Talk:Kontakte

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kontakte article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Electronic music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Untitled[edit]

Le Kontakte est un instrument de musique indien inventé au XVIIIeme siècle par une tribu pequenoise. Il peut produire toute sorte de son, aig, grave, long, court... Il est encore utilisé aujourd'hui pour attiré des animaux sauvages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.232.208 (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2014

Publication History[edit]

Given the different versions of the published score, I think it would be wise to have a brief section detailing the differences between them. Barring that, shouldn't they be in the References?Trumpetrep (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking of the differences between the performing and realisation scores, or between the different editions of the latter? In either case, I would say the answer to your question depends a bit on just who this article is meant to be for. The average reader probably would find this to be too much information (after all, the article on Beethoven's Fifth Symphony does not bother to track its publication history). On the other hand, if there are significant differences between earlier and later versions, which might affect either what the live performers are to play, or a structural interpretation of the composition, then this would doubtless be of interest, perhaps even to the lay reader. I am personally aware only of minor corrections, but I have not myself made a page-by-page comparison of the old and new versions of the realisation score.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Beethoven's Fifth doesn't exist in two forms. It is not uncommon for articles about certain books to have a section devoted to various editions or publication history. Plus, I often find these scores miscategorized by libraries.

Perhaps this is my own personal hobbyhorse about Wikipedia's shortcomings, but a performer is not directed from this page to published versions of the score. That seems a rather egregious lapse for a reference tool. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "two different forms", as in one with and one without live performers? Well, I can recall reading an early review of the published score of Kontakte (the realisation score, I believe) that expressed astonishment that a score might be published at all for an electronic work. It was certainly unusual at that time, and perhaps still is. Wikipedia, of course, is not a collection of books but rather of reference articles. I do know of other composition articles that include publication information on the score and, as you say, there are actually two different ones in this case, not to mention the revised version of the realisation score. It would certainly do no harm to include bibliographic information on them. In the case of the realisation score, this should include the names of the individuals who actually drew and edited the score, as well as the translators of the text. I vaguely recall that at least one of the responsible individuals failed to get credit in the score itself. I do not personally own a copy of that score, but I believe I should be able to consult the first (UE) edition in my institution's library. The second edition may be more difficult for me to access. If you get to it first, please feel free to add publication information to the bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I gave it a shot. There are 3 essential iterations of the score (in my view). Aside from the twin UE editions from the 60's, the 1995 Verlag score is the other most important resource. I'd be in favor of condensing the 2008 realization scores to 1 bilingual reference, but that might confuse people into thinking that they are a unified publication. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you know these scores better than I do. I thought there were only three (the two UE scores and the Verlag edition of the realisation score. Is the 1995 publication a version of the performing score, then? (Never mind. I'll go seek enlightenment from your additions.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Now I see. I had forgotten that the new edition of the realisation score actually exists in two versions, German and English. If I recall correctly, the old UE edition was German only. Is the 1995 Verlag version of the performing score really a new edition, or just a reprint of the 1965 UE version? (It makes a difference for a bibliography, which should not mislead the reader into thinking changes have been made either to the text or layout.) In the listing of the performance score I have replaced the compound fraction "1/2" with a case fraction "½", like the one in the text.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are important additions to the 1995 edition that clarify performance practice. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassing, really, that I did not know this already. Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kontakte (Stockhausen). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512082306/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3018939.ece to http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/037453ar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]