User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 7

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.

Hi. Just saying some dictionary words (peacock or lion or tiger) do not try to be smart to deny a very true fact and the correct projection of it. People who want to deny him or on other grounds, come up with what they can reduce the scope of this article. As I already told, deal with the significance importance of the article than coming and saying its peacock language or lions language. Dont be a plastic and stick to a form, there are exceptions & this is one. It is a very very significant article coverage and why should it be considered or seen as "it is endorsed with heavy praise words" when clearly it meets all the scopes of it bearing it all being the actual True events backed with proof.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See the

Wikipedia Manual of Style. It is a technical term, not a poetic one.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 06:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On editing the article Georg Katzer, you wrote ""Hörspiel" is a separate category from "radio drama", which is why it has a separate Wikipedia article", but in the meantime, Hörspiel, quite rightly in my opinion, redirects to radio drama. So, I would be delighted if you would reply to my contribution to Talk:Georg Katzer. Coyets (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You recently reverted my edits to the article Symphony with the edit summary, reverting unexplained, arbitrary change of ref format from one Wikipedia standard to another.

I disagree that my edit was arbitrary and unexplained.

My edit was not unexplained because I explained my edit in my edit summary: transitioning to footnotes, planning to port some of the citizendium article and this reconciles the two different referencing styles of the two articles. I'm confused as to why you would call an edit unexplained when there is an explanation in the edit summary. If any part of my edit summary confuses you, feel free to ask me any questions you might have.

My edit was not arbitrary for the reasons explained in my edit summary. This is part of the work of a wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. I will need to switch the references back to my edit when I port the article (probably sometime in the coming week).--Banana (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What you did not explain in your edit summary was why you thought the referencing format should be changed at all, contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles, the "Established style" guideline currently under fairly lively discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#.22Established_style.22.2C_needs_clarification. I have never heard of "Citizendium Porting" or the project you refer to but, if you want to change a citation style to make two articles agree, why not change the other one to match the long-established and much preferable style in Symphony?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that I did not explain why I "though the referencing format should be changed at all". To repeat myself, my edit summary explained that I was "planning to port some of the citizendium article and this reconciles the two different referencing styles of the two articles".

I also disagree that the style you wrote the article in is preferable. I think both styles are about equally useful to our readers. I agree that the sytle is "long-established". This is because you wrote the article, not because of any kind of discussion or consensus (at least none that I could find).

It is a common knowledge that Wikipedia takes content from other sources with acceptable licenses. Whether or not you are familiar with one particular source (citizendium) is not really relevant to this conversation.

I chose to change the wikipedia references because the other article has more references. Hence, it would be more work to convert the other way. I have already done the work for converting the references into footnotes. If you prefer to keep them in the style in which you wrote them, I must ask that you take responsibility for changing the citizendium references to the style you prefer.--Banana (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that I still don't know what this "citizendium" is, your explanation remains impenetrable to me. Protocol on Wikipedia calls for discussing any such proposed change of format and obtaining consensus (which basically means the agreement of the editor or editors responsible for the established format) in advance. You also have not identified this second article, with which you wish to "port" the Wikipedia article (I presume that it must be short for "transport" and means something like "link" or "copy"—do forgive my ignorance, but to me, "port" is the opposite of "starboard", a place where a ship is berthed, or a kind of fortified wine; in none of these cases can it be used as a verb). I don't know anything about "acceptable licenses", except in connection with images and sound files.

You are of course entitled to your opinion about "style" (I did not "write the article in a style", but I did use a particular citation format, which is what I presume you mean), as am I. We must agree to disagree here.

If you would be so kind as to tell me how to find this citizendium article (is it an article on "Symphony", or something else?), and how to secure editing rights for it, I would be happy to change the reference formats there, if it is so important to you that these two articles match in such a way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding it harder and harder to assume good faith here.--Banana (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me intruding on this conversation. (I actually came here for a different reason).

• I guess "citizendium" refers not to a Wikipedia article or project but to another wiki encyclopedia Citizendium. I found that there is a Symphony article there which does indeed use footnotes.
• In computing terminology "to port" and "porting" generally means making some software available in some other computer environment. But in this case it presumably means moving the encyclopedic content from one encyclopedia to the other.

Although I tend to favour footnotes myself, I would hope—in accordance with Wikipedia policy—any 'porting' would respect the established citation style of the article unless there's a consensus to change it.

I hope that helps. (RT) (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, RT. It is refreshing to be given the answers to my questions, instead of dealing with unexplained jargon ("I was planning to port") or deflections ("It is common knowledge …", "Whether or not you are familiar with … (citizendium) is not really relevant"). I take it, then, that we are dealing with what I have heard referred to as a "mirror site", where the content is simply copied from Wikipedia (euphemistically called "porting" in order to avoid the distasteful word "stealing", perhaps?), sometimes with the references shorn off, sometimes with changes to the formatting. It is peculiar that there should be more references in such a parasitic article, but perhaps in this case the editing has gone beyond mere formats. I shall have a look at the article you linked, and see whether the sources there can profitably be used in the Wikipedia article. Thank you again for taking the time to provide lucid answers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Various sites around the Internet do copy Wikipedia indiscriminately. However I think Citizendium has editors a bit like Wikipedia—sort of a smaller rival. But I have no experience of the site. The content of their symphony article looks somewhat different. (RT) (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. This re-opens the question of what "port" must mean in this context, doesn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I know what it means. Whether that's OK or not I don't feel really qualified to answer. Is it equivalent to merging two Wikipedia articles generated by different editors? (RT) (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would think not, since two different articles on Wikipedia fall under the same policies and guidelines, whereas articles on two different sites do not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By way of background, I believe Citizendium started as a fork of Wikipedia, "fork" being tech jargon in this case for "continuing in a different direction from a similar base." The term may or may not be politically correct in the Citizendium environment. Rather than "anyone can edit," Citizendium relies on a body of "experts" with vetted credentials, to clear articles from draft to accepted status, or something like that.

The condition of Citizendium may accurately be described as moribund, in my view. There is no article at all for one of the loves of my life, the viola, and the cello article there is what they call a "lemma," or placeholder for "see also" purposes, not quite equivalent to a stub. I see no reason for Wikipedia to emulate Citizendium in any way.

Not wishing to stir up unnecessary controversy, I will not object if Prof. Kohl removes these comments from his talk page. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone daring to remove these comments from my talk page will incur my wrath!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Having looked around for information it would appear that Citizendium works under a policy that in many cases allows reuse with attribution—see point 13 in We aren't Wikipedia and the licence. Apparently Wikipedia's Citizendium Porting project makes use of this where they believe it will "improve Wikipedia's article", without replacing existing Wikipedia content. Allowable copying with attribution goes on in the other direction too, see We aren't Citizendium. (RT) (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent work you've been doing on the

You are welcome, though so far I have done little more than copy the material from Hurrians#Music (which I had put there in the first place, it is true).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More kudos on your work on the article. I do have a question about this edit. I thought "Hurrian song" referred specifically to one of the songs found on those tablets. Have you seen it used in other sources to refer to other hymns found at the same excavation site? Raul654 (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, only Kilmer uses the word "song" (most often, these pieces are called "hymns", but she is by her own admission not a musicologist). In her New Grove article "Mesopotamia", she uses the word mainly to refer to repertories ("Five types of song are distinguished by names beginning with the word ŠÌR …", "The tablets can be classified according to the type of text they contain: lexical lists; … song catalogues; and hymnodic instructions …", and, in particular reference to the repertory in question, "tablets found at Ugarit contain hymns in Hurrian. … Song repertory collectors hired scribes to record the hymns together with their performance or tuning system instructions"). The other writers (Wulstan, Duchesne-Guillemin, West) refer to "hymns" in the plural, as well as to this particular (h.6) hymn. Since some of the other fragmentary hymns have also been published, and their texts are often referred to, and I have now expanded the article to include reference to these other hymns, it seemed more logical to use Kilmer's plural. Personally, I would be happier if the article were retitled "Hurrian music" or "Hurrian hymns", but the established title will do to be getting on with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on Classical music. Would you please also consider the question following there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done so. It is a marginal case, I think but, in such matters, I prefer to err on the side of inclusiveness.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A little token of thanks: O angenehme Melodei, BWV 210a and O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit, BWV 210, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to how this edit of yours has left the article with an incomplete sentence. I have no idea how to fix the sentence, short of deleting it completely. I would also like to point out that the article formerly present at extreme music and linked in the previous section has been deleted as OR and does now redirect to extreme metal. Again, I see no way to fix the part without deleting it completely, but I would rather leave this to your own discretion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you for drawing my attention to this lapse of editorial attention on my part. I see that there is another uncited claim dating back to 2008, that forms part of the continuation. Clearly the whole passage must be deleted, since there is no point to it without the rest. The redirect in the previous section is easy to change, and I will gladly correct that as part of my atonement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, but now the purpose of the "See also" link to "extreme metal" is even unclearer. "Extreme music" was an article devoted to forms of music (mostly popular music styles outside the mainstream) repugnant or confusing to the average listener due to their manipulation of musical parametres far beyond the ordinary, and in so doing, challenging common ideas of what music is. Extreme metal formed only one example out of many styles whose description as music is often resisted, so I could see the original idea of introducing the link in the context of music aesthetics, but now? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why should deleting a sentence in one section compromise the integrity of a "see also" in the preceding one? A "see also" is supposed to direct the reader's attention to an article where more information on the subject just (briefly) discussed can be found. If in addition the article "Extreme metal" (which I have not read) does not discuss the subject originally covered by the now-deleted "Extreme music" article, then the link should probably be removed. If you don't mind, I think we should move this discussion to the talk page of the article in question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll copy the discussion there and reply there as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jerome, You deleted my edit in this article because of no source. I don't know how to add one or from where, but I thought someone like you could fix this. I know this song and it can't be 5 bars of 3/4, because then it would be 15/4. In addition, its title pretty much clarify its time signature, and if you count while listening, you will find way to describe it but 25/4. I thought this article is meant to gather as much as possible works, so I want to add more works that I know would fit. So, it would be nice of you if you can explain to me what should I do when I want to add a composition.

Thanks, nadcu42 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of any editor adding an item to that list to provide a reliable source for it. There is an editorial warning to that effect posted at the top of the list, and at intervals throughout it, reading:

BEFORE YOU ADD ANY NEW PIECES, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU CITE A RELIABLE SOURCE! TRYING TO INTERPRET THE RHYTHM YOURSELF, NO MATTER HOW SURE YOU ARE, COUNTS AS ORIGINAL RESEARCH! (see

WP:CITE

- ANY UNSOURCED ADDITIONS WILL BE REMOVED! DO NOT USE ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA PAGE AS A SOURCE EITHER!

Please list unsourced material on the talk list linked on the Talk Page. It is a good resource for people who are confident enough to count for themselves.

I delete dozens of unsourced additions every month, so you are not the only person who ignores this message, but please do not expect other people to find sources for pieces that you think might be in an odd meter. The list's lede paragraph also states plainly that the same music can often be notated in different ways, which is one more reason that a reliable source must be provided.

I would suggest that you take the advice quoted above from the editorial note, and post a message on the discussion page, asking if anyone can find a reliable source for this song.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: When you look at that Talk page, you will find a banner at the top concerning this policy, and directing you to this list of pieces that various editors have at one time or another thought might be written in unusual time signatures, and for which sources have been requested but not yet found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your help. I will take this advice next time I want to add something to this article. Thank you. nadcu42 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-do -- your edit is much better than mine.Milkunderwood (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly! I merely borrowed the idea from other lists I have seen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the 0 (zero) you put at the end? A typo? Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Picky, picky! It's a lowercase closing parenthesis, of course! (Shift key stuck, and I didn't notice.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I have gone as far as I can, with the limited sources available to me, to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia's article on Piston. At least at this stage we no longer have Piston suddenly deciding that everyone is going to have to join the service in the mid-1920s (!) -- nor poor Mrs Piston encumbered with the wrong first name. I feel fairly sure that you must have vastly better library resources in the field of music than I do; maybe you could track down the last couple of missing citations one day? Nandt1 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have given a hard time to your very helpful edits, without adequately expressing appreciation for your work. Your withdrawal of that one website source is probably for the best (the substitution is much preferable, I think), though my tagging it for verification of credibility was meant as nothing more than just that. The article is indeed improved, and you have brought in some sources of which I was unaware. Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind remarks. I am all in favor of setting high standards for references. It is worrying nowadays how many of the "sources" on the web turn out to doing little more than recycling material from Wikipedia articles. Nandt1 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You wrote an HTML comment in Double whole note relating to whether there are 2 flavors of the breve or 2 flavors of the longa. Any note can be at any tempo, with the only rule being that each note must be twice as long as the previous one except the longa can be 3 times as long as the breve. Can you clarify this HTML comment further?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question needs to be clarified, and a source added. Tempo does not come into it, but the concepts of perfection/imperfection and alteration certainly do (see Mensural notation#Context-dependent note values). As it stands, it is quite ambiguous whether there is a fixed counting value for the longa, which may be divided either into duplets or triplets (possibly in rapid alternation), or the breve, which is almost the case (as you state here), except that there are two different possible lengths for the breve (the altered breve being twice as long as the normal breve). Then there is the problem of perfect and imperfect longs, containing three and two unaltered breves, respectively (the value of a perfect long can of course contain just two breves, in which case the second breve is altered). I was running out of time last night and did not want to make a change without at the same time providing a source. If you can get there before me, please do so. For such short, stub articles, that one and the companion article on the Longa have an astonishing number of confusing, unsourced, and just plain wrong statements in them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/r.php?fbpage_id=108188552535909&r=111&next=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FJacques-Louis-Monod%2F108188552535909 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.183.246 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC) If Monod is seemingly available via Facebook, perhaps the way to check the veracity of much questionable content reported in his Wikipedia would be to contact Monod directly. Or at least obtain from Monod published information on his accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.250.71 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. The suggestion should be passed on to the editor who keeps putting unsourced material into his article. Unfortunately, that editor has not registered with Wikipedia and keeps posting from an anonymous IP address. However, he or she is much more likely to see this advice if it is posted to the appropriate Talk page, instead of here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right to suggest posting the above-mentioned requests on the appropriate Talk page, since the abundant information reported in Wikipedia on Monod may not be factually correct. Perhaps you should Monod directly via Facebook to ascertain the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.250.71 (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Facts, on Wikipedia, come from reliable sources, and the obligation for providing them falls on the editor making the claims, not on the subject of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For time signatures that meet what criteria does the top number usually not match the true number of beats?? It has to be a criterion that 6/8 meets but that 6/4 doesn't, because you wrote earlier that composers generally prefer 6/4 if 6 beats are meant. Georgia guy (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the tempo. In practice, quarter notes tend to be used (these days) as a beat value. Consequently, in practice, what you say is true. However, this is not an absolute rule, and some slow pieces in 6/8 may be counted six to the bar, just as brisk pieces written in 6/4 may be counted two to a bar. Don't forget that the "Brobdingnagische Gigue" from Telemann's "Gulliver" Suite is written in 24/1 time, though this does not mean it should be counted 96 to the bar, just because there are 96 quarter notes in a measure! Notation does not dictate the way music should be played. On the contrary, notation is merely a way of representing the sounds in a piece of music. Tastes and conventions of notation vary from person to person, from one circumstance to another, from place to place, and from era to era.

Speaking more broadly to your question, I just yesterday expanded a paragraph in this section of the "Time signature" article, including an observation from Constantin Brăiloiu that, in aksak rhythms, a measure written (by Western musicologists, of course!) in 7/16 may well be regarded by the musicians as three to a bar.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"revert move of image, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images" - I don't get it. I see there "Infoboxes, images and related content in the lead must be right-aligned.". I've did it and you've reverted it. Why? Greetings,

Sorry, I get it now, it's getting late and my mind is working slower.

talk

) 01:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I'm glad you found the answer for yourself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Citing sources pertaining to my edits for Symphony, consensus has now been sought. As you seem very adamant that Symphony remain in its present cited state, please defend the current state of affairs on the talk page if you do not want it to change. As well, since I am a new editor, bring any criticism you have of my citing style itself. romnempire (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your work on Threni (Stravinsky). The dedicatee of the first performance is in fact Piovesan in all online editions of White. "Pieropan" was my typo. I can't understand where it came from, but there we are. I've now changed the White reference to the latest edition available in Google books (1984/5 paperback). An advantage of this is that it shows a page not previewed in the earlier editions, so I could cite White for the orchestration (he gives flugelhorn) and cite Boosey & Hawkes only for the "bugle". Regards. --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I might warn you that, should you add a link to Alessandro Piovesan, it will connect to the wrong person. FWIW, the "1984/85 paperback" edition of White is actually the second edition from 1979 (which is "the latest edition available"), and should be so cited—it is not customary to cite the date of a subsequent printing or reprint, only the date of the actual edition. White indeed gives the alternative term for the instrument in question (and cites one of the conversation books for Stravinsky's inspiration for using the flugelhorn), though I think the score itself remains the preferred source for the term. I find it very peculiar that Stravinsky names every single instrument in Italian except this one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't link to any footballers :) I'll remember about editions vs. printings in future. The last is indeed a puzzle, but it's actually quite difficult to discover, on the internet anyway, exactly how to specify a flugelhorn in Italian. Flicorno seems to cover saxhorns as well. --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of standard references on instruments not available on the internet, many of which give the names in multiple languages. One of the best is Sibyl Marcuse's venerable dictionary. One interesting thing about flügelhorns is that, according to Marcuse, there is disagreement about what exactly they are, and this is reflected in the French and Italian names. The French name, bugle à pistons, follows the belief that the flügelhorn is a valved development of the earlier keyed bugle, whereas the Italian word, as you rightly observe, suggests on the contrary that it is a type of saxhorn.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you have a look at Munich Biennale, an editors first article, for terminology and formality? I can't find the mb website how they translate "neues Musiktheater", too many pictures to start. I wonder if the news page or description page would be better for the "Sources". I also miss "Klangspuren". - Tim Brown, another friend of WW, was on DYK today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this article. I did notice a flurry of links to it over the past few days, but did not realize it was new. I will be happy to have a look at it. Thanks also for the pointer to the DYK page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check my latest ones with your competent eyes: Hans Stadlmair and Wilhelm Killmayer (teacher of two composers I know, mentioned, of course). Any categories/banners for Contemporary music? How would you translate Fin al punto? Do you perhaps feel like writing on the piece? (I couldn't.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question: I hesitate to list Stadlmair as a 20th century composer because he really was more of a conductor, what do you think? Killmayer was there, even as a stub, I just changed the works a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think both articles look excellent, and I cannot immediately think of anything to add. On the basis of his work list, it seems to me that Stadlmair is perfectly entitled to be called a composer, even if he is more prominent as a conductor. My Italian is only of an intermediate level, which means that I am especially weak in the area of idioms, but the phrase fin al punto I think means "to the point", though perhaps it could also mean "up until the moment". You should ask someone with better Italian than mine.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. "Up until the moment" makes sense, related to his words. (I asked others also.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider undoing your fact tag bombing of this article and instead tagging the top with {{

While it may be true that the same purpose is served, that purpose is not served in the same way. The top tag (which in any case should be {{

Nofootnotes}}, since there are already quite a few inline references—just nowhere near enough) tells other editors in a general way that, somewhere in the article, there are probably at least two or three statements that need referencing. On the other hand, because it is a fairly long article, there may be dozens. But where? What you have called "tag bombing" not only specifies exactly which statements are iffy, but also discriminates between claims that require a source, and those that are badly formulated and require clarification. The best solution to remove the "speed bumps" is to find the needed sources and add them. Alternatively, we can just remove the doubtful claims, if no one can actually substantiate them. In the long term, the reader is better served that way than by asking editors to guess about where and how many sources need adding.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 03:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Then remove the claims. Tag bombing an article shreds its credibility and readibility.

Lara

03:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It is generally regarded as courteous to extend an opportunity to the editors who placed the claims to find the necessary sources. The purpose of what you somewhat offensively call "tag bombing" is in fact to "shred credibility and readability" (temporarily), in order to call attention to the lack of support for the claims. This does not necessarily mean that the "bomber" thinks the claims are untrue—only that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you are so deeply offended by the tags, and cannot bring yourself to offer the original editor(s) the chance to rectify the situation, then by all means remove the statements yourself. For my part, I am willing to wait a few days or weeks.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There are better ways to go about it. You can hide the questionable text, or, as I offered above, tag the top of the article with a banner to alert readers to the questionable quality of the article due to poor sourcing, and then add discussion to the talk page to alert editors of your concerns.

Lara

23:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this: it is much easier for an editor who is not familiar with a case to see specific requests for citations rather than a general request on top of an article. Hiding a questionable fact seems not to help improvement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I could not have put it better myself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope you are going to put something in place of the mostly rather commonplace stuff you have removed! Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"und eine neue Welt ..." - very impressive! Detail questions: how did "Der Kinderfänger" (The Child-Catcher) become The Pied Piper - a very special child catcher? "Erste (zweite, dritte) Examen" sounds like a plural, as opposed to singular "Erstes (zweites, drittes) Examen"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When I interviewed Stockhausen in June 1984, he was using the English translation you give (only in the plural: "The Children-Catcher"). At some point between then and the time the CD recording was issued (in 1992), the English was changed to "The Pied Piper", even though it is not a precise equivalent, as you note. I can only suppose that the literal translation sounded too awkward, and to an English speaker would not immediately recall the fairy-tale connection. I cannot take full credit (or blame) for the Licht "parent" article, which was in place when I first started editing on Wikipedia several years ago. I am only just now beginning to work on a separate article for Donnerstag, and so had not yet noticed the grammatical error in the subsection titles of act 1, scene 3. Thanks for pointing them out, I have now corrected them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So you may also want to change the Child catcher in Licht, where I found him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably! I hadn't noticed that one, either, thank you!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerry, that was subterfuge for inserting a link to a Russian "JSBach is a hoax" article.--Galassi (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there you go. I read Russian only with great difficulty, so I didn't check, and it all looked perfectly genuine on the surface. Still, the links to other Wikipedia articles do not by themselves verify anything. I shall not object if you revert the edit, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a very, very bad joke I made earlier today and I wanted to apologize. Stockhausen I'll admit is not a favorite. I'm rather partial to Adams and Reich. Also, there would be no Autechre (whom I love) without Schaeffer. Good discussion there and I'm sorry I ruined it with my tasteless attempt at humor.--Atlantictire (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Stockhausen ought to be your favourite, however, and I cannot understand what you can possibly see in Adams, Reich, or (especially) Autechre (kidding). There, I think that makes us even.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You support that article greatly by adding pieces, could you also improve the referencing? What do you think of the recent pic, someone's favourite? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the picture, but I will go and look at it now. I shall see what I can do about the referencing. Thanks for calling my attention to this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the doubtful journalism about S's father. I will not upload "my" string trio pic (premiere of Epitaphium), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I found particularly amusing the fact that the editor mangled the spelling of the Guardian's name. This particular newspaper historically has been an object of scorn (not entirely deserved) for inept proofreading, and for this reason is sometimes jocularly referred to as "The Grauniad", suggesting that they misspell the name on their own masthead. In this case, the author of the article was not mentioned when the editor added it, or I would have immediately realized we were dealing with one of the lesser lights who write for that newspaper—one whose inaccuracies are already the object of some ridicule later on in the Wikipedia article on Stockhausen. I think in the fullness of time the unwarranted claim of certainty can be removed, along with the reference identifying the foolish journalist responsible.

As to the String Trio article, I think the photograph is perfectly suitable, though I may check Wikimedia Commons to see if there are any better ones available.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (I learned some English expressions telling the Stockhausen editor to please comply with the ref format), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope they were the sort of expressions that can be used in polite company! Reference formats are a continual problem, and it is better that editors add something rather than no references at all. The format can always be corrected later by other editors who know how to make them consistent. More worrisome is that people seem too ready to believe anything they see in print, and do not discriminate between sources of varying reputations for reliability.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Polite? I don't think so, look at the talk, smile. Newspapers: FAZ just printed their Lolita review saying it was the second staging ever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I think I see what you mean: "dfatuous", "rweading", and "ehy" are certainly new English expressions in my experience! Still, they are quite appropriate to the Grauniad's fabled reputation, and now that I see editor Paul Barlow admits to being only five years old, I think we can understand why he is gullible enough to believe what he reads in the newspapers!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiny bit: Stockhausen grew up in the de:Kreis Bergheim, not Bergheim Kreis, if you want that bit of German precision, smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The problem is not so much the German word order, as how should it be rendered in English? Even if retaining the German word "Kreis" (instead of translating it as "district" or "county"), it may be usual to place it as in English regional names, e.g., the "Lake District", "New Haven County", etc. This is the more usual English word order, except perhaps in Ireland (County Antrim, County Cork, etc.), and in County Durham (as opposed to Durham County, New South Wales). I don't know where that particular word order came from—I'm not finding it in the cited pages from Kurtz—but if I added it, I would have retained the word order found in my source. I'll have to dig a little deeper, and perhaps the Wikipedia Manual of Style offers some guidance in such cases.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style wasn't as definitive as I might have hoped, but I think translating "Kreis" as "district" is indicated in this context, so that is what I have done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, consistent. (If German word, then German word order, that was what I thought). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very fast response and helpful explanation. I see you also took the opportunity for a major cleanup of the article.

To me, the word "strictly" still seems to stand out as a point of confusion - is this somehow a term of art? Is it as opposed to "loosely"? Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding it hard to put this word in its intended context. Otherwise, you have an excellent article here. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for drawing attention to the problems with that article, which appears to have been written by a non-native English speaker. It needed and still needs work, but at least a start has been made. I will look at it again, with a view to the word "strictly".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Much clearer - thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions: Since the term "trio" to most modern understanding implies three separate instruments, I wonder if it might be useful here to include a brief explanation of the concept of a "part" and/or a "voice" in the article. Also perhaps a reference to

And I notice you changed "is" to "was" in the lede. Composers may not now be writing trio sonatas, but examples are still very much available on recordings. I think I would say The trio sonata is a musical form that was popular in the 17th and early 18th centuries.

(I need to emphasize that I have no musical education at all, and would be entirely incompetent at attempting a rewrite myself. I just remember some of this stuff from a required high school class more years ago than I care to admit, and am trying to learn more about CDs that I have.)

Milkunderwood (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All very good suggestions, and despite your protestations you are clearly capable of making at least some of these changes yourself!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you did the easy one, fixing the lede. I've linked parts to Part (music), but don't know how to specify the first definition only, since that article isn't sectioned. For explanation & discussion, I'm way over my head. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding the comment you added here, how can this be verified? Mato (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm, by looking in the score? Or did you have in mind something more formal and intrinsic to the article, such as adding the score to the list of references, and then supplying an inline reference with the page number? It could easily be done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have assumed you meant the latter, and supplied the required data. Shouldn't something be done about the mangled title of the article, as well? Omitting the definite article is the equivalent of saying "The Little Train of Hillbilly" instead of "The Little Train of the Hillbilly"—that is, there is no person named "Caipira".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the original manuscript or a particular edition? Mato (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The original Ricordi edition of 1952. I have not seen any of the manuscripts. The score of the reduced version for cello and piano spells it differently (correct modern Portuguese orthography), as noted in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look here and see what you think - the user has brought up some interesting links to the Museu Villa Lobos using the correct spelling, I mean it could have been a publishing error. Mato (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It could well have been a publishing error (the Ricordi score is full of them, including the mangled spelling of the English version of this same title, and the mistranslations of the first movement's subtitle into French, English, Italian, Spanish, and German). It is also possibly true of the subtitle of Chôros No. 3, which is also given in its correct modern Portuguese orthography (Pica-pau instead of Pica-páo) in all of the publications of the Museu Villa-Lobos, but is consistently spelled in the (evidently dialectal) form on the miniature and full score, as well as all the insrumental parts published by Max Eschig. Different publisher, similar problem, suggests the composer may have had some share in the responsibility if it was an error. However, it is also possible (especially considering the "bumpkin" reference of the title) that it is a deliberate rendering of a regional (or uneducated) variant of the spelling (the stem word is trem, with the M changing to N on contact with the Z of the diminutive ending, in correct Portuguese, but keeping the M is just the sort of thing one might expect from a bumpkin). Interpreting this could easily lead us into the realm of Original Research. What appears in the printed score, I am sure of; what may have gone on inside the composer's head, I cannot pretend to know, however much fun it may be to speculate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not a matter of ancient X modern. No ortographic reform changed that in the XX. Theres no "tremzinho" in Portuguese, its a grammatical error that you learn to avoid in first year of alphabetization. All sources, and records of this piece come with correct word, also academic papers, official orchestra links, and the villa-lobos museum. If you argue that its a lobos error, deliberated or not, based in a original manuscript you should put the reference where you have learned this information. The "original Ricordi edition of 1952" still sounds very vague to me (im not musician, but I think if this mistake is "correct", would be some reference in online resources, and I foun none. zero.) TRENZINHO all the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The "original Ricordi edition" is now cited in the list of references. What more do you want, a photostat? (That would be a violation of copyright, BTW.) The Ricordi edition number is 129643. My copy was actually printed in 1958, according to the notice on the back cover. Which edition of the score are you looking at?

This page in villa-lobos museum http://www.museuvillalobos.org.br/villalob/musica/tocata.htm says: © BMG Ricordi S.p.A.

New York City Symphony Orchestra; Heitor Villa-Lobos, regente and also write Trenzinho do Caipira.

This other site http://www.mola-inc.org/Nieweg%20Charts/Bachianas.htm says: "ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT AT MUSEU VILLA-LOBOS:" Publisher: Casa Ricordi © 1949 - BMG Ricordi S.p.A. Score and parts rental - US agent - Boosey & Hawkes Octavo size score for sale ©1952 - US agent - Leonard 8 by 11 # HL 50076880 and type: Tocata (O Trenzinho do Caipira) - As well another catalogs which refer to Ricordi http://www.villalobos.ca/bb02 W247 . Sorry this is a primary mistake in portuguese grammatic, see there: http://www.google.com.br/search?q=%22m+antes+de+p+e+b%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pt-BR:official&client=firefox-a (diminutive, you m in the end of word, otherwise put n following consoants, except to words with p and b, like campestre, camboja, diminutives substitutes m for n, like cem - cenzinho, bem - benzinho etc " Even with this score that you quote, it doesnt justifies to keep it, as long the name of the piece is with "n" in bachianas. All the records and versions come with the correct word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that all of this is true, but the listing of the Ricordi edition cited does not conform to the spelling I see before my eyes. Therefore, it is either a correction (of an Italian editor's ignorant error?) , or a mistake (not understanding Villa-Lobos's little joke). Which is it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not a villa-lobos joke, more like an error for the international publisher. By the way I send an email to villa lobos museum which keeps the original manuscript. Even with ricordi edition, it doesnt change the name of this well-know composition in portuguese, which is TRENZINHO do caipira, no way "tremzhinho " as you put. This is a shame, kind of trolling with a master piece. Music is international, you should keep the article clean, and not troll with the brazilian name of the composition. Listen the Edu Lobo version with lyrics added by the great poet Ferreira Gullar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nacx0Lq2ygY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talvez venhamos a entender melhor um ao outro em Português. Bem, então me convencer. Por que não poderia Villa-Lobos têm vindo a fazer uma piada? Eu não sei como um caipira brasileiro fala, então só posso especular. Para mim português é apenas uma "linguagem de livro"—eu nunca visitei nem Portugal nem Brasil. Por favor, me diga se é improvável ou impossível que um caipira pode escrever "tremzinho".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

É mas você não tem que especular nada, isso é "original research"> Theres no trick and nor joke. Você está tentando dar uma de esperto citando uma fonte que têm apenas o seu único testemunho ocular, contra um turbilhão de fontes sedimentadas que atestam que o nome da música em português é com trenzinho com n, e não com m, desde livros, teses acadêmicas, gravações de cds, versões, site do museu oficial patrocinado apoiado pelo Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional (iphan) - que mantém o manuscrito original e que no site colocou com "n". Você se diz musicólogo profissional mas age com desprezo e amadorismo em relação ao Villa-Lobos, não entende português, eu sou brasileiro. Não sou músico mas conheço a música, e desde sempre ela é grafada com "n". Não tem nada a ver com reforma ortográfica (moderno X antigo) que você citou, pior que ainda pioraram colocando tremzhinho que é uma aberração ainda maior, e o único resultado que existe é do artigo da wikipedia. Seus questionamentos sobre a natureza do caipira, que você não conhece mesmo, e que, aliás, não é um countryman, é outra coisa, revelam um preconceito, que foi justamente o que Villa-Lobos, que foi um mestre erudito, poliglota, culto, subverteu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Não tem nada a ver com dialeto caipira ou variante linguística, no caso, o caipirês é uma variante falada, fonética, e a grafia apenas representa literariamente, nem faria sentido nisso, porque a pronúncia é a mesma. Não seja pretensioso querendo achar pelo em ovo onde não há. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Obrigado pela sua opinião informada, segundo a qual podemos descartar a possibilidade de uma piada. Porque você parece não entender isso, porém, vou repetir: eu estou perfeitamente ciente da grafia correta, e eu estou igualmente ciente de que a pronúncia é a mesma, independentemente de ela se escreve com um M ou N. Você, obviamente, não têm idéia do que é ser um musicólogo (que deve respeitar os fatos, porém absurdas que possam parecer), e sua linguagem abusiva é contrária ao

OCLC

):

• Bachianas brasileiras, no. 2: para orquestra de camera / Author: Villa-Lobos, Heitor. Publication: 1943. Musical Score: Music manuscript Archival Material. Notes in Portuguese./ "Translation of percussion instruments" in English./ Duration: 20 min./ 1-fl (1-pc), 1-ob, 1-cl, 1-bn (1-cbn), bsx (tsx), 2-hn, 1-trb, tmp, prc, pn, cel, str./ SC: Ink ms. (bound)./ PTS: Ozalid./ STR: Ozalid./ BACKUP: Ink ms. masters of parts, strings./ Bio/History: Composed 1930. First performance Venice, 1937.--Cf. Fleisher Collection. WPA project 28908: score and parts copied at Fleisher.
• The Little Train of the Caipira. (Toccata) from the Bachianas brasileiras No. 2 / Author: Villa-Lobos, Heitor.; Levine, Henry, Publication: [New York], Ricordi 1960. Musical Score : Printed music : Toccatas. Arr. for piano by Henry Levine.
• Bachianas brasileiras nos. 2, 4, & 8 / Author: Villa-Lobos, Heitor.; López-Cobos, Jesús.; Villa-Lobos, Heitor., and others Publication: Cleveland, Ohio: Telarc, 1995. Sound Recording: Music: Compact disc.
• Estancia Panambi. / Author: Ginastera, Alberto, 1916-1983.; Goossens, Eugene,; Ginastera, Alberto, With: Villa-Lobos, Heitor. Bachianas brasileiras, no. 2, orchestra. Toccata: O tremzinho do caipira./ Participants: London Symphony Orchestra; Sir Eugène Goossens, conductor.Publication: 1960. LPBR 6041; Everest. Sound Recording: Music : Ballets : LP recording
• Ragtimes. / Author: Thomas-Mifune, Werner.; Joplin, Scott, and others Publication: 1977. Sound Recording: Music: Jazz: LP recording.
• Miniatures in Music. / Author: Wood, Lucille F.; Zádor, Eugene,, and others Publication: North Hollywood, CA : Bowmar Records, 1965. Bowmar orchestral library. Series 2; BOL no. 64. Sound Recording: Music: LP recording.
• Music That Paints a Picture / Author: Kodály, Zoltán; Charpentier, Gustave, and others Publication: Camden, NJ : RCA Victor, 1964. LM 2713; RCA Victor. Sound Recording: Music: LP recording.
• Villa-Lobos e o violoncelo. / Author: Vicente, José Guerra; Meneses, António, and others Publication: 1977, 1976. MVL 019; Tapecar Gravações; Sound Recording: Music: Suites: LP recording. Museu Villa-Lobos: Concurso Internacional de Violoncelo.
• Eine kleine Schlachtmusik / Author: Hilderbrandt, Dieter.; Boismortier, Joseph Bodin de, and others. Corp Author: Philharmonische Cellisten Köln. Publication: Mainz : Wergo, 1981. SM 1028/29; Wergo. Sound Recording: Music: Multiple forms: LP recording.
• Orquesta Juvenil de las Américas gira inaugural 2002 Youth Orchestra of the Americas inaugural tour 2002 = Orquestra de Jovens das Américas turne de inauguração 2002. / Author: Lavandera, Horacio.; Zander, Benjamin,, and others Corp Author: Youth Orchestra of the Americas. Publication: Arlington, Va. (1001 Nineteenth St. North, Arlington 22209) : Youth Orchestra of the Americas, 2002. Sound Recording : Music : Multiple forms: Compact disc.
• Dança dos escravos / Author(s): Egberto Gismonti; Heitor Villa-Lobos.. Sound Recording : Music : Suites : LP recording 1 sound disc : analog, 33 1/3 rpm ; 12 in. [New York, N.Y.] : ECM : Distributed by Polygram Records, 1989, 1988. Villa-Lobos, Heitor. ; Bachianas brasileiras,; no. 2; Tremzinho do caipira; arr. 837 753-1; ECM; 1387; ECM

É claro que eu não fala Português (bem), mas isso não significa que eu não sei nada. Repito: Não há dúvida de que a grafia correta da palavra é com um N. Observa-se ainda qualquer dúvida de que a pontuação publicado, o manuscrito de 1938 em Filadélfia, e uma multiplicidade de gravações de CD soletrá-lo de forma errada. Porque é esse o caso? Onde estão as provas? Não seja tolo, fingindo não há nenhum ovo, enquanto todos podem ver que está correndo para baixo sua camisa.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jerome-

I have a beginner's question, and have picked on you just because you've been very helpful previously. Is there a specific term for a player's "attack" of his/her instrument, when the fingers strike the piano keys, or a bow first strikes the strings?

For instance, one frequently gets the impression that Gieseking's touch can be so light that his fingers never really hit the keys at all. Or occasionally David Oistrakh's bow makes a "lisping" sound at the start of a note, particularly noticeable in his 1956 Wieniawski Legende trio Op 17; or in Piatigorsky's 1966 recording of the Brahms Op 38 sonata with Rubinstein he sometimes makes a "dth" sound when his bow first strikes the string, whereas I don't hear this in their 1936 recording. (Of course these sounds could all be artifacts, but it's the general term of hitting, striking, attacking, etc, that I'm looking for.)

I very much appreciate any help you can give. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Onset" is used in acoustical situations, but not, I think, by musicians. I have heard "mode of attack", just plain "attack", and (in the case of the piano) "touch". I don't know how well-established these terms may be—they are just the words I have heard used. You might find

Attack_(music)#ADSR_envelope helpful, though this is specific to synthesizers.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 16:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful - thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again--

Sometimes one sees Sonata a 3, but sometimes with an accent grave, as Sonata à 3, etc, or either apparently indiscriminately, in the various permutations of this form - Canon a 2, Fuga a 4, and so forth. Is one or the other correct, or does it depend on the original language - for instance Italian vs. German? Milkunderwood (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian vs. French, I should think (no accent and accent grave, respectively), though the use of accent marks in Italian is not very consistent, especially when you take into account different historical periods. I imagine it gets very murky indeed with English or German (etc.) sources, which may ignorantly adopt the French accent mark into a context meant to be Italian!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That answers my question - Italian does not use the accent grave à. Thanks very much! Milkunderwood (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A caution: standard modern Italian does not use the grave accent on a, no.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That clarification helps, thx. And thus neither should WP per MoS - especially since very few contributors will have access to original scores. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, provided that the expression is clearly in Italian and not French. François Couperin's opinion notwithstanding, the French went right on using the word "sonata" (instead of sonade), for example, and when Bach, for example, describes a canon as "à 2", we may not be able to judge from the context whether he was thinking in French, or in (corrupted) Italian.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was from looking at Bach's Musical Offering and The Art of Fugue, both here and as shown on CDs, that raised the question in my mind. Contrapunctus, rectus, inversus, perpetuus, etc, are obviously Latin; alla octavia, alla duodecima, soggetti, etc, are Italian.

I'm looking at Münchinger's liner notes, which give Canon per augmentationem in contrario moto from 1080, and from 1079 Canon a 2 per motum contrarium and Canon a 2 per augmentationem contrario motu. First, I never trust liner notes at all; and also I flunked Latin many years ago because of all these verdammte endings. This Decca Münchinger consistently gives a without the accent grave, but I keep finding à in various other places.

I think my real question is whether WP should standardize, and on what basis? It seems that we can discount original scores since no one has access to them. Maybe it would be best to consistently use the unaccented a except where the title is clearly in French. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it must have been these works that prompted your question, which is why I mentioned Bach. The expression can of course by found in Latin as well as in French and Italian, but once again a grave accent is out of the question. Schoolbook Latin might put a macron over the a, but this never occurs in historical sources. Still, I don't know why you say no one has access to original sources, especially if you mean the two Bach works you name. Facsimile editions of both are widely available—even online, if memory serves.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in way over my head here, and yield the question. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC) (I did understand your original Cave!) Milkunderwood (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Facsimile editions, or Latin? ;-) I am by no means adept in Latin myself, but in the present case we may take comfort in the fact that Bach wasn't, either. Like any educated man of his day, he was required to have some knowledge of that language, but keep in mind that one of the big stumbling-blocks to his appointment to Cantor in Leipzig was that he did not want to have to teach Latin (one of the most important duties of the post). Eventually he was allowed to pay someone else to take over this task, but it is clear that he took no great delight in the language.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings -- After this threat to edit-war I left a friendly welcome and a note on the new editor's talk page. (It's intended to be friendly; I hope it comes across that way.) At this point I'm too

Thanks for letting me know. I decided to try the "accommodation" route, offering the editor an opportunity to provide sources while at the same time amplifying on the contrary evidence already presented. This has not been a notable success so far, though the exchange has actually produced some improvement, I think. However, I despair at the prospect of trying to track down the particular issue of High Fidelity in which the editor admitted that the title was imposed without Babbitt's knowledge or approval. There is no reason why this should be mentioned in Grove or anywhere else, since no one has previously thought to contest Babbitt's word. There is a conspiracy theorist in every crowd, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oy. When I wrote this thing I had no idea how some of them would come back over and over ... number 1, but especially number 33 ... Am I missing something about the Babbitt article? I thought it was obvious that the first line would have been added by an editor, or by the author in negotiating with the editor over a changed title. Oh well. Antandrus (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a very useful (and all-too accurate) list! I imagine you are aware how well the majority of those descriptors match diagnostic criteria in

DSM-IV. I don't think you are missing anything in the Babbitt article and, from the recent edit history, it seems neither do The Scotch nor Heimstern. The latter, BTW, has written a short essay pertinent to the present case, which can be found here, if you are not already aware of it.—Jerome Kohl (talk

) 22:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd never seen that -- it's wonderful -- thank you for the link! Heimstern, if you are reading this, well done. Antandrus (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI. Apparently this editor is intent on inflicting his original research on us one way or another. Antandrus (talk)

03:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is what you call an "unflushable". Separated out like this, it is even more plainly original research than when he tried to insert it into the Babbitt article. I've never "reviewed" a new article like that, so I don't know the procedure. Should it be marked as the pure original research it is, and nominated for deletion?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably the first -- the second, just based on seven years of casually watching and sometimes participating in that horrorshow at AfD, is unlikely to succeed, as the topic can be demonstrated to be notable, and a "no consensus" result tends to make bad articles stick to the wall forever. One way to recruit unbiased eyes would be to post at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard (with a catchy thread title like "New Wikipedian as Specialist." -- kidding.) Obviously he needs sources and it's full of opinion, so should be pruned to what can be sourced. I suppose we can "assume good faith" that such sources will appear in the next couple days, and then ... Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Message received. It seems to me if the original research were to be removed, little would be left that is not already in the Babbitt article. Would that not be solid grounds to merge the remnants into the pre-existing article?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, yes. A compelling argument could be made to merge rather than delete (unless it were expanded from reliable sources). Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. For my part, I would prefer to wait for a day or so, to see whether some "new blood" may care to offer an opinion first.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Kohl! I like the reception section at the Ferneyhough article. Thanks for the quotations that you added. I would really enjoy seeing articles on other modern composers, contain a similar section showing different peoples opinions and reactions etc. Unfortunately most articles are rather limited in this respect... and lacking this kind of "truthful" human reaction (positive for some listeners and negative for others), instead staying on a mundane factual level and often even lacking mention of criticism, controversy etc. I'd love to read these types of "personal" distinctly-human reactions with regard to other composers... If I get the time, I'll start looking... Perhaps you know of some fitting reviews/quotations? :) Easy tup (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Wikipedia guidelines encourage "critical reception" sections of this nature. Unfortunately, some editors mistake cheap quips or mere opinions (positive or negative) for criticism (which, likewise, can be either positive or negative). Critical writing is rare, while journalistic opinions are comparatively easy to find. The former speaks for itself, whereas knowing what to make of the latter requires knowing something about the reliability of the authors. I'm afraid most of the quotations in the Ferneyhough article are actually rather shallow expressions of opinion, but they will have to suffice until better material can be discovered.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you assume that wikipedia requires only factual objective criticism, since art criticism is very often personal and subjective... or put another way: it is often "opinion". And this "opinion" is therefore required for the fulfillment of

WP:NPOV - the presentation of the various differing views of various people; not the seeking of any objective factual truth, which in this case does not even exist. Of course a well-formulated honest sensitive opinion is what we are after (maby you call it "criticism"). Thus when writing on the reception of modern music, the opinions and reactions of normal people in the concert-hall are as valuable and important, as the views of experts on musical modernism. (NPOV: presenting all significant views. Since not only experts hear modern music, but others too can wander into said performances... we must consider not only "expert" opinions). Easy tup (talk

) 23:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you assume I said anything of the sort. I was merely expressing a personal preference for in-depth critical analysis over mere expressions of admiration or revulsion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by  April 26, 2011.

Hi Jerome, what are your views of the distinction between the terms "minimal music" and "minimalist music." Most of the scholarly sources I have seen use the former: a minimalist is an advocate of minimalism, so the latter term suggests "music listened to by minimalists" (whereas "minimal music" relates to the stylistic quality of the music). Would you support an article name change? --Semitransgenic (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It had never occurred to me to ask the question: which usage is more common, "minimal" or "minimalist"? I would have guessed the latter, but you seem to have paid more attention than I have, so I will accept your conclusion. Certainly a comparison with parallel constructions, such as "serial/serialist", "tonal/tonalist", "neoclassical/neoclaccisist" would reinforce your position, though I would say that an "advocate of minimalism" is more likely to be a composer, performer, or concert promoter than a listener—and of course enthusiasts for minimal(ist) music may well listen to other types of music, which by your suggested definition would make all music that minimalists might possibly listen to minimal music. However, there is nothing as inconsistent as linguistic usage, and Wikipedia article titles are supposed to reflect usage, not logic. Consequently, I would like to see some evidence before supporting your proposal.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

could be a language preference issue, could be UK versus American English thing, confusingly, some sources interchange the two freely. If we look to Nyman, allegedly the first to coin the term, he used "minimal music" as did Mertens after him. Hardly an arbiter of truth, but google books returns 10,400 for "minimal music" and only 2,870 for "minimalist music," without the context for each usage case it's difficult to judge what this means. If we search JSTOR it's 212 to 126 (articles not single usage) in favour of "minimal music." In Perspectives of New Music alone : ) its 15 to 5 in favour (articles). What do you think?--Semitransgenic (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Perhaps a notice on the article's Talk page first would be a good idea, though, just in case you are right about it being an American vs English thing. I'm not surprised to learn that some sources interchange the two words, though of course context may require it. For example, the expression "minimal composer" does not strike me favourably (suggesting a composer of minimal importance or skill), even though "neoclassical composer" and "serial composer" sound better than "neoclassicalist" (ugh!) and "serialist" composer, respectively.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, will post a notification. Yes, context is important, I would also say "minimalist composer," let's see how others react to this. --Semitransgenic (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.

Amazing, what you found! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing amazing about it, and what I put into the article is only a small fraction of what I have found. I have to draw the line, for example, on how many articles on the Janáček Sinfonietta to include in the "Further reading" section—there are dozens.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought of you writing "DYK ... that Iván Erőd composed a Sinfonietta called Minnesota Sinfonietta, an opera titled Silk Worms, and a song cycle for soprano and chamber orchestra, named Baby Tooth Songs?" (to appear shortly but I will sleep) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You wrote:

Conversely, the presence of a 5/4 or 5/8 meter signature does not necessarily mean that the music is in quintuple meter. The regular alternation of 5/4 and 4/4 in Bruce Hornsby's "The Tango King" (from the album Hot House), for example, results in an overall nonuple meter.

This is in fact an alternating of measures in quintuple and quadruple meter. Nonuple meter is 9/4. Georgia guy (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I don't understand what you are asking. Should I do the sums in the article (as an earlier version had it, when it was still in the "miscellaneous" list): "5 + 4 = 9"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it not quintuple meter?? The 5/4 measures are quintuple meter; the 4/4 measures are not. So the answer to the question "Is it in quintuple meter??" alternates between yes and no. Georgia guy (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I understand your statement, it's similarly logical to say that a piece entirely in 4/4 is in octuple meter because 4 + 4 = 8. What flaw is there here?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Two things: first, 4 + 4 is redundant, in that an 8/4 bar divided that way consists of equal halves (an 8/4 bar divided 3 + 3 +2 might be another matter). A 9/4 bar divided 5 + 4 cannot be collapsed into identical simple patterns like that. Second, please do not confuse meter with time signature. They are related, but not identical concepts. The entire paragraph leading up to the sentence you queried is meant to explain this; if that is not clear, then please tell me how it may be improved. If you will also look at the introduction to List of musical works in unusual time signatures, you will find an example by Benjamin Britten of undecuple meter (11/4) that is actually notated in 4/4, which excludes it from that list, because the time signature is "usual", even though the meter is not. In the new example from the Quintuple meter article (for which I am much obliged to editor 213.146.133.68—it was exactly what was missing from the end of the discussion), the regularly alternating 5 and 4 time signatures produce a consistent (asymmetric) overall 9/4 meter—exactly the way that regularly alternating 2/4 and 3/4 bars produce a quintuple meter (as discussed in the article's introduction). Clear now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong interwiki link. The German version (which I found) has two dabs which I can't resolve, "modulation" and "Arabien". The latter in German implies a very general view of Arab countries, not one precise republic. Modulation, I guess, means the technical rather than the musical one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I feel better: Hymnen had been moved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not your fault, then. That's the trouble with Wikipedia: just when you've got everything exactly right, some fool changes something ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

But this time no fool, but someone concerned that Stockhausen was not the only one to write Hymnen. The same way, although

Unionskirche is the only one in en-WP, I added the town, as in de. (I took some of the pictures.) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 11:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The smiley was meant to convey the fact that I know the "troublemakers" are not fools. Rather, it is those of use complacent in our cozy but flawed little systems that are foolish if we think we have foreseen all difficulties and created the perfect system of organization. Just wait until we get around to adding an article on Stockhausen's Nr. 18!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for correcting my wikignorance--Violarulez (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very kind of you to drop me a note. The rules of etiquette on Wikipedia are not always as easy to find as new editors might like, and I find that even editors who have been around for several years are often unaware that there is no standardized format for references—often assuming that the one they see most often is the one to which all others should be made to conform. You might want to browse the discussion page at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources (including the extensive archives). It will give you some idea of the heat that this subject can generate, and why it is that the "hands off" rule was established. In the meantime, you may console yourself with having cured cancer and solved world hunger ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Violarulez (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you had edited

Popular music is not my area, but I have put it on my Watch List, and shall see if there is anything I can contribute. Thanks for calling it to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You know so much about music theory that here's a question I want to see if you can answer. Go to the bottom of Talk:Hanukkah music and you'll see a question that hasn't been answered for several months. Georgia guy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never even heard of that song, let alone heard it or seen the sheet music, but if the first section and final cadence are both in F, then the song is in F. The change from major to minor is not usually regarded as very significant, and just about anything can happen in the middle without making any difference in establishing the main key. Using the dominant minor for contrast is very common in minor-key pieces (and this one at least ends in minor, apparently)—it would be much more startling if that section were in, say, B major. I imagine the reason you have not had an answer is that the question isn't really very interesting.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

One comment contradicting what your answer implies: the form of the song is the first section, followed by the second, then the first again. Georgia guy (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that. From the description you gave, I assumed it was in binary form. Now that I see it is in ternary form instead, it makes the question even less interesting, because the middle section of such a form can even be "closed" (that is, begins and ends in the same key) and in a contrasting key. When it is "open" in structure, it will normally begin in a contrasting key, and modulate back to the tonic at the end of the section. The fact that, in this case, the return is to the parallel minor is not of particular importance. This really is a very basic concept of musical form, of the sort usually taught in third-year theory courses, if not earlier. You might wish to read one of standard texts on the subject. Wallace Berry's Form in Music: An Examination of Traditional Techniques of Musical Form and Their Applications in Historical and Contemporary Styles (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986) is still regarded as the best, I believe, though you may also consider Robert Tyndall's Musical Form (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1964) or Hugo Leichtentritt's Musical Form (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951). A more recent text, with which I am not familiar myself, is Glenn Spring and Jere Hutcheson's Musical Form and Analysis (Madison, Wisc.: Brown & Benchmark, 1995).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (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.