User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jerome Kohl. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for the many contributions to Carlos Chávez's work. Housewatcher (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It is always gratifying to know that one's efforts are appreciated by other editors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Enharmonics different notes??

Enharmonic notes represent the same key on a piano. But are they different on some other instruments (e.g. the violin)?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Enharmonics only represent the same key on a piano under certain conditions—in twelve-tone equal temperament, for example. It is entirely possible to tune a piano differently and, as you say, other instruments may be more flexible. However, even if the vibrating frequency and perceived pitch level are the same, the notes are still different, not only because they are written in different positions on the staff, but also because they belong to different contexts. This context is in fact explained in the article F (musical note), directly after the sentence describing E♯ as the enharmonic equivalent. Without that cautionary remark, however, many readers will assume there is a contradiction. It is sometimes amazing what massive assumptions we make without any supporting cause. The frequencies given in the table in that article is a case in point. F₄ is stated to be 349.228 Hz, as if Moses had brought this down from the mountain carved on his stone tablets. In fact, this frequency is completely arbitary, though I imagine if I did the requisite calculations it would turn out to be an equal-tempered major third below A = 440 Hz.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean there are some pianos without "12-tone equal temperament"?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some electronic pianos come with 12-equal permanently installed, but the old-fashioned kind must be tuned periodically, and the system used is entirely up to the piano tuner. Most piano tuners know better than to set 12-equal throughout the range of the instrument (the amateur who carefully tunes a piano with an electronic tuning device is often dismayed by the result). Some tuners use systems that subtly deviate from the 12-equal division of the octave, and have claimed that their clients, ignorant of what they have actually done, praise them for being more dependable than their colleague tuners. However, I think what you mean to ask is whether a piano might be tuned to, say, Werkmeister III, or the white keys in pelog and the black keys in slendro. Of course it can and, depending on how you care to assign the pitches, the E keys may be tuned as E♯, with the F keys remaining F. In this case, not only would the frequencies and pitches be different, but so would the notes. Historically, some keyboards have split sharps, with 19 or even 22 notes per octave, in order to accommodate such differences in pitch.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I don't know if you are interested in getting involved in this or not, but you may like to look at the "Avant-garde" list found at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded. It's fairly disappointing, and I have stated that at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded. Perhaps you may like to suggest further names for inclusion.—Toccata quarta (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe that there have ever been any "avant garde" persons (so I would be more inclined to remove than add names to such a list), but my attempts to link to it have sent my browser into a permanent coma. It must be a very large file.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, more than anything else, the underrepresentation of composers from the past century in the list. Webern's absence is rather alarming. Anyway, I will try to persuade them.—Toccata quarta (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Webern an avant-garde composer?| He has never struck me that way, but if there are sources that say he is, then so be it. This is of course the usual situation on Wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. If you have not already done so, you may care to look at the lists of "modernist" and "postmodernist" composers. You will find a number of the same names on both lists, because reliable sources have labeled them both ways. The problem with terms like "avant garde", "modernist", and "postmodernist" is that they refer to attitudes, not musical styles, and determining what a composer thought is a lot more difficult than analysing his scores. Furthermore, as has been pointed out in the case of John Cage, a composer's philosophical attitudes (insofar as they can be determined at all) are usually a lot more complicated than the pigeonholes that have been prepared for them. As Walt Whitman said, in shrugging off accusations of self-contradiction, "I am large, I encompass multitudes".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the accuracy of such categorisations, but noting that a composer whom many consider the most important composer of the past century is not on Wikipedia's list of "vital articles". I consider that a grave mistake, which should be amended. See my post on the talk page for confirmation of that.—Toccata quarta (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of this Wikipedia list of vital articles. I can't find it by searching in the usual way. Can you point me to it, preferably with a link?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's found at the start of this conversation.—Toccata quarta (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right, the link that keeps crashing my browser. I have now tried it from a different computer, and finally have been able to see it. What a mess. I can see why you might be unhappy with it, but I still don't see why Webern ought to be classed as "avant garde", since Schoenberg, Bartók, and Stravinsky are not so pigeonholed. On the other hand, Cage is so classified, when everybody knows he was experimental, which is diametrically opposed to avant garde. I don't see Varèse in there anywhere, either. The tree structure obviously needs work in this department, since being "avant garde" appears to exclude one from also being a "composer". As I have said already, however, these pigeonholes are a gross oversimplification, and I would advocate dumping the "avant garde" one in favour of just "composers".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Stravinsky

I think the article Stravinsky is ready to be nominated for GA. Do you agree? Hel-hama (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Before it goes to GA nomination, I think the six "citation needed" tags need to be dealt with (there are also some "full citation needed" tags in the references). This is the very first thing that a reviewer would call attention to, and it might be sufficient to provoke an instant rejection. Since this is so very obvious a thing that needs doing, it seems to me best to deal with it before bothering other editors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adele Katz citations in Counterpoint

Hi Jerome - it's been a while since I've been in touch. Hope all's well.

I was just doing some quick research for an article, and found what appeared to be a useful quotation in Counterpoint, cited to Challenge To Musical Tradition by Adele Katz; only I then discovered a tag you placed on it [1]. The thing is, I think there *is* a 2007 publication of this text, albeit one of those reprints which tend to turn up on amazon: see [2]. So I think whoever gave this reference in the first place did so in good faith, and indeed the ISBN number is the same on the amazon site (where, perhaps, the person citing the publication got a copy in the first place?).

I was just wondering whether the tag should perhaps be removed, and if there's perhaps a 'failsafe' way of citing such reprints. Alfietucker (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alfietucker, it's good to hear from you again. I have no doubt that the reference was placed in good faith. However, a check of the ISBN on the Library of Congress Worldcat yielded (and still yields) the message "No records matched your search". I have not run the usual check on the ISBN numbers, to see whether the check-digit agrees with the rest of the sequence, but erroneous ISBNs do exist, sometimes in the form of typographical errors in the book itself. I now see from BookFinder4U that this indeed belongs to a 2007 edition, from "Katz Press", which is said to be "using the original text and artwork". In other words, it is a photographic reprint. In such circumstances, where it is clear that no change has been made to the text (and there may be dozens or even hundreds of such unaltered reprintings), it is usual (perhaps almost falisafe) to cite the original edition, and mention reprint information as appropriate. This also avoids giving the mistaken impression that this "new concept of tonality" was being claimed as an innovation in 2007, rather than sixty-one years earlier. I do agree that the tag can now be removed (with the appropriate changes to the note). Thank you for calling this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response. As per your thoughts on this, I've removed the tag and made clear that it is the 1946 edition reprinted in 2007 (as I've discovered in Google Books). Hope that makes sense. Alfietucker (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that should be satisfactory. I'll take a look, and if necessary, adjust according to my understanding of bibliographical protocols. If I do make any changes to which you object, feel free to revert them! In the meantime, I should check that ISBN for validity, since LoC Worldcat doesn't seem to like it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I have verified that the given ISBN is valid—that is, the check digit is what it should be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

pocket opera

Find Stockhausen, - thank you for your help with ensemble recherche, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome for the very small contributions I made to that article!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure to follow your writing on Stockhausen's works, so rarely on the Main page because of your exquisite referencing style. Stockhausen and Donnerstag will be featured for a little longer in Germany and Opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is always gratifying to learn that one's writing is being enjoyed by others. I am a little puzzled by your phrase "exquisite referencing style", however, especially when coupled to the remark "so rarely on the Main page". Why should I have cause to edit material on the main page?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should speak German ;) DYK requires inline citations, you seem not to like them, right? Donnerstag aus Licht was visited 230 times that day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bitte zögerst nicht, mir auf Deutsch zu schreiben, obwohl es scheint mir, daß dein Englisch ganz fließend ist—gewiß, besser als mein Deutsch. (Wahrscheinlich habe ich dies soeben als wahr erwiesen.) I believe you will find that all the articles I have written are stuffed with inline citations: I make a point of documenting every claim. (I might have thought your use of the phrase "exquisite referencing" was meant as a compliment to my thoroughness, if it were not for the word "style" immediately following.) Please do not confuse "inline citation" with "footnote"—those ugly blue numerals that deface so many articles on Wikipedia, and require the reader to continually jump back and forth between the text and references. My preference is for parenthetical referencing. I have never bothered nominating any of my work for the DYK feature, but if I were to do so, inline citations would be the last thing I would expect to cause any trouble. I am aware, however, that parenthetical referencing is not common in languages other than English. Consequently, when writing on other Wikipedias I try to conform to the style norms of the language in question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as an "aside", recently (I think) Wikipedia changed its "jumping settings", so that to read a footnote you only have to place your cursor above one. It makes life a bit easier. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction. The next thing is to suppress those distracting blue numbers, though I can't see how to do that without also going to parenthetical referencing. It would be the right thing to do, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Direct quotations

Hi, Jerome Kohl. I've just seen the citequote templates you've placed on Serenade (Stravinsky), and I wanted to ask you something: I got those quotes from a music critic that claims those people wrote that once (not clear where). Would it be enough to reference the critic statements or should I find the original quote? Thank you very much. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly an "original" citation of a quotation is preferable to a second-hand one (if such a distinction really can be made), but if this music critic is published in a reliable source, I don't see why there should be any problem with using it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

French 18th century musicologist

Hi, Hunting around the rubbish bin of declined articles for creation, I find Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Frederick Salvemini de Castillon. Any thoughts? Best, Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am barely even familiar with the name, as one of the earliest theorists of tonality. (My interest in the history of music theory falters somewhat as the middle of the 17th century is reached, and only revives with the onset of the 20th century.) I had no idea until now that there was such a thing as a forum where articles could be proposed for creation, but on the strength of this one example it cannot be of much use. If Fétis's, Biographie universelle is not sufficient evidence of notability, then I am at a loss as to what must be required. A warm letter of recommendation from the Pope, perhaps? On the other hand, there is no article on Salvemini de Castillon in New Grove, nor does a search of RILM turn up anything (several articles on Alexis de Castillon, and even one on a Jean-Baptiste de Castillon, who apparently copied a manuscript of guitar music in 1706 that contains pieces by Francesco Corbetta not known from any other source. Perhaps I should take a look at the entry in Fétis, which should at least give some idea of the degree of Castillon's notability in the mid-to-late 19th century.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be good - I thought he met our arguably rather generous standards of notability for long-dead scholars. I think it may be enough to turn up, & resubmit with support from the other of us - or demand an AFD. I very rarely look at AFC, but I guess it does save a lot of AFD time - I had to look at a good number before finding anything maybe worth saving caught in the grille. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

After a quick consultation of the 1867 edition of Fétis, it appears that the proposed article was nothing more than a somewhat mangled translation of Fétis. Perhaps the later edition cited changed the supposed date of birth of Castillon, however, which is given as "vers 1778", rather than 1747.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth pursuing, do you think, or not? Actually I see his dad, Giovanni Salvemini does have an article after all. I think I'll just add the content there, with a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the rather slim amount of information in Fétis, and the lack of interest from later writers, I would say that a redirect to the father's article is the best choice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lute or Oud

Dear Mr Kohl, I was wondering if you could settle an argument I have with another user, over this picture; I think it's a renaissance lute as opposed to an oud, based on the fact that the woman depicted plays using her fingers, not a plectrum, as well as the assumption that the oud was not widely known in Western Europe during the Renaissance. I am hoping your expertise will provide a definite answer to the above, otherwise please point me to someone you believe knows best. Best regards from a -far less competent, yet eager!- fellow musician from Greece --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question about it: the instrument is a six-course Renaissance lute. This can be seen not only from the facts you mention, but also from many details of the instrument's construction (shape of the soundboard, formation of the pegbox, etc.), but most especially from the presence of frets on the fingerboard (and the position of the player's fingers, revealing a polyphonic or "chordal" style of playing). There is some evidence that frets may have once been used on the oud, but there is also a belief that the description of such frets in theoretical treatises is merely a convenient way of explaining the string-length proportions that produce particular intervals. In practice, the oud is characteristically fretless, and because of this not basically polyphonic. Besides, at a date as late as this picture (1510), why would an Italian artist want to put an exotic instrument like the oud into an otherwise perfectly ordinary domestic scene?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks and my true apologies for the delay; I had not realized your response to the issue in question. I shall pass your info to the appropriate discussion page. Once again thank you and greetings from Greece --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Editnotices used as cleanup tags

I notice you placed an editnotice on Le Grand Macabre. That's not exactly how editnotices work—they're designed to appear on top of the edit window when a user clicks an edit link, but be invisible in the article. They're supposed to exist only on a special subpage of an article, which is transcluded when rendering the edit page. Also, using the editnotice templates this way is probably in contravention of the no disclaimers guideline. I'm going to edit out the notice. TheFeds 07:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh. OK. I saw this particular editnotice at the top of the article Le marteau sans maître, where I thought its presence was obtrusive. It seemed more appropriate where I placed it, but if there is a better way of advising editors of this formatting style in the Le Grand Macabre article (where I have had to revert several attempts to change the established referencing style), then I leave it in your more capable hands. I see you have removed the tag from the Marteau article, as well. I hope this does not lead to a renewed outburst of misinformed edits.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple ways of alerting editors, though (pretty much by design) none are quite so prominent as the notices I'd removed. Those editnotices, when inserted into a subpage of the article called \Editnotice, will display their message above the edit box (i.e. when you click the "Edit" button on a page, the message will appear above the space you're writing in). But to create that subpage, you need an administrator's assistance. The easy way to avoid that hassle is to describe the issue in a section on the talk page, or even create a discreet {{tmbox}} instance that gets the message across.

(And of course, any notice is only effective as long as there's a consensus to keep it, or at least as long as apathy over the issue is preventing anyone from making wholesale changes. If a consensus builds that the referencing style should be changed, then the editnotice or tmbox won't block that process.) TheFeds 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've only been editing here on Wikipedia for about six years, so I'm still learning about such subtleties. Editnotice subpages are completely new to me and it does, as you imply, sound like being more trouble than it is worth. The {{tl|tmbox}} is also something of which I had not previously heard, but the adjective "discreet" attached to it does not sound encouraging. In my experience, newbie editors who see "obvious" things to change do not notice even blunt edit notices written in full caps and repeated at intervals throughout an article (e.g., in this article), let alone "discreet" reminders.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for correcting that caption at Music of ancient Rome! I was ignorant of the difference.

I too find that a bizarre citation system. I hope to contribute some text to this article some day, but really wouldn't know how to use those notes. If you turn them into something more conventional, you will have at least one editor cheering you on. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh—another question. Do you know why cymbala redirects to psaltery? The word cymbala doesn't appear on the page, and it's hard to see how they would be so closely related. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No probs. Instrumental terminology in general, but of percussion instruments in particular is problematic when it comes to the ancient world. What we think of today as cymbals are a long way from the much thicker, smaller-diameter metal instruments of ancient Rome, and the Greek kymbala were apparently rather larger than their Roman counterparts. Of course, since we are talking of a period stretching over several hundred years, there is lots of room for change over time, as well as geographical differences. Cymbala probably redirects to "psaltery" because, over the course of history, the term (along with the related crotale) was applied to a succession of different instruments, including castanets, bells, and psalteries (in part because of confusion caused by Biblical passages employing the terms). It really ought to have a disambiguation page.

As for that citation system, I have not come across even one other article that uses it (though I imagine there must be some, somewhere), and I cannot think why anyone would want to use it since it effectively requires manually numbering all the notes in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yikes.

Since you're knowledgable about ancient instruments, and I know only a smidgeon, this may not be as revelatory to you as to me, but I just came across this painting from Roman-era Egypt and was surprised to see what looked like keys on the aulos, or perhaps raised finger holes. I don't recall seeing that before in representations of the aulos. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A startling image, to be sure, and there can be no doubt about the identity of the double aulos. I can't recall ever having seen such a thing before, but it is important to keep in mind that artists do not always confine themselves to representing what they actually see. One alternative that comes to mind in this case is that those odd triangular shapes may represent sounds escaping from the finger-holes, or even (considering that this is a funerary image) the spiritus (breath = soul) of the player escaping through the instrument. Thanks for calling my attention to this very interesting example.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are both sound explanations (pardon the pun) for the shapes coming from the finger holes, and consonant (sorry, can't stop) with various theoretical approaches to the soul, wind, sound, and so on. Lo and behold, I think I've discovered another one, not visible till you click to the jpg itself. (I was actually looking at something else in the image.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you will reap your reward in heaven (or possibly somewhere else) for the puns. Apart from that, thanks for the additional image, which is also very interesting. I came across a brief reference the other day, in the Zurna article, to a Turkmen tradition that "Adam, who was moulded from clay, had no soul. It is said that it was only due to the melodious tuiduk-playing Archangel Gabriel could breathe life into Adam". Unfortunately, there is no source cited for this charming story, but the dili tuiduk is an at least distant relative of the aulos.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Computer & electronic categories & templates

Per Wikipedia:Avoid template creep, I'm just trying to keep the number of templates per page down. For instance Illiac Suite could have both {{Computer music}} and {{Electronic music}} on it, but with both expanded the templates are longer than the article. Note that Category:Computer music is a subcategory of Category:Electronic music, so that technically being computer music does make something electronic music. But, the same way a library doesn't throw all books into the fiction section in a jumble, hopefully we can more specifically categorize it. Hyacinth (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that. The lliac Suite is a particularly good example. I had put it into the template because I found it in the "Category:Electronic music". I had forgotten that it is actually a composition for string quartet, composed by a computer. I have in the meantime removed it from the Electronic music category. The real issue here is: what are the criteria for inclusion or exclusion? I find it ludicrous to exclude Iannis Xenakis from the list of "people" (not merely "composers", by the way, since Werner Meyer-Eppler is rightly included) who are important to electronic music, simply on the grounds that he, like Hiller and Issacson, were also involved in algorithmic composition using computers. Xenakis created a number of important electronic works (if you are willing to concede musique concrète is a category of electronic music), which had nothing at all to do with computers (Concret PH, Analogique A–B, and Bohor, for example). There is also a distinction to be made , I think, between music composed by (or with the aid of) computers, and music made with sounds generated or transformed electronically—which may involve computers or not. I completely agree with the template creep issue. I would just like to have some clear ground rules by which to navigate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Xenakis

Though I am guilty as well ("yes it should"), edit summaries are inappropriate places for comments and discussion, especially those which do not assume good faith. I would compare my removal of "electronic music" from the Xenakis article to the removal of the supercategory Category:Electronic music from Illiac Suite with bothering to find the relevant subcategory. Hyacinth (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the "Electronic music" category have "Algorithmic composition" as a subcategory? If so, I apologize for deleting it from the Illiac Suite article. To take this to an extreme, brain activity may be regarded as electric activity, but this does not justify including all human compositional activity as "electronic music", does it? I do think that comments are not merely appropriate, but obligatory in edit summaries. Discussion is another question—marginal at best, I agree. We don't talk enough, and edit-summary too much. Please keep in touch.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Mario Davidovsky

Hello. You, without discussion, deleted the info box I put into Mario Davidovsky citing some rule of the composers project. Hadn't heard that one before and didn't know about "permission" discussion required or superimposed by your project. For example, Wendy Carlos has an info box -- performer and composer. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My deletion of the infobox was made in order to prompt the discussion to obtain consensus requested by the composers project. I'm sorry that you did not know about this project, or of their reasons for opposition to infoboxes on composer articles, for which reason my edit must have seemed unduly abrupt. While it is true that a few composer article do have infoboxes, and that by the usual Wikipedia principles of established usage those infoboxes are difficult or even impossible to remove, the fact remains that the project really does insist that all the editors active on an article be consulted before an infobox is added. If you have not already done so, please read the project's position statement here. If after having done so you feel you have a good argument for adding an infobox to the Davidovsky article, then please start a discussion on that article's Talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome. It's clear now. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Flags

I'd like to discuss the flags matter in 1943 in music. They may be distracting, but I don't think they are pointless at all. They show the reader whether the work was composed in a democracy, in a communist or fascist state, under occupation, in exile or abroad, establishing a context for it. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two points I would like to make in response. First and most important is that these flags only show the reader the things you mention if the reader recognizes all of the flags in question. I would submit that the vast majority of readers see only brightly coloured splotches, except perhaps for the flag of their own country. When these splotches occur at the start of an entry in a list, they displace what should be the key element—in this case, the surname of the composer. As for establishing a context such as whether a work was composed in exile or abroad, this requires far more knowledge of the reader, and a more complex interpretation. For example, an American flag on Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra might tell you the work was composed in that country, but putting the same flag on Bartók's name suggests he was born there, or was a naturalized citizen of that country. The second point is that there are many hundreds of year-in-music lists, none of which have nationality flags in use for compositions listed in the "classical music" section. If 1943 is to have them, then all the others should as well, and this really ought to require some editorial discussion and consensus before going ahead. I think the correct forum for such a discussion would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nono

Thank you for the Nono cantata! I added it it to Cantata#Twentieth century and beyond but didn't know where best, very rich paragraphs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, I was astonished that no one had yet written an article on a work that has been analysed in print more often than almost any other piece composed since 1950 and, in addition, has aroused so much controversy because of its strong political motives. For once, writing a "Reception" section was actually easier than any other part of the article (and it is by no means finished yet).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration

As a significant contributor to the Noise music article, this discussion may or may not interest you. I would be interested to hear what opinions you have, if any, on the question of authorship as it relates to developing content on wikipedia. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Request of interposition

Dear colleague, may I ask you to keep an eye on much debated Enharmonic keyboard article. The interventions of a user Commator (who is known here for his rude manners and was blocked in the Russian Wikipedia project several times) are very resolute with a trend to change sense of my edits to just the opposite. Olorulus (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Pyknon

Thank you for working at Pycnon. In any case, native speaker's editing will be better than those of a foreigner like me. Please check my notes concerning your recent edits at [3]. Olorulus (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I took far too long in preparing the article that you asked me to write. You did well to start the article without me but, as you may have guessed, I didn't add all that material without considerable prior work. I look forward to reading your comments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with this article. Now it looks 'professionally' smooth due to your editorial interventions. It would be very nice of you if you could also go deep into (tantalizing and at the same time poignant) Enharmonic keyboard. Olorulus (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have put the Enharmonic Keyboard article on my watchlist, but so far I have not been "actively" editing it. I shall now take a closer look at it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please check my notes on a talk page though to check my objections as to the current state of the article. Olorulus (talk)

Thanks for mentioning this. I might not have looked there otherwise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wind quintets

You have edited the article Wind quintet in the past.

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Wind quintet over the criteria for inclusion of artists in the "Prominent wind quintets" section, where the vast majority of entries are WP:Redlinks. The proposal is that listed quintets should either have their own Wikipedia article or should have a link to a reliable source (not the quintets own PR, but an external source) to show that they are notable.

Please add your opinion here. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have, as stated in Talk:Wind quintet, notified all the editors who have edited Wind quintet 5 or more times (including you).

I think we just have to sit and wait now. - Arjayay (talk)

I shall add my opinion at the official location, though you already know what it is, I think. That "article" has been mainly a collection of indiscriminate lists for far too long. I'm ashamed to say that I am partly responsible, in that I did not myself raise the issue long ago.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed User:SamuelTheGhost has done some tidying, and agreed to the proposal, albeit with some good questions, since I notified him this morning. - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I see that the "official location" is where I had already voiced my opinion. It would be nice to have one or two more editors chime it but, as you said, some editors contribute only on the weekend, so we may see some further comments in the next day or two.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Post–World War II

Thanks for the explanation---I didn't know that! Rothorpe (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the very select circle of editors who do know this, and can now operate on such a refined level! It only took me sixteen years with the Chicago Manual of Style (and other style sheets) as daily reading to acquire these secrets, but I am pleased to share them whenever the opportunity arises!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am honoured. Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You certainly are! It is a shame there is no service medal for members of this élite club to display on their user pages. Perhaps one day there will be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing II

You're welcome! You must be some kind of psychic; after adding the link, I went to work on creating the Quatre études de rythme article. I was literally within 5 minutes of hitting "save page" on my own minimalist translation of the French article when I noticed, on the French page, that there was now an English article listed on the left. And what an article! Now I'm tempted to update the French version to include some of your material, unless you are already in process of doing so. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah! If I had followed my original impulse, I would have beaten you to it by several days, rather than minutes! I started by thinking I would translate the French version, but it was so thin (and there is that unreferenced quotation from Boulez) that I decided I could do better on my own. Consequently, it took a little longer. Please feel free to translate to the French site. I could do this myself, but I have got a lot of other things to attend to—including finishing the Quatre études article, which still needs more about "Île de feu II" (the permutation scheme of which is almost as important an influence on early serialism as "Mode de valeurs" was). This should not get in the way of doing a translation, since it will all be added on at the end. How are you with Italian? The Italian Wikipedia article appears to be a simple translation of the French version. Met hartelijke groet,—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Je voudrais traduire au français et au italien quand j'ai le temps, mais maintenant j'ai beaucoup d'autres choses à faire aussi. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Non c'è fretta. Se si decide di fare una traduzione, ma solo dopo tre o quattro settimane, si prega me avvisare. Forse io stesso avrebbe cominciato una traduzione.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Grazie. Si dirò quando è pronta la mia traduzione in italiano. Non sarà difficile. Dopo tutto, l'italiano è la lingua della musica. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Anche per la musica francese! Così divertente!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Maderna discography

Thanks for putting up the Wergo record dates, that start with the Xenakis. From the outset, I chose to disentangle the composers from the "sampler" CD's, so it can be clear what pieces from which composers Maderna exactly recorded/conducted with ommission of those pieces that others performed (i.c. Travis). So I hope you don't mind that I left the Kontonski on the list and deleted the rest. The missing data from the other listed pieces will sooner or later all follow, btw. AlterBerg (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)AlterBergAlterBerg (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Wergo CDs, samplers or otherwise. All of my experience with those particular recordings are from the Time/Mainstream LPs on which they were originally issued. The only concern I have with omitting the non-Maderna items from those listings (which I have not yet looked at) is that they should in some way indicate that "other material" is included. Otherwise readers are bound to wonder why Maderna would choose tempos so slow that it takes three CDs to contain a performance of just one short piece by Kotoński (whose name I appear to have misspelled).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Undo

What's the deal with the time signature undo?

Guitarspecs (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you are new to Wikipedia, so le me explain a few basics. First, on Talk pages (like this one), always put new comments at the bottom of the page. Second, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There you will learn that sources are required for every claim likely to be challenged on Wikipedia. Third, please read the editorial instructions liberally supplied (at the beginning of the list, and the beginning of every major section) in the Unusual time signatures list, concerning the requirement for reliable sources. Fourth, please notice that the list in question is subdivided into sections according to the numeral in the top of the meter signatures; the last section is for complex mixtures of time signatures. Fifth, please notice that there is a redirect at 5/8, 5/4 and at 7/8, 7/4 to separate articles on Quintuple meter and Septuple meter. At the former, you will find a generous discussion of Take Five, complete with the requisite citations. Your 7/8 example, on the other hand, will require a reliable source before it can be added to the already over-long list in the Septuple meter article. It is not really very complicated, but the requirements for citations may take a little getting used to. Those articles I mentioned will explain why they are necessary. Please don't be discouraged, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you have fun editing here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for fixing the references on Frank Bridge. One of the great things about Wikipedia: do it wrong, and someone will come along and show you how to do it right. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I've gotten used to receiving custard pies for changing reference formats, but this is much nicer (and doesn't automatically incur a dry-cleaning bill). Thanks for the thanks!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)