was in grad school and did not have a television set, nor have I viewed the DVDs). I gather there is no index to The Unanswered Question, which makes things very tough, I know. The summary of the video at this website does not pinpoint your reference, but it would seem at least to narrow the field to Talk 6.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thnx, I just bought it. Now the book will be a pleasure instead of a plod. EricDiesel (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I was thinking of dividing the Rite of Spring article into a general reader section, and a technical section. Rite of Spring is unusual since it is both an icon of 20th century music for the general public, and a technical masterpice for specialists. That is why I was looking for the Bernstein quote, since it is an English language nontechnical comment in the more technical talks. Does this division seem like a good idea? EricDiesel (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2. I put a line about Nijinsky Stomping a big piece of wood on the floor for dancer queues, but my source is Moshe Efrati telling me the anecdote in Israel in 1982, when Israeli TV was doing a special on him. Is this a common Nijinski fact, or do you know another more citable source? EricDiesel (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI Judging by your talk page sections, you may be interested in knowing that there was an interesting article in the first quarter 2007 (or so) issue of Leonardo Magazine, regarding Stockhausen (Hymnen), Xenakis (Polytope of Persepolis, Nuits), Cage, Warhol (he desinged the pillows), and Cunningham all participating in a Burningman-like festival in Persepolis, Iran around 1971-1972, sponsored by the wife of the Shah of Iran. Xenakis dedicated Nuits to political prisoners, thumbing his nose at the Shah. Per the article, the festival divided (naturally) into camps, with a Carter-Xenakis camp opposed to a Cage-Warhol camp. EricDiesel (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am of course aware of the participation in that festival of Stockhausen and Xenakis, but the article is new to me. Thank you for calling it to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is it. The Shiraz Arts Festival: Western Avant-Garde Arts in 1970s Iran, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/leonardo/toc/len40.1.html EricDiesel (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You, sir, are an editor and a gentleman. The article relies rather heavily on previously published and rather well-known material, but it is nevertheless a nice synthesis, and there are some tidbits in there that I do not recall having previously seen. Thank you once again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that has to be the first time anyone ever used “gentleman” an me in the same sentence; I am actually a mathematician and dancer. I only learned music history from reading the back of Nonesuch LP’s, so I almost cried when I read that Leonardo article, having missed those Persepolis events. I thought I hated music (my mother was friends with many of the late 60’s rock stars, who practiced music all night on the other side of two 1/2” layers of sheet rock from my bed while I was trying to sleep) until a friend of my mothers handed me Bernstein’s Le Sacre and a Turnabout with Schoenberg’s Variations and Verklarte at age 13 and started my lonely music appreciation personal history. I was only 15 when I saw the Bernstein talks on TV in the background while I was studying, and I suddenly recalled his discussion of the Le Sacre passage while reading the article. He described the passage with words to the effect of it being a brilliant complex superimposition of multiple time signatures unsurpassed to date, explaining what he was saying with such clarity that even I could understand it. His words may be an exaggeration (maybe not), but would be a good quote for general readers of the article.

Looking at your expertise, it is unlikely I can find anything new under the sun to mention to you, but I will try with mentioning a 1998 “opera”, The Temple of Rudra (made into a film by Dean Mermell), with 2,000 unpaid performers, directed by Pepe Ozan. It occurred during a storm in the Black Rock desert, during a lunar eclipse, with 30,000 people in the audience. The music and dance were unremarkable (awful would be more accurate), but the circumstances and execution were remarkably similar to the description of the Shiraz Arts Festival. EricDiesel (talk)

And while I have your attention, two questions stuck in my mind for twenty years I have not been able to get an answer to- 1. Are as the few seconds of music in the bridge scene of Jodorowsky’s film El Topo from one of the tracks of Xenakis Electro Acoustic Music on the old Nonesuch LP? and 2. What is the piano music on Piero Pasollini’s film Salo in the Circle of Blood? EricDiesel (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I must confess I have never heard of that 1998 "opera". As to the films you mention, I am not much of a cinema buff, and particularly not of Mexican and Italian cinema. It is marginally possible that music from that Xenakis album might have been used in El Topo, though technically the Nonesuch album was not released until 1972, a year after the film. However, Nonesuch was merely re-issuing one disc from the legendary 5-LP Erato set STU 70526/27/28/29/30, which I believe came out in 1969 or 1970. As for Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (I suppose that "the Circle of Blood" must refer to one scene in this film, which I have never seen), I really have no idea, but the fact that the music credit is to Ennio Morricone means just about anything goes. The IMDb mentions the preludes in C minor and E minor by Chopin. Does that help at all?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the Bernstein quote, and added to the article, thnx. The reason I mention "Temple of Rudra" is it's similarity in execution - lots of people and fire in the desert, looked like the picture in Leonardo. Order in time (of access to the Xenakis recording and time of making the film) was what made me wonder on the Jodorowski, though it might be Orient Occident 2, which existed somewhere much earlier than El Topo. We were guessing some Dallapiccola for Pasolini Salo. The music is piano music and is so good that most people leave the movie theater soon after it starts. I just remembered a third question, related to

Hiroko Tamano has a recording of the same music from Japan predating the film. Oh well, I guess I will die with the Unanswered Question. EricDiesel (talk

) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Space music

Hi,

I appreciate the corrections you made to the Stockhausen section of Space music. From my own research on early space music, I was aware of some problems in that section as written by Parsifal, but I didn't have the necessary references to fix it myself. Clearly you have a mastery of Stockhausen. I assure you that I do not, and I expect to defer to your edits on Stockhausen.

However, I want to head off what hints at leading to an unnecessary edit confrontation at Space music. I get concerned when I see an editor reverting on some misunderstood content position, and then further misapplying a WP guideline to justify it.

In the #Notable artists section, I found your recent removal of all artist redlinks to be an odd sort of edit. A WP editor of two plus years should know that some redlinks are encouraged to get other editors to write needed articles. Yet redlinked artists in that section are sometimes article-notable and sometimes not, since it is the section in which passing editors/fans most participate. I initially assumed that you had knowledge of those artists you removed, and that you removed Giles Reaves by mistake.

When you re-removed Reaves after I provided a notability reference, it was clear to me that two things were wrong: First, you are asserting a content position in a niche popular music of which you obviously have little historic-artist knowledge. Second, despite your excellent academic music research skills, Wikipedia guiderules research and application does not seem to be one of your strengths.

As an anonymous fellow scholar, I respect your degree and your demonstrated subject knowledge. However, if challenged, I expect you to limit yourself to what you do know, and ask questions about that which you do not know. After all, this is an essence of the academic code. We've both studied at length, we both have higher degrees, and we should respectfully learn from each other. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I think. The evidence you cited consisted merely of radio playlists, which does not satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Do go and read the section I cited.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be unlike me, not to have read your guiderule reference before commenting, and I had read your edit summary cite of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I found nothing applicable in that section, as that notability guideline is about topics suitable for WP articles, not people listed as article content. Perhaps you were thinking of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers, and Wikipedia:Notability (music).

As you can see at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, playlists and charts do qualify music artists for notability.

Because of the niche market ("new age" seems to be the smallest major music business classification) the Hearts of Space playlist server is also the oldest USA national chart for spacemusic (25 years national, 852 documented shows, 10 previous undocumented years on KPFA).

There are other space music notability determinations, but the single most important check for spacemusic artist notability is the number of show appearances on the HoS playlist server. By data inspection, I've previously determined that any artist with 7 or more HoS programs I assume to be a statistically notable "definite keep". There are spacemusic notables with less than 7 programs, but I expect them to have other notability factors.

Giles Reaves routinely qualifies by having 17 appearances on HoS, as I had linked to in my edit summary: HoS.com searchText "giles reaves". 17 is a fairly high number, with the highest I've researched to be Mychael Danna at 37.

By Google test, "Giles Reaves" has 17,200 hits, which includes his Nashville rock music engineering and production career. Reaves' status appears not merely notable, but that of a space music star. His website biography says ""Wunjo" is considered a top electronic album of all time by Electronic Musician magazine". Milo 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, could you point out exactly where in that long list playlists are mentioned? I see "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart" and "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network", but I see nothing at all about ordinary, run-of-the-mill playlists. It sounds to me like you are making up your own standards, specially for this category.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, I see that I need to be a bit more blunt.

←The Giles Reaves notability debate is over: even if you will stubbornly accept nothing else, Reaves is notable by Billboard charting. Your debate position lost, basically because you failed to ask questions and do research, before you took a firm position at an article that barely touches on your fields of expertise. In academia, as you know, that sin is a reputation devaluator.
One likely reason why this happened is that you are contributing to too many articles and spreading yourself too thin. You made the needed Stockhausen contribution, thank you, so I suggest that you now be wise and remove Space music from your watchlist. (There are more reasons to come.)

A good response, if any, to losing a Wikipedia debate is, 'I take the point'.

Note that if you constructively refuse to take a point at Wikipedia, you risk becoming known as a tendentious debater. (See

). Don't let this happen to you.
Remember, you aren't anonymous. What you write here is globally searchable and readable; it can come back to haunt you decades from now. And beware that if you act obstinately or don't act collegially, it could cost you getting an academic job in the future. I'm giving you very good advice, and I hope you will take it seriously. I know of another non-anon academic at WP who has surely cost himself potential jobs or a career with his outrageous behavior.

Prof. Kohl, I won't object if you wish to refer to me as Prof. Milo. Or not, since any claiming of such status by anons has fallen into disrepute since the Essjay scandal. Whatever, I am what I know, and I claim to have instructed in some of the fields of knowledge that we are discussing. I'll have to remain vague, to also remain anonymous for good reasons (to come).

Conversely, to me you are also what you know, and you obviously need instruction in the radio broadcasting arts as well as spacemusic. But, I sense that you don't want to get it from me due to your professional ego size – perhaps it's appropriately large to your fields of expertise, but to me seems annoyingly oversized when you opine beyond what you know.
Don't misunderstand my position. I have no problem with functional large egos. I teach that they are a professional necessity in addressing large audiences. But, if you have a star-size ego, you also have to deliver a proportionally stellar performance.
For good social functioning, egos should be inflated and deflated to a size appropriate to the current context. I intend to practice what I teach. I hope I'm adequately modest about my knowledge of musicology generally, as opposed to my niche knowledge of spacemusic, or my mastery of English rhetoric.

Since you've apparently done no research, I think you are unaware of the maelstrom into which you are spinning. Please let me warn you that both a loathsome disease libel and a legal threat have resulted from academic research and editing of this 102-references article. Consider what the effect on your career and finances might be if you felt forced to take a year or two out of your life to file and fight an international libel lawsuit. As a non-anon you are at risk, so I don't think any wise non-anon should work on this article.

Deny it if you wish, but what I perceive that you now want is an alpha-male dominance argument with me, starting with quibbles about the wording of Wikipedia:Notability (music).

I have no interest in a scholars' machismo contest with you for several reasons: (1) It's already obvious to me that I will win after a big waste of argument time by both of us, when we could otherwise be usefully contributing to WP. (2) If you are passive-aggressive, you will dislike my identification of such debate tactics. If you are metaphorically challenged, you also aren't going to like it when I instruct you in interpolative applications of statute rhetoric (a skill of bench judging). (3) I'm a WP major-league-capable debater, (unfortunately) experienced with some of WP's more notorious tendentious-debate editors. You are non-anonymous, you are working out of your league, and WP talk pages are permanent records. I might make you look bad, and then you might resent me for doing so, and thus become a permanent sulky opponent always looking to even the score. I don't want that to happen on a personal level, and it would also be bad for niche spacemusic since you would associate it with me. (4) I value you for what you do know, and I want a respectful editorial relationship with you. Be collegial and accommodating on niche spacemusic issues and I'll promote you when areas of your expertise arise. The alternative is that when you are mentioned, I could say, 'oh yeah, I remember that editor, check this' and link to your screwups. (5) Zen wisdom: The brown belt wins the bar fight – the black belt walks out of the bar before the fight begins.

Be nice, be flexible, assert what you know, ok? Milo 12:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For someone who thinks he is right, you do go on, Professor Milo! I really have got no issues with this (and you are perfectly correct that I am involved in far too many articles), but it would be nice if you would write an article on Mr Reaves so that there can be a bluelink. (If he is as notable as you say he is, surely he deserves this much.) I really have no idea what "constructively refusing to take a point" might be, but I do not care for your belligerent tone, and I can tell you that I am not now, nor have I ever been a professor of anything, so plain old "Mr. Kohl" will do nicely.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From an ambiguous CV summary, it's politically prudent to assume a higher academic rank than a lower one. Your user page reads, "He has taught music theory and analysis at the University of British Columbia and the University of Washington,..." There's nothing wrong with that, but you may wish to clarify this sentence to read something like, 'he has been an instructor/lecturer of...' .

(Mr.) Milo is ok for me too.

"Constructively" means a position taken through actions rather than words. For example, a constructive eviction occurs when a landlord says nothing but turns off the renter's utilities.

"it would be nice if you would write an article on Mr Reaves" I agree, and I can at least assemble a bluelink stub for other editors to expand to our preferred standards. Milo 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have been as good as your word. The new article on Reaves is just the ticket, and resolves the question of notability, to my satisfaction, at least.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr Kohl. I made a mistake the last time I tried to edit the article about Aleatoric music so this time I tried to make sure I did it right and I looked it up here. I think the way you did it looks better but I think it is not right. I know you have a lot of degrees so I hope I am not being rude. Teenly (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are correct, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, and so I concede the point. Technically, the unspaced dots are called "suspension points", not "ellipses", though I see from your reference that Wikipedia does not adhere to this terminology, found in most standard style guides (e.g., the Chicago Manual of Style, which is the one I am most familiar with). As I said previously, suspension points are standard form in French, German, and most other European languages, whereas they are not usual in English publications. Except, it would seem, on the web.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I only meant it is not right for Wikipedia. Thank you for changing it back yourself. Teenly (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jerome, I have tried adding external links for the percussion repertoire used by various composers such as Stravinsky,Schoenberg and Lutosławski to the resource on our website. It seems however that many have been removed by yourself as "linkspam". I don't know if you checked the website before you took the link down but we believe this "Repertoire" section of our web page is invaluable information for percussionists, especially students. We have numerous enquiries regarding the specific instruments used in certain pieces and we feel this is a very useful reference. We have had this issue from another user before (Link) citing his objection to our website being commercial, which I am not arguing. However we do feel that this section of the website is separate in its intentions. You can also see we even had a supporting argument from a former student and teacher by the name of "boniver" who agreed my above point. Also, as we are a registered user do you not think it would have been appropriate to have contacted me before you removed an afternoon's worth of work? I hope you can overturn your decision and reinstate these links, Regards,

Dan Gibbins Bell Percussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellperc (talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerome, what's your view on possibly merging

) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Process music should not be combined with either of the other two, since it is a much broader category, including as it does music by composers such as Elliott Carter and Karlheinz Stockhausen. Conversely, much of the minimalism of La Monte Young cannot be regarded as process music, either (the sound installations, for example). If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said that Systems music and Minimalism could plausibly be combined, but after listening to Robin Maconie's Touché (1983–84) last night, it strikes me that this could be plausibly regarded as Systems music, but is as distant from minimalism as either Carter or Stockhausen. Similarly, I think many compositions by Larry Polansky and Larry Austin could also be characterized as systems music, but not as minimalism, and I dimly recall a New York Times article from about ten years ago that discussed a broad range of American composers under the umbrella of "systems music", but at the moment I can't remember who was included, so they may or may not qualify as minimalists or postminimalists. For the moment, therefore, I must favor keeping the three articles separate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with this, i think it is more informative for the reader to deal with each subject separately, it's probably also worth considering that minimalism (or minimal music) now appears to be used in the popular domain as a genre descriptor, whereas systems music, and process music, are still used to describe compositional concepts, no? Semitransgenic (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a valid distinction. Mixing them up in a single article would inevitably confuse the novice reader over whether the subject is a technique, a concept, or a style. I have not yet noticed on the Talk pages of the articles in question any other opinions on the merger proposal. Is it too soon to declare a consensus, and shouldn't our discussion be moved to one of those Talk pages?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the question needs wider debate right now, I was just curious what your take might be after touching on the systems entry.

Semitransgenic (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry forgot, there is a merge tag on the process page, looks like User:Scottandrewhutchins placed it there, however, as he neglected to open discussion, which is a requirement, I suggest we remove it, if there is flack, we can raise the points discussed here on the talk page.Semitransgenic (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. You will have noticed that I have made some editorial changes to two of these articles in the meantime, prompted by this line of discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert 71.205.112.121's good faith edit as vandalism? [1] Milo 08:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because of the ongoing dispute at the

New Age music for. My apologies.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(diff) . . New Age music‎; 19:21 . . (+128) . . Jerome Kohl (reverted own erroneous edit--the addition appears to have been in good faith)

Thanks for the correction. Milo 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop imposing your own preferences on an article that has long been worked on. You are near 3RR, as am I, and it is just silly. If you want to add content feel free, but just.stop.this. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my preferences (which are quite different, I assure you), and I have been working on this article for some time, myself. The problem has to do with inconsistent citation styles, and the majority are and have been author-date, which is why there is a Bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a work in progress, can you bear with me, I'm off to bed now (early start <sigh>), but it would take about 10 minutes and 1 edit to bring cosistency, along the lines of The Garden of Earthly Delights. One edit per . is a bit much, in fairness. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a work in progress (as are all articles on Wikipedia), and this discussion really belongs on the Talk:Henryk Górecki page, where I am moving it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2008 (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.