Talk:Musik im Bauch

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance 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

Synthesis of process music and absurdist theater[edit]

I tried to rephrase this in a way that wouldn't need a citation. I think that those two statements are clearly supported by the score as a source, but perhaps, it's a bridge too far. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rephrasing does not change the fact that Musik im Bauch does not use the plus- and minus-sign notation of the process compositions such as Kurzwellen and Pole, and "absurdist theatre" is not obviously an appropriate characterization of this piece (in the way that "percussion sextet" is, for example). Neither does the score anywhere identify the work as "process music", or "absurdist theatre". I have therefore restored the call for a citation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I removed the passage. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can always be added back in later if you find a suitable source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original music for music boxes[edit]

It is highly unlikely that his melodies are the first original composition for music boxes. This is a really tough claim to support or refute. Therefore, I think it best to make it clear that it's simply a claim that Stockhausen makes. Haydn and Beethoven both wrote for mechanical music devices. Also, there is a very broad range of devices that are considered music boxes, with cylinders, with discs, etc. It would be impossible to survey all the repertoire of music boxes that were ever made, but the likelihood of this being true is very tenuous. So, like Stockhausen's dream claims, its best to report what he says with a little context.Trumpetrep (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I rephrased the claim and referenced it. It appears that Stockhausen was told this by someone at the Reuge firm, but the quotation from him does not actually state this. Using a phrase such as "Stockhausen claims that" is implicit criticism that it is factually incorrect, and therefore requires all the documentation that you rightly deplore as "impossible to survey".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I edited all the citations to hew to the practice on highly graded music articles elsewhere. For instance, Aida uses footnotes, with an additional reference list. I think this format greatly enhances the readability of the article. References that were not cited in the article are retained in the 'References' section, as per Aida, which is graded as a B. (I didn't find any A-grade articles to reference). So, all of the invaluable reference information that has been added to the article is still in place. It is just rearranged to make the article more reader-friendly and more in line with other Wikipedia articles.

The great thing about Wikipedia is that if this revision is unacceptable, please just undo it. I will not be offended. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite that easy, since to simply revert the edits would also undo all the other changes you have made in the meantime, which I think might offend you. You may rely on me to restore the original citation format, for two reasons: first, it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines to change the citation style without first discussing the matter and achieving consensus (as a comparatively new editor on Wikipedia, it is understandable that you may not know this); second, parenthetical referencing is consistent with almost all of the other Wikipedia articles on Stockhausen's work, including the parent biographical article on Stockhausen (which, BTW, is one of the "highly graded music articles" to which you refer, though it is actually one step above the A-grade articles you have checked).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits since then have been very minor! By all means, undo my revision. I'm sorry to have not understood the process.Trumpetrep (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid the revisions myself, back to as it was! Trumpetrep (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I had just finished making the changes myself, when an "edit conflict" message alerted me to your action! In the process, I found a couple of errors (made by me), which I have since corrected.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]