User talk:Rigaudon

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I would like to ask you to please refrain from boldly making potentially controversial edits, such as the ones you did to Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach and Minuet in G major. It is better to discuss such edits on talk pages first. Petzold's authorship is now almost universally accepted; every recent book on Bach I can think of attributes the minuets to him, and I believe that even the latest edition of Schmeider's catalogue notes this (although I don't have it available at the moment). --Jashiin (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added three references, including one to Grove Online: I don't have the actual paper version of New Grove, but Grove Online lists some of the anonymous pieces as Bach's, NOT including the minuets Anh. 114-115, and then proceeds to explain that the notebook also has pieces by a range of composers, including Petzold. The other two references are to Williams and Schulenberg, who specifically mention the minuets in question. You are probably right about the "relatively recent" bit (I couldn't find any early sources for it), but when the attribution is accepted by leading scholars (Wolff and Williams, in this case), I think it warrants the "almost universally accepted" bit.

And I'm sorry if I overreacted - its just that we had a somewhat painful authorship question situation at another article recently, and I guess I'm still feeling the after-effects. --Jashiin (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the books at the moment either. I looked them up at Google Books and Amazon. You can read little fragments in both cases. Schulenberg writes that the two minuets 114-115 are "from a suite by Pezold." Williams states "by Petzold" and gives his source as Bach-Jahrbuch 1978, p. 54. (Bach-Jahrbuch is an annual academic journal dedicated to Bach). --Jashiin (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tempo rubato, and

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! ~

how am I typing? 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

--Jashiin (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the WikiProject Classical Music!!--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to contact DeWiki, or maybe a steward and let them know about the stolen username. If they have questions, please tell them to contact me. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global accounts are handled by stewards on meta; they would be the most likely to be able to help. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think m:Steward requests/SUL requests is a good place to start. -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; good luck! -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment on my talk page: you are welcome! I actually was more interested in the "She" that started the following sentence, apparently referring to the wrong person! David Brooks (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Rigaudon, I wanted to let you know that you are currently being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard. The specific matter under discussion can be found by following the link in the previous sentence. Discussion is not restricted to administrators, and you are welcome and encouraged to comment with any relevant information you have. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, the Amen cadence is IV-V-I and the melody is "la-ti-do". Am I wrong? 87.69.130.159 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you are. The

Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians

entry for "Amen Cadence" simply says "See Plagal Cadence." The entry for Plagal Cadence places "Amen Cadence" in square brackets immediately after the title of the entry - as "Plagal cadence [Amen cadence]". And the definition given is "A Cadence consisting of a subdominant chord followed by a tonic chord (IV–I), normally both in root position." Also, the Oxford Dictionary of Music entry for "Cadence or Close" says "Amen Cadence = Plagal cadence", while it defines Plagal Cadence as "Chord of the Subdominant followed by that of Tonic."

Speaking just as me, without looking for references, I'd say that the melody for the A-men is doh-doh. Rigaudon (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, I guess I simply confused it with the Hebrew version. By the way, I've answered in regards to the other edit on Jerome Kohl's talk page. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With User:87.69.130.159. I'm citing sources, anonymous is not and is accusing me of making invalid contributions and describing those and describing those as incivility. Also So What chord, chord-scale system, Parallel harmony, and less so with Petrushka chord. Hyacinth (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at