User talk:Mscuthbert/archive02

I really will strongly object if this falsehood emerges in a proper article. There's no point in giving oxygen to it, even if misguided people persist with the falsehood. Tony 13:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I 6/4 is not a falsehood -- it is a musical term in use in many important textbooks and journal articles with a long tradition of theoretical justification. I know that many people disagree with it, and it would certainly violate NPOV if only I 6/4 were used, but V 6/4 is also not a universally accepted description of the cadential 6/4 chord. Best Regards, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I agree with you, Myke. The precise status and rules governing use of of 6/4 chords generally, in whatever context, have long been disputed – but especially as they occur (if at all!) cadentially. This fact shouldn't deter us from making an article concerning them. Please continue with your work towards that. At least then we will have a proper place to discuss the issue, and to sort out how Wikipedia can best treat this topic.

Tony, I address you here too, rather than fragment the discussion. I am a little surprised at your response. I had not thought you would be so vigorously partisan about such a thing. We have articles on all sorts of matters that are contested. Otherwise, atheists would dispute the propriety of articles concerning God, yes? For them there is no God. Even if for you there are no 6/4 chords or no cadential 6/4 chords (I can't work out yet precisely which opinion is yours), there is some phenomenon that needs discussion and an article, whether it be called "6/4 chord" or something else. Then there is the specific matter of I 6/4 versus V 6/4 in cadential contexts, as discussed at Talk:Augmented sixth chord. So far we have no clarity, and no discussion of any substantial issues.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't agree with you, Myke. Seems evident that G is the root of the 6-4 chord in the diagram in question. Have you tried playing the progression? If you do, it sounds obvious that the first chord is there to (ornamentally) emphasise the V chord before the final progression to I. In that light, the first chord cannot possibly be functioning as I. The diagram represents the notation as a computer would apply it (at least a computer that hasn't been programmed to understand 'context' in music).--140.168.69.130 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes I have "tried" playing the progression. In order to be a professor of music theory at M.I.T., one has to not only try, but be able to play a chord or two at the piano now and again. :)

I personally teach the chord V64 more often than I64, but there are all sorts of good reasons why it can be thought of as I64 -- most of which are explained in the textbooks cited in User:Mscuthbert/sandbox/Six-four chord. If the chord has no function as I, then why, unlike just about all other V chords, is it so seldom preceded by I? If it is merely an embellishment of V, why is it not removed as a support for ^3 in the Urline of Schenk. analysis?

This is a case like invoking the second law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution, where a little learning is a dangerous thing. But to experts, the answer is not at all obvious. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest you couldn't play it - just asked whether if (in this case) you had. Your response points to the contextual problem at issue here - there is no chord preceding the one in the example! Please don't extend the argument from the specific to the whole. The issue is not whether "the chord has no function as I" (ever); rather the issue is whether the chord functions as I in the diagram in dispute. Perhaps the article should be expanded to explain the nuances to which you refer, however as it stands, the labeled chord progression is at best misleading, and at worse, incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.69.130 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the cadential example provided in the inversion article, it defies logic and can't possibly be "correct". It's of no import at all that some so-called important textbooks have persisted with this 19th-century falsehood into the 21st century.

Please explain to me why WP should be repeating this mistake, at least so prominently and as though it's self-evident. How on earth can C be the root of the chord in question? Where logic is defied, WP should be careful in its endorsement. Is WP going to ignore the fact that 6/4 (and 6/3) chords are generated in two ways: melodically (the case there) or harmonically (not the case there); if the example involved a genuine movement of the bass onto the fifth of the chord, having established the root as a consonance, it could be regarded as I 6/4. The example is quite different. This issue is explicated in several leading textbooks. Tony 12:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For Exceptional Work on Pope Joan ChrisLamb 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, schucks. I didn't know Joan cared so much.  :) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and well done! It makes much more sense this way round. Best wishes from a long-dead ex-user 138.37.199.206 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myke! Yes, there's some really irritating things about this place, as I see you've recently noticed, and then there's the taggers and assessors and widget-makers. An abundance of energy from people who for the most part want to help write an encyclopedia, and who then encounter an encyclopedia that is already written to a level they can't reach, except in current events and pop culture topics. A lot dedicate themselves to fighting vandalism; that's an excellent exercise (and one of the reasons I'm scaling back my own vandal-fighting--I'd rather some 16-year-old did that than try to assess articles on Renaissance polyphony). I haven't made an account at that other place yet, but it could happen, especially if they start to show up in Google rankings. (A very good reason to stick around here, at least one of the reasons I do, is that as soon as I write an article, it pops up as the first Google hit within a week. I want to be sure that the first Google hit on a Renaissance music topic is reliable, and this still gives me a thrill; I feel like I'm actually doing something useful.) At any rate--our comments have been noted, and some people are actually trying to make changes on the assessment drive. Have a look at the thread on Geogre's talk page, and feel free to weigh in there! It will be very fine to have a few people thinking about how to make changes for the better.

Oh, totally unrelated topic: does this strike you as original research, or just plain wrong? [1] The tune used by Fux, at least in my edition of Gradus, only matches the first four notes, and I'd never heard that before. Hope you're having a great summer so far! Antandrus (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't; indeed I was wondering which was the best general book on Renaissance music after Reese, which is what we used when I was just starting grad school. Reese is great for a lot of things, but so much more is known now, and I'm always having to double-check on the accuracy of things in there. I just picked up a copy of his Music in the Middle Ages at a used bookstore, and that's even older. I get a lot of "junk" mail from publishers, probably from membership in AMS (probably you do too) and there sure is some tasty stuff out ... there's a new book by Frank D'Accone on Music in 16th Century Florence ("only" $115 -- not bad for an academic press). Wish they'd send me their freebies ... :) Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. That would be fantastic if you could make some musical examples. I don't have software to do them, but it would certainly help in the explanation. A note on notation in a single staff (with stems in opposite directions) would is too bizarre without an image. I also couldn't find anything that discussed its use in the 19th and 20th century music, perhaps because composers are too individual in their styles that there isn't much to say in general? Do you have any ideas? Rigadoun (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added your images for voice crossing, thanks. What is the approx date of the Parma excerpt? Also, anything good you have for voice exchange would be appreciated too. Rigadoun (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Okay, so there are some category pages, and people get things done in user space, etc., but WOW! Is it all templates and infoboxes and user boxes? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myke: True enough, I suppose I could do so, but it's not exactly "published," and it also would qualify as original research, no? And there isn't a bibliography there yet, that I noticed...By the way, the other side of the tempest in a teapot on the Nielsen 5 page keeps reverting my version, even though mine is demonstrably more accurate. I dunno what to do...except continue getting ready to move back to Maryland from New England. Happens in under a week. Why am I spending time on this, anyway??!?!!??!?!??? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh. It's really addictive, that's why. I had a pretty fast upward curve on WP, spending lots of time editing, trying to make sure things were just right etc., but since then I've been trimming back my interests--gave up editing baseball pages (too many 15-year-olds with nothing better to do than hit revert to your changes), many miscellany pages, major composers, etc., and have just moved to editing a few early music articles, where I feel I can actually make a difference.

I've asked around and it seems that there's a consensus that disses are okay to cite. They're verifiable (at least in the U.S. usually anyone can buy them), they are cited by experts in the field in their own writings (esp. in the humanities), and while there's no formal peer-review, they have been read (in theory) and evaluated by experts in the field before being accepted. Jimbo has stated that the no original research requirement was really designed to keep out quack scientific theories of how the universe really works.

Popped over the Nielsen 5 for a bit--I think you're close to a consensus, so just keep talking--as long as the talk page is civil, it's worth working together. RCS makes some good edits, so worth working with.

When were you at Peabody and B.U.? I have several friends who teach musicology at each.

Good luck with your move--at least Sox games are still easy to watch in Maryland. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... and the addiction can last years. I'm still here for the reason Myke mentions: I feel I too can make a difference, at least in some areas. Write an article on a composer, and your writing floats right to the top of Google within a week to ten days. That thought alone can carry me through those dark times when the kids spray-paint their "assessments", the nationalists hurl abuse at you for giving both a Croatian and an Italian spelling, and the spammers accuse you of being anti-whateveritis-they're-selling. I feel just a bit of a duty to make sure that first Google hit has good information. And there it is: Carl Nielsen is currently the number one Google hit; it's probably worth the trouble. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, I also completely approve the idea of citing one's own dissertation. I think it's fairly obvious, and you'd get lots of backup. The best way I've found so far to fight Wikipedia's "anti-expert" bias (yeah, it exists, unfortunately) is just to do the right thing: calmly and persistently. Antandrus (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll add it at some point. I know, I'll do it instead of packing my clothing! Howzat?

(*ahem*)

Where can I find an example or two of a dissertation citation here to use as a model?

As for Carl baby, I know RCS is working in good faith, etc. etc., but I just don't understand why s/he seems so intent on making this symphony the first two-movement symphony of some sort. Don't git, as a backwoods piano student of my wife's used to say.

I attended Peabody full-time 1985-1988; my diss advisor has since "retired" and is now teaching in San Francisco, maybe the Conservatory there? I forget. As for BU, I arrived as a junior in 1976 after two years at Northwestern, took degree #1 in 78, and stayed on until 1985 for the master's (although the last probably three-four years of that time I wasn't taking any classes, just vaguely gainfully employed and tinkering with the thesis. It has been interesting being back in Boston after al those years away; the city is the same in some ways and very different in others. But I suppose that's to be expected when your first experience is in college etc., and your return is as an allegedly mature adult.

I leave for Baltimore this weekend (please please please don't ask me about packing); I have no idea when my wife & son will follow, it will all depend on the housing question (I at least have temporary housing set up through probably mid-October if need be). I certainly hope sooner rather than later! We are all looking forward in our different ways to going back to what feels like home, even though we know you can't go home again. (Hmm, a pithy thought...maybe I should publish it...)

And yes, we can go see the Sox pretty easily, and for rather less money too! As much as I love Fenway I've only been to maybe 3-4 games in 6 years. It just costs the earth to go. I must say, though, that I will miss the "real" BSO even more, even though that too costs the earth to go. There are three programs this coming season I desperately want to get to, and probably 4-5 more it would be really good to hear. In Baltimore the programming has been not much since David Zinman left. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: You may remember John Daverio from BU's musicology department? He who died under mysterious circumstances a few years back? He was a good friend of mine. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, best of luck with the packing -- hope your Internet is up soon when you get there. Agreed about the price of Sox tickets. I'm both a Padres (hometown) and Sox (transplant) fan, but wow can I pay the same price to see a Padres game in a great seat with great food, etc., as the cheapest seats at Fenway. Such a shame about Daverio--I never met him, but everyone said he was such a wonderful person. Was Yudkin at BU when you were there? Actually, don't answer: pack and move! pack and move! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he was, though fairly new in my last few years. He might or might not remember me. The last time I actually saw him was at BU's memorial service for John. We did not cross paths, though we both spoke, he with an astonishing prepared remark and I extemporaneously at the open-mike portion of the show. If you were not there I can tell you more about it, but not here.

Got to B-more safely and already feel like I have fit in better than I ever did in NH. Hmm. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have added my work, for better or worse. I hope I have remembered the title correctly (since it's in NH and I'm in MD)! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myke, thank you. It's wonderful, but I've only been flipping through it for five minutes (just got home from work). (Pristine condition, btw. I've had next to no problems with that particular supplier.) I really like the way it's arranged: I can still use Reese for its strengths, and use this one for its delightful peculiarities -- for example, I've been considering a rewrite of the godawful

Should we start a Wikiproject Early Music? I've been thinking we need a working list of the Truly Godawful Articles that are Embarrassments. There might be four or five people interested ... not sure if that's quite critical mass to make it worth the trouble. Just need a slab of time and "RL" has been intrusive of late... c'est la vie. Thanks again and hope you're having a great summer! Antandrus (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Indeed, except for some facts here and there, it's more of a complement to Reese rather than a replacement. And there are some nice points. I think Quid non ebrietas (p. 402) deserves its own article eventually.

I think that a Wikiproject for Early Music would be great! We could have bots doing automatic assessments, and bots that automatically create a stub article for every chant in the Liber Usualis, and eventually attract actual high schoolers to make infoboxes and userboxes for us!  :)

Actually, in all seriousness, an actual WP:EM would be a great idea, that lets us do what you suggest, and organize information, point out holes in WP, and (my favorite) find atrocious or out-of-date or missing Grove articles and make WP articles which are better than them. Plus, I think there's some good to having a list of articles we, the EM community, feel are the best that WP has to offer in EM. My only hesitation is that I don't do much with the baroque EM scene, which after a certain amount of time is what just about every general EM group tends to focus on. But a WP:Medieval and Renaissance music might be too small of a group to be worthwhile. So, shall we just give it a go? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, concerning your message I'd ask you to be more specific. Maybe you can try to contact the author of the article in question and make him/her know about your opinion on the subject. Unfortunately, I'm not into music. Regards, --

Sorry, I was talking about this comment. Kind regards, --

May I help you? 02:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Gustave -- I didn't want to leave a long message because I don't speak Spanish and didn't want to interfere in a Wikipedia I'm not a contributor to, but the basic problem is that the image consists of two pieces of music, one (on the left) in original (Medieval/Square) notation and one (on the right) in modern notation. The two pieces have the same text, but their melodies are different. The melody on the right is a famous piece by Guido d'Arezzo, inventor of "do-re-mi-fa-sol;" if I read the Spanish properly, the melody on the left is supposed to be the same piece, but it isn't. There are at least three, if not more, different melodies for this piece, and only the one on the right is the famous "Ut Queant Laxis." Unfortunately, I don't have a manuscript with the famous Ut Queant Laxis, so I can't do much to fix the situation except suggesting the removal of the image altogether, which would reduce the article's effectiveness extensively. Best regards, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Myke! I was too lazy to put up a musical example, though--it really needs one. I'll have to figure out again how to do multiple meters in Finale (do we have anyone in our little group of music editors who likes making music examples?) -- and I also couldn't find a scan of the Chigi Codex score that I could use, but I didn't look very hard. Oh, if you get a minute, could you sanity-check Trent Codices? That could use another pair of eyes. See if I botched it or left anything out. I'm enjoying that Atlas book, as you can probably tell. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly noticed the new references! I know next to nothing about the Trent codices, and most of that is anecdotes (I can't exactly add David Fallows's story of being a young professor and watching in horror as all the older gentlemen went straight from their meal of oily panini back to handling the codices without so much as a hand washing). The world of music 1415-1450 is beckoning to me though, so by Christmas I hope to know more about at least Trent 87 and 92 to add something there. The only thing that seems a shame is that we have no clue which codex the image comes from. This is one of my goals for Wikipedia: to have manuscript examples properly identified. No more "from a medieval book"!

I think we should leave a note at Jesse Rodin's talk page for Chigi and Prolationum scores. Jesse makes new editions in his sleep, so I'm sure he's done his own Prolationum by now (he's the one who added the arrows to the third Agnus of the L'homme arme picture).

Okay, a good warm up this morning to writing something I might get paid for! Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Myke. What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me and I think your proposed wording would work well. I likewise wonder whether Taboga's work in print actually got peer reviewed...

I enjoyed your proposed user-page vandalism, too, though I would like to point out that when Luchesi was writing Mozart's works, he was an early bloomer! Cheers, Opus33 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I commented on your keep vote at this AfD, and I was hoping you could provide some further information about the notability-confirmation of the prizes Puts has won (for us music-ignorant types), and/or neutral third party sources establishing his notability. Any and all information is much appreciated. Thanks! All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by calling Antandrus a vandalizer? He is an administrator! He has created over 500 articles for Wikipedia! 500, I repeat! And he has promised to continue working on them, and more, until they're on the peak of perfection! How could anyone as loyal as that possibly be a vandalizer!?!?!? Wilhelmina Will 23:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mike was joking.  :) (Actually, maybe you are too; it's so hard to hear tone-of-voice in electronic communication.) A brand-new anti-vandal bot was being tested, and left me a message; I thought it was hilarious (look at the thread above Mike's comment). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, look at the contributions: He's written NOTHING contributing to our knowledge of minor South Park characters, Jedi who were mentioned once in passing in a comic book, or reasons why all of traditional science is wrong and only the theory of "strange gravity" is right. What, just because of 550 wonderful articles on Early Music, Southern California, and other subjects, we're supposed to cut him slack? Doesn't he understand, we're building a MMPORPG not some sort of knowledge compendium!! (hehe! actually, everything written on Antandrus's page and here, about the subject is kidding--he's great! My model of a perfect Wikipedia contributor, and would get my vote for U.S. President if he ran. Though I do find the idea that he can't be a vandalizer because he's an administrator sort of funny, given the history of administrators gone wild...) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1 and would like to go through the RfC process. Would you be willing to endorse or contribute to this? - Rainwarrior 09:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message to Wahoofive, Rainwarrior, Mscuthbert, and Tony. I am pleased to see that there has been some progress on this six-four matter. I long ago withdrew from the discussion when it became clear that nothing useful was coming of it. When the page Inversion (music) is unlocked and things are back to normal, I look forward to contributing something to the discussion once more. I suppose others may want to come in then also. I'll not join the discussion till the disputes are all behind, and things are functioning normally. Meanwhile, I recommend this: have a look at Chopin's exquisitely beautiful Prelude in C# minor, Op. 45. (You can find it online [blacklisted link removed], and no doubt other places as well.) The point to consider is this: what analysis are we to give the extended "six-four" in the twelfth- and eleventh-last (and tenth-last?) bars? If the underlying harmony in these bars is V, parse these notes: the B and the A, the two F^xs, the B#, and the D#. And then parse these notes on the assumption that the underlying harmony in those bars is I. Thank you!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See continuing conversation chez moi, Myke.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some more now, if you're still interested.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Mscuthbert. Here's wishing you a most joyous and prosperous St. Galation's Day! Love, Yeanold Viskersenn 02:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Cuthbert. By chance on an AFD I saw you describe yourself as knowing something about ethnomusicology. I've been trying to clean up various scholars/academics categories, and thought you might have useful opinions on a "CFD" that I started on Category:Musicologists and Category:Music scholars. [[:Category:Music scholars is basically unused and everything is categorized as Category:Musicologists, so I proposed a merger but don't have a suggestion as to which title is better. If you have any opinions about keeping these separate or together, or which title is better, it would be great to get some input at the CFD. Cheers, Laura Quilter Lquilter 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myke! (Sorry about the "i") -- nice to meet you too! i see now that you're likely here in the boston area too. I always miss those boston meet-ups of wikipedia people. Are you on cambridge side? Are you doing a 1 or 2 year visiting? Lquilter 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to get team colors to automatically add to

I'm happy to help, though adding the HoF part was mostly trial and error on my part, so I'm unlikely to be great at fixing the syntax. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at some of the recent diffs on the sandbox and you'll see what it screwed up. I tried working on the Major League Baseball debut bar, but it stays white with black text even after I think I've replaced the colors. I can't figured it out.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I got it working now. Go to a current player's page and check it out.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can definitely see your point questioning my treatment of the account, the following breaches of policy had been committed:

• Conflict of interest
• Contentious editing in AfD
• Using sockpuppets to vote-stack and conceal conflict of interest

These are really serious things, and if the user really wants to edit Wikipedia, they can always create a new account and start over, no harm, no foul. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]