User talk:Jerome Kohl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


♯ is OK, but ♭ is not?[edit]

Hi, there is a mixture of characters and templates on the Oboe page for flats. All I did was bring them into line with only characters. Would you please undo your reversion? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a mixture—all that I saw in your edit was the replacement of template characters with numerical codes (Unicode? HTML?). It could take some while to find the guideline, which ought to be somewhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music, though it may actually be in a subsidiary article, but my recollection is that these templates are strongly preferred over other methods of displaying music characters. I have had personal experience with trying to insert Unicode symbols, only to have these templates substituted by editors who tell me they display nothing but gobbledy-gook on some browsers, which is why I no longer use them. If I discover that things have changed, then I will gladly revert my edits. Otherwise, I plan to go after the remaining Unicodes in the "Oboe" article and replace them with the appropriate templates.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. A quick shufty in WP:Manual of Style/Music produces two somewhat contrary results. First, right near the beginning, in the section "Accidentals", it says:

Use either the {{music}} template flat {{music|flat}} () and sharp {{music|sharp}} () symbols or the words flat and sharp.

However, further down, under "Images and notation", subhead 6, it says:

The sharp (♯) and flat (♭) signs are ♯ and ♭, respectively. A natural (♮) can be entered with ♮

These appear from their syntax to be XML codes or something similar, which in turn call Unicode characters. I infer from the placement of the earlier entry that it takes precedence for editing the main text of the article; the later entry with the XML code appears to refer to the internal workings of examples, though this is not absolutely clear to me. I think perhaps a question on the appropriate Talk page is in order here but, in the meantime, I propose using the templates in the Oboe article, and only changing to the XML codes if the discussion indicates that my logic is faulty (in which case, I shall propose changing that guideline section titled "Accidentals").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just dug into the back of the template. The template maps sharp to &#266f; natural to ٮ and flat to ♭ which are the very codes I used. Some redundancy somewhere in there and I'm not sure which way to go. Maybe I'll just go back to Wikisource and continue making the 1900 edition of Grove available. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You're a better man than I, Gunga Din! I wouldn't know where to begin digging into the way those templates work. As far as I am concerned, they are magic black boxes that do good things, though I always admire more the contraptions that show their inner workings on the outside than the ones with slick outer housings. It sounds to me as if there is no functional difference, then, and I certainly have got no axe to grind about this. I'm just trying to follow the directions in the Manual of Style. It will be interesting to see where the discussion I initiated on the Manual/Music Talk page leads.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Solage may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • "The smoky one smokes through [or for] smoke", including the possible ''equivocus'' "par fumee" -> "Smoker who smokes 'parfumee' smoke"), in which the singers appear to get completely lost, singing
  • Gloucestershire, England 20–22 February 2006; CD recording, 1 disc, stereo; AVIE AV2089 (([London]: Avie Records, 2006) (#1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19: ("Basile", "Calextone qui fut", "Corps femenin", "En l'amoureux

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Claude Helffer may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[Béla Bartók|Bartók]]: ''[[Out of Doors'', Piano Sonata, ''Popular Romanian Dances'', Suite op. 14, ''Improvisations'' op. 20.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Olivier Messiaen at FAR[edit]

I have nominated Olivier Messiaen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Footnote Format[edit]

I just noticed you'd changed the formats of the footnotes in the revisions to the Stravinsky Violin Concerto article. I'm wondering why you think the (Name. Year. page) format in line is superior? In fact, I find all those numbers to be extremely distracting when trying to read the article. Furthermore, with the "ref" system, one only has to hover over the footnote number to get the complete citation (if one wants it during reading the article) whereas with the "inline" system, one is forced to drop down to the References and scroll back up any time one wants to see what the citation actually is. I have to say that I think the "ref" system is vastly superior. Yankeecook (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I find parenthetical referencing superior to footnotes, not the least being that, exactly as you say, I find "all those [blue] numbers to be extremely distracting". However, I did not so much "change the formats" as "restore the established formats", which had been changed without explanation or obtaining consensus from the editors active on that page, per WP:CITEVAR. BTW, there is a template that will do for inline references what you describe for footnotes, and eliminates the triple-redirect problem you get with short-citation formats in the footnotes, namely: annoying little blue number links to a short citation, at which point in turn "one is forced to drop down to the References and scroll back up any time one wants to see what the citation actually is", because there is no provision in the templates to embed one link inside the other. However, that template enforces one particular type of so-called "Harvard referencing" format, which does conform to any of the standard formats with which I am familiar (Chicago, MLA, APA, etc.). If it were provided with options to allow correct formats, I would embrace it with enthusiasm, since it would solve both the problems with parenthetical referencing you note and the even greater ones I see with footnote referencing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain. I'll respect your preference. Yankeecook (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Aeolian mode[edit]

Hello, Some days ago you've reverted an addition I made on the Aeolian mode article where I had created a link to the Not a Second Time page dedicated to the song by the Beatles on the reason that there was no source. Well, the link precisely directed to the source. When one reads the Not a Second Time page it appears that half of the text explains how the song developpes into an aeolian mode. So which is which and are some changes to be considered? Yours, LouisAlain (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, according to WP:CIRCULAR, WP:Reliable sources, and Reliability of Wikipedia. If the article in question cites reliable sources, then those sources should be quoted directly, rather than sending the reader to a potentially unreliable Wikipedia article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Civilización o Barbarie[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask you to please remove the template message regarding notability. --Goliath613 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl has no obligation to fulfill your request, if the concerns regarding notability still persist. Besides, the article as it stands is a total disaster. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I certainly know he has no obligation to fulfill my request - or any request of any other user anyway. Still, I'm quietly waiting for Jerome Kohl's answer. Whether or not the article is a total disaster, I'm sure he is perfectly able to decide about it. --Goliath613 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
What are your reasons for making this request? More specifically, what sources currently provided in the article have I overlooked that support the idea that its subject is notable?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There is for example a quotation from Harry Halbreich, published in Le monde de la musique --Goliath613 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this helps. So does some other material added since I placed that template, which I have now removed. That said, I have to agree with Toccata quarta that the article remains in need of extensive work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Goliath613 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mr Kohl, I wonder if I could ask for your input at Talk:Civilización o Barbarie. There is an ongoing content dispute over this article and Hammero (talk · contribs) seems to believe that you are the ne plus ultra when it comes to matters of modern classical music. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am flattered that Hammero should think so highly of my expertise! I had only glanced briefly at the discussion, which seemed to focus mainly on style and copyvio issues. However, I shall look more closely now. Thanks for calling my attention to this matter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bernardo Kuczer[edit]

Mr Kohl, hi. I would like to ask you to please be as kind and have a look again at the biography page of Bernardo Kuczer and the discussions in the talk page. You have truly helped with the Civilización o Barbarie one. wikiDan61 has set there a tag or banner (?) which puts a shadow of suspicion or "bias" on the WHOLE content of the article. I think this is wrong, and i think it offends unnecessarily the honour of the artist. I think you yourself have corrected things in there and did not seem to find it so "untrue" or bias, as to set such a banner. I have asked wikiDan61 to sate with detail where the problems are, also, so as to try to address them, but he refuses to do so, stating that "a vast amount of detail" is insourced. If the detail is the problem why put everything in doubt then ? If one reads other biographies in the Wiki one realises that with such a conception almost every one would need this banner. On the other hand, I find the form in which he has put the word NOTE, appearing within the sentences, very disturbing since it does not help a fluid reading. I think this needs not be. Perhaps is this permitted, but it certainly does not seem to be a Wikipedia standard. I would change it myself but do not want to appear to be destructive, etc. thanks a lot. --Hammero (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Hammero. I am glad that you find helpful my (very slight) contribution to the article on Civilización o Barbarie article. I have refrained from making any but the most basic changes to the article on Kuczer at this point, for several reasons. First, I know nothing at all about this composer; second, other editors (particularly WikiDan61) seem to be taking appropriate action to improve the article; third (and finally), in my experience all newly created biographical articles go through an initial period of turmoil, in which the form and content are reshaped many times, often with some disagreement of opinion amongst the primary editors. Since I do not regard myself as one of these principle editors in this case, I have preferred to let more expert minds work out their differences as far as possible before getting involved myself. Now that it appears there may be some communication difficulties, I shall have a look and see if I can help. On the whole, I prefer (as you seem to do yourself) specific criticisms rather than general complaints. However, every case is different, so I shall have to see what I find when I read the article and its talk page in detail.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Kohl, thanks for taking notice of my help call. I think when you state: I know nothing at all about this composer... you somehow have said it all. But the reports seem to give to understand, there is something in there...

He and his music have been very elusive, thus some difficulty of documenting with the precision needed for the WIki. I wonder if something might be found in the archives of Perspectives. Although, looking at the times in which his concerts seem to have happened, I guess the reporters were already having some good wine or asleep... --Hammero (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallo again Mr Kohl. I have left you a message with an answer at your question regarding IMD inside the CoB page. If you look at the history of the page, and read the Hammero talk, it was wikiDan61, who retained the citations without text (!) after the notability question had been solved. I find that pointless. Since, the fact that such magazines mention Darmstadt is of no surprise at all or unusual (the fact that Kuczer is not mentioned in the articles, can have to do with the "wine question" I mentioned earlier...) . Having them there, I thought they might be interesting (but retaining some of the text (see last version of Goliath613 for the full text)), since it is constantly being said in the wiki, that all of these seems to be written "eher für die Liebhaber als für die Kenner", that know nothing about what Darmstadt means... (there is not even an article on the Kranichsteiner prize in the English Wiki) and thought they document the "context" (1984) in which Kuczer got his notoriety. But I would agree to delete the three of them without any problem. If you look at the first version of Goliath613 he did not put citations of critics, but the one from Halbreich, which the artist found to be "poetic". I myself send them down to the footnote space... When you asked for the notability question, we asked the artist if he had any useful material. He had to look under his roof (apparently in some old box...) and sent us some photocopies. Mostly so called Presse Spiegel (sent to him from Darmstadt or the ISCM etc.) with snippets of articles. He does not seem to care much for this things... From his point of view, you can burn them all if you want or think they are not well documented... I think this artist has never searched for and does not need "propaganda" here. Only good faith... --Hammero (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
told you ! "... Please serve more vegetables at meals. Will I return to Darmstadt in 1986? You bet I will" Perspectives of New Music, Spring/summer issue 1985, Seattle--Hammero (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

About Classical Composer[edit]

I think the definition of classical music is up to the perception of the individuals. There are so many songs which are composed by him are classical. I leave it to you to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddineshk (talkcontribs) 06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither Jerome Kohl, you, or any other Wikipedia editor decides on this matter—see WP:OR. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

aus Licht[edit]

I thought of you! See my talk for other thoughts, warning: aus Dunkelheit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my attention to this, Gerda. Unfortunately, you had the date slightly wrong. The premiere was on a Wednesday (appropriate to the opera), which also happened to be Stockhausen's birthday: 22 August. I have corrected this on the DYK page. Of course there were also performances on the 23d, 24th, and 25th, and the Helicopter Quartet performances got better as time went on (both the string quartet and the pilots were a bit anxious on the premiere night!). The Friday performance was the most exciting, because of stormy weather that threatened to ground the helicopters, but in the end gave them an unusually wild ride. For those of us on the ground, the chief hazard was the leaky roof of the Argyle Works, which let in some rain, making it important to consider carefully where to sit!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, - the picture captions all said 23, that confused me, sorry. Once we enjoyed an outdoor performance of Zauberflöte, interrupted by a thunderstorm during intermission. No way to sit afterwards, 3 more arias with singers under an umbrella and rainchecks for La bohéme. I heard the concert on top of my talk, but the picture was taken at this one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
ps: remember "In nomine"? - The US premiere of the cello solo one was in Portland, Oregon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. Yes, the Helicopter Quartet photo was taken on 23 August, but the other photos on the Mittwoch aus Licht article run from the dress rehearsal on 21 August to the Friday performance on the 24th. Yes, I remember "In nomine", and have not forgotten that I promised to typeset a music example for it. I've just been lazy, I guess.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for Girolamo Dalla Casa[edit]

Could you consider adding an musical artist infobox for Girolamo Dalla Casa with correct information? I had filled it in with information that was already on the page, but if that's not correct, it would be great if you could add one with correct information. Thanks! Bonnie (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am implacably opposed to infoboxes in cases like these, and the Girolamo Dalla Casa article is a prime example of why. Infoboxes present themselves as summaries of incontrovertable facts, and there are virtually no facts about Dalla Casa (apart from his name) that are known with any certainty at all. (The article is peppered with expressions like "perhaps" and "it may be assumed", but there should probably be even more cautionary indications of this sort.) His name indicates he came from Udine, but this does not necessarily mean he was born there. He describes cornetto technique in his treatise on a level of detail that makes one suppose he must have played that instrument, but it is only an assumption that he was a virtuoso (there is no contemporary testimony about his playing). In the second volume of Il vero modo di diminuir he also describes viola bastarda technique (this is not presently mentioned in the Wikipedia article). Although this instrument is not especially consistent with his employment by the Signoria, it is likely that he did play it, or regularly worked with musicians who did so. As a member of the wind capella at St Mark's, it can be speculated that he played other instruments, but this remains speculation. In the prefaces to both volumes of his treatise he says his examples are suited to (amongst others) keyboard instruments, and for the voice. All musicians at that time were trained in singing, and many on keyboards, but we do not and cannot know to what degree Dalla Casa may have been professionally involved in such activities. We do not know even the year of his birth, and the year of his death is only tentatively established as being 1601, possibly in August. This leaves only three solid facts to put in an infobox: his name, his position as capo de concerti delli stromento di fiato to the Signoria of Venice, and his publications (a list of which has no place in an infobox in any case).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Aleatoric music[edit]

Hello, Jerome -- I'm writing about your recent edit to Aleatoric music. I have no vested interest, no strong feeling, about this either way. Clear writing is my interest. I wonder why you felt it necessary to add, "both of which should be aleatory" to my re-wording of the sentence (which I and another editor felt was not well written and not clear). First of all, since the translation was done quite a while ago, I think your phrase should be, "both of which should have been translated aleatory", but, besides that, it is not clear, as it wasn't before, why both the German noun and the German adjective should have been translated "aleatory" and why that is important to mention. Words ending -ory in English are usually adjectives. There are very few English nouns ending -ory. I've never heard this word aleatory before I read this article. I did not see the word aleatory used as a noun anywhere in the article. Have you ever heard the word aleatory used as a noun in English? The German writer used either the noun or the adjective; it should have been translated into the English word of the same type. If the German noun were mistakenly translated into an English adjective (or vice versa), exactly that could be mentioned. If it is not mentioned, then I do not see why the phrase you added, "both of which should be aleatory", is important to include. It unnecessarily adds confusion. I guess I just do not understand the exact error that was made by the translator, nor why it is so important to mention.CorinneSD (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] The reason it is important to mention is that the reader, having been told that "aleatoric" is a mistranslation, has a right to demand what the correct translation is. Your edit removed this information, and I attempted to restore it, without unduly disturbing the rest of your changes. You may well be correct about the noun formation. According to the OED there is no noun form, which presents a bit of a quandary. The word Aleatorik then becomes untranslatable. In German, it nevertheless is a noun, related in form to words like Mathematik (mathematics), Harmonik (harmony), Physik (physics), Romantik (romanticism), Germanistik (German studies), and Akrobatik (acrobatic skills)—not all of them easily rendered in English without some contortions. I do not know what noun form there might be in the field of mathematics (or perhaps better, actuarial science, where I believe the term is actually native), but it seems to have escaped the notice of both the OED and Wikipedia. The interpretation given in the passage under discussion is based on the source cited at the end of the sentence. In case you have not consulted it, it reads in its entirety:

Normally zealous in defending our language against barbarisms, MT [i.e., Musical Times] (April) ought not to admit aleatoric, vogue-ish though this has become. There is a perfectly good word aleatory, 'depending on contingencies' (Chambers). The vogue-ish form presumably arose from imperfect understanding of the German Aleatorik (noun, not adjective). May I hope that, as a result of this exhortatoric letter, this unsatisfactoric (and to me inflammatoric) usage will prove transitoric.

A closer reading than I gave this when adding the offending sentence shows me that indeed Mr Jacobs does not actually say what the translation of the noun Aleatorik ought to be, though I think since he does not provide the German adjective form (aleatorisch) one might be forgiven for assuming he meant "aleatory" as the translation of the noun as well as of the adjective. What do you suggest might be the best course of action to take?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting and informative reply. From what you wrote, I have changed my view of the problem. I think perhaps it is wrong to say that the translator made an error. As I am sure you know, one of the most difficult tasks in translating from one language to another is to render words that simply have no equivalent in the target language. One solution, which this particular translator apparently used, is to create a word that is in a different grammatical category. As long as the translator retains the intended meaning and the word makes sense in the target language, it is not a bad translation. In this case, it seems -- although we'd have to read the original text to be sure -- the translator translated a German noun ending in "ik" as a new English adjective ending in "ic". The writer of the quote in the reference which you shared -- and thank-you for that -- was clear and clever and has a point, but I am not sure I agree that this translation was due to "an imperfect understanding of the German Aleatorik". I kind of think that if a translator is fluent enough in German and English to translate a book, he or she knows what a noun and an adjective are, in both languages. If one is translating a noun by creating a new English adjective, it is kind of arbitrary which adjective suffix one chooses to use -- -ory or -ic. The writer of that quote was just upset that the translator created a new English adjective instead of using an existing, but rare, English adjective (aleatory). (Notice that he says, "there is a perfectly good word – aleatory". He doesn't say, "there is a perfectly good English noun".) But I believe that this kind of thing, creating new words to represent an untranslatable word from another language, has happened many times in many different languages. Regarding what to write in this article, I feel that the words "error" or "mistakenly" should not be used. (And anyway, who said it was a mistranslation?) The only thing for which the translator could perhaps be criticized is not using the existing English adjective, "aleatory", but, since it is a rarely used adjective, the translator could perhaps be forgiven.
We can say that, due to the difficulty of translating the German noun "aleatorik", for which no equivalent exists in English, the translator created and used a new English adjective which people have continued to use, to the consternation of some, rather than using the existing adjective "aleatory". – CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't quite like that, though. Meyer-Eppler uses both the noun Aleatorik and the adjective aleatorische. The translator appears to have overlooked this and used the English homonym of the German noun in place of the adjective, inventing "aleatoric music" where "aleatory music" should have been used (and was used by many other English writers at that time). There is a larger context of such mistranslations, and here I probably have the advantage of you, since it concerns the entire run of eight volumes of Die Reihe. The fashion of the day in German avant-garde music circles was to dress up music theory with ideas appropriated from the sciences—sometimes with embarrassing misunderstandings. It was also true that electronic music was a major focus (in Meyer-Eppler's article, as well), and there was a substantial specialized technological vocabulary employed there. The problem rose when translators for the English edition of Die Reihe were chosen who had the requisite background in music, but lacked the scientific/technological vocabulary. Because the German scientific terms were not especially familiar to them in the first place and, worse, they had no idea what the correct English equivalents were, they often guessed wrong. The translator of Meyer-Eppler's article (who signs himself with just the initial G) had the advantage over many of the others in being the bilingual son of a German immigrant, but like them was a musician without experience in electronic-music studios. One hazard of bilingualism is that because both languages are present at a subconscious level, it is easy to forget that there may be missing equivalents, so that false homonyms like Aleatorik/aleatoric become a constant danger. There was a long, indignant review of the first volumes of Die Reihe published shortly after the appearance of their English translation, written by a well-known American acoustician, who jumped all over such misused terminology (without observing how much of it was already present in the German original, and how much introduced in translation). He did, however, single out Meyer-Eppler's article as the sole exception, which may have given a certain amount of unintended authority to the term "aleatoric". (Because the word "aleatory" properly belongs to actuarial science rather than to physics, it may be understandable that it slipped by this critic.) BTW, in the very next sentence of the Wikipedia article, reference is made to Pierre Boulez's promulgation of the term, in an article where he uses the perfectly standard French noun aléa (which is the equivalent of the German Aleatorik), as well as the adjectival form aléatoire. Though the word has its roots in the Latin alea (dice), the concept of aleatory investment and its application to life insurance has its most natural home in the French language, because it was in the Napoleanic Code that it was given its earliest important legal status. Needless to say, the French are just as indignant as the Germans when it comes to dealing with the English over the "aleatory"/"aleatoric"/"aleatorical" trifurcation. This long and rambling explanation of course has no place in the article on aleatoricalisticismic music, but may give some idea of why the use, and perceived misuse or abuse of the term can provoke such strong reactions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for such a detailed reply. I am humbled by your thorough knowledge of the issue. Now I wonder whether I should have left the sentence as it was. It is a confusing issue, and it is hard to express a confusing issue in a way that is clear to most readers. From what you just explained, it seems clear that there was some kind of error on the part of the translator. We could say something like this:
The translator incorrectly translated the German noun Aleatorik and the German adjective aleatorische into aleatoric, a word he created, rather than using the existing English word (adjective??) aleatory, and, while this error has irritated many, the word has persisted.
Please feel free to modify this. You know the subject better than I do, and it is clear that you are a very good writer. Thank you again for your courtesy and for taking the time to explain this confusing issue.CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that might cover it. I think that "adjective" might be best, and the "irritate many" might not be necessary. I'm inclined to mention or even quote the "imperfect understanding" line from Arthur Jacobs's diatribe, because despite the translator's bilingualism (a fact evidently unknown to Mr Jacobs), this appears to be precisely the cause. The word has in fact persisted, as has the stubborn insistence on many (including myself) to use "aleatory" in its place. BTW, in the "edit conflict" noted above, you had inserted a question to the effect: have I ever heard "aleatory" used as a noun in this context. Yes, I have, but of course adjectives are often used as nouns in this way. For example: "The new, the aleatory, the disturbance coming from outside are immediately retrieved and integrated into the arrangement. … The formal dynamic processes of Dusapin show us that the aleatory—that is the new—can be transformed into a partially known and arranged order" (Ivanka Stoianova, “Pascal Dusapin”, in Music, Society and Imagination in Contemporary France, edited by François Bernard Mâche, 183–96, = Contemporary Music Review 8, no. 1, 1993, citation on p. 195). Another example, not from the field of music: "It is a culture in which the aleatory grossly imprints itself upon consciousness", and "In emphasizing. the pre-eminence of the aleatory Baudrillard is pitting himself against this whole tradition" (Chris Rojek, "Baudrillard and Politics", in Forget Baudrillard?, edited by Chris Rojek and Bryan S. Turner, 107–23, Psychology Press, 1993; citation on p. 112).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I see you made the change. I have definitely learned something new. I don't think I'll ever forget the word "aleatory". By the way, I don't even know what an edit conflict is, or why one would type it at the beginning of a comment. Can you tell me?CorinneSD (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
An edit conflict occurs when another editor changes a page while you are in the process of making changes yourself. When you try to save your changes, you are given an "Edit Conflict" message, and can only add your edits to the changed version already saved by the other editor. This prevents accidentally erasing another editor's work. On Talk pages, when this occurs it is usual to make a note at the head of your message, to warn others that the content of your comment may not take into account those immediately preceding changes or observations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome, no problem. It is much easier to explain a mechanism like this than to account for everything that was in the background of my thinking when I made an edit to an article, like the one we were just discussing! And I can remember the first time I got an "Edit Conflict" message: My first thought was, "What have I done wrong?" The accompanying message explains everything, but it can be a bit of a shock the first time it happens!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Vaughan Williams[edit]

I've just started editing the article on Ralph Vaughan Williams. May I ask you to read my comment on my Talk page? I am seeking your opinion.CorinneSD (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Convention songbook[edit]

Based on a little Googling, it seems that "convention songbook" is what Southern Baptists called their hymnals for a while. Probably we could delete the reference from the Clef article since "hymnal" includes it. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good work, Doctor Watson! I was imagining campaign songs in booklets distributed at political conventions! Yes, I agree that this could be deleted, since it is just another term for the same thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?[edit]

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, though of course I am disappointed. It is clear that no consensus was reached, and this opens up many of those articles to edit-warring. It is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia that all opinions count equally, including uninformed ones. This was a needless dispute over a perfectly clear English-usage practice that some people evidently never learned in elementary/primary school. I blame the British and American education systems (and probably the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, etc. as well).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious; why do you think that no consensus was reached? In addition to the 17–7 !vote count I find the arguments in opposition to be quite weak, if not completely irrelevant. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I regard it as ignorance, and stubborn ignorance at that. I did my best to make my position clear in the discussion (and I am not above using a little rhetorical sarcasm, as I expect you noticed), and I didn't see anyone trying to refute my statements. People were for the most part simply talking past each other—not an unfamiliar situation in political "discussions" also. There are none so blind as those who will not see.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps you would consider weighing-in at the ongoing closure discussion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neoclassicism (music) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians'', second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell]. London: Macmillan Publishers.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect goes from correct form of title to incorrect form[edit]

Hi Jerome-- I was trying (again - I had earlier left a note on the talk page) to change Les Millions d'Arlequin to Les millions d'Arlequin, but there's a redirect from "millions" to "Millions". It wouldn't let me just reverse the redirect because that would again create a duplicate name, the same reason I couldn't simply move the article title to start with. I tried moving the redirect to a temporary misspelling to avoid the duplicate titles - this move worked, but even so, trying to then move the article still gave me the same error message. If there's a way to delete the bad redirect, I don't know what it is. Do you know how to fix this situation? Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you may need the help of an Administrator to do this. I suggest asking over on the Wikipedia:Help desk or at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:RM should be enough. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Henry VIII and Greensleeves[edit]

Hi Jerome. Over the years I've noticed your various edits to the Greensleeves page and always been impressed by your judgement. I'm conscious that there's some shenanigans happening on the issue of Henry VIII and Greensleeves (as it does about once a year) and rather than get into an edit war, I thought I'd raise it with you to get your advice. The quote that used to be there was taken, almost word for word, from Alison Weir's book Henry VIII: King and Court[1]. If memory serves me right it was agreed some years ago with other posters that rather than rework what she said we should take it as it stood. To be honest, that still seems correct to me. Over the years I've noticed various attempts to change it slightly - the problem is it invariably opens up the doors to the possibility that Henry might have written it. So usually, I revert by to Alison Weir's quote really for no other reason that I think it says it best.

What's your view? David T Tokyo (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi David. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer evidence to wishful thinking. As far as I can see, there is absolutely no controversy on this question at all: all authorities agree that the tune cannot have come into existence until after Henry VIII's death (not to mention the drastic stylistic disparities with the pieces which there is reasonable cause to suppose may be by Henry). As far as I can determine, the only people who hold out any hope at all for the Romantic fiction of Henry's authorship are those who subscribe to the SCA's slogan: "The Middle Ages: not as they were, but as they should have been." We might as well ascribe Greensleeves's authorship to Elvis (who not only continues to show up in shopping malls and restaurants, but is reliably believed to have access to Doctor Who's TARDIS, and therefore might have gone back in time to copy the song into the Board Lute Book after having composed it in 1957. Or whenever. If I sound skeptical, let me just say that the moment someone comes up with sound evidence for all of this, I shall be the first to insist it is given a prominent place in the article on "Greensleeves". In the meantime, I am scanning the heavens for my first glimpse of airborne swine.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi - hope I'm doing this right. I'd posted this question somewhere else but now can't find it. I was just wondering why you removed my additions to the famous flutists (which for some reason wikipedia insists on calling flautists) page for Lois Schaefer and Robert Stallman. Many thanks. Canamets (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're doing things right. When starting a new topic, it is customary to provide a header, which I have added. Such questions can be posted either on the Talk page of the article in question, or on the Talk page of the editor with whom you wish to discuss something. You did try the former option a few days ago, and I replied there:
My edit summary read "-redlinks", which means I deleted red-linked names. On Wikipedia, links to valid articles appear in blue, whereas links pointing to non-existent articles appear in red. On lists such as this, names without Wikipedia articles are regarded as not having demonstrated notability. The usual procedure is to write an article first, which contains the necessary reliable sources to establish notability.
If you consult the Wikipedia article Flute, you will discover that there are several variations of the English word for players of the instrument. I believe there may be some discussion about this on the Talk page of that article, in particular the expressions "flutenist" (found in the 18th century but obsolete now) and "fluter" (comparatively rare perhaps because of an unfortunate alternative meaning). The most common forms are "flautist" (derived from the Italian form of the instrument name, "flauto") and "flutist", anglicized from the French "flûtiste". There are factions preferring each (there may be a regional English involvement), and clearly the one preferring "flautist" created the list of flutenists we are discussing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for that enlightenment. Maybe one day I'll plunge in and do a page for each of those flute players as I feel they're certainly deserving... and more so than many of the names on the existing page. As for flautist... well, if you're British, as I am not, I suppose that's how you'd refer to it. If it were up to me I'd change the name of the page; since to the best of my knowledge Wikipedia originates here in America there's no reason for the pretension of the British version. As a former professional flutist I find it annoying. I appreciate your contributions! Canamets (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Permit me to correct you on one rather important point: Whether or not Wikipedia originated in America (and in fact Germany has an awfully good claim to precedence, especially insofar as many of the templates commonly used are concerned), this has absolutely no bearing at all on the varieties of English used on the English-language version. Please see WP:ENGVAR. You may be surprised to learn that there are professional flautists in Britain as well as in the US. I believe there may even be a few in Australia and Canada. And, FWIW, I am not British, though I regard myself as bilingual ;-).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wind ensemble/concert band[edit]

I'm trying to keep the name of the ensemble consistent across different music articles. All the different titles of the ensemble may confuse people: concert band, symphonic band, wind band, wind symphony, wind ensemble, symphony band, wind orchestra, etc. The actual article on Wikipedia is titled "Concert band". I think "concert band" is fine to use.

Also, "wind ensemble" generally refers to bands that use little or no doubling of parts. I definitely don't think the term "wind ensemble" is more inclusive. In fact, it's quite the opposite, as it excludes larger bands. Saxophilist (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you will also find that there are articles titled Military band, Marching band, and Harmonie. Having myself played in many such groups, I can tell you that a concert band is a subset of wind bands generally, so that by using the term "concert band" you are automatically excluding military bands and marching bands, not to mention the various other forms of wind ensembles. When you claim, for example, that the modern Western flute is "commonly" found in orchestras and concert bands, you are implying that it is not usually found in these other types of wind ensembles (such as the one-to-a-part bands called harmonie by the French, for which Stravinsky wrote at lest two important works—the Symphonies of Wind Instruments and the Concerto for Piano and Winds—both of which use flutes, clarinets, etc., as part of their normal complement). I believe it is misleading the reader not to include mention of such ensembles in those articles. As for the expression "wind ensemble", you really ought to check where this link leads—inaccurately, I think you will agree.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I am correct. The wind ensemble is an ensemble made popular by Frederick Fennell. "Wind ensemble" is an actual title of a specific ensemble. The term "wind ensemble" does NOT mean "any musical ensemble comprised mostly of wind instruments". A wind ensemble is a band that generally has only one player per part, except perhaps on the Bb clarinet parts.
Now, I can see your point about the Western concert flute. I didn't mean that it wasn't popular in those other ensembles, but perhaps it could look that way. Feel free to add military bands and marching bands there.
Also, just the orchestra was mentioned in most places where I edit, so I felt the need to also add the concert band. Saxophilist (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) I do see your point about bands being excluded (even if some people might assume that "orchestra", especially in a jazz context, includes groups with only winds and percussion, like the Sauter-Finegan Orchestra or the Count Basie Orchestra), and I certainly have no difficulty with your mentioning bands in these various articles. However, I do not believe that the expression "wind ensemble" is as exclusive as you suggest, except perhaps in the sphere of American university music schools. Nor was the term Frederick Fennell's invention, unless of course you add the word "Eastman" in front of it (and you will notice that the link in his biographical article to "wind ensemble" redirects to concert band). As Donald Hunsberger observes in his New Grove article on the Wind Ensemble, performing groups, "especially in America, utilize the elite quality of the title while maintaining allegiance to a more traditional massed and fixed instrumentation approach." I was trying to find an umbrella term that would include concert bands as well as other types of wind ensem…, erm, I mean, wind bands, since the "concert band" is a stationary group with doubled wind parts that usually performs indoors and, strictly speaking, is an American type of wind band. Do you have a suggestion for such an inclusive term, that includes marching ensembles as well as large groups of wind instruments, with or without percussion, in which the parts are not doubled?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought that "concert band" would be fine to use. I don't think a concert band necessarily has all doubled wind parts. And I think marching and military bands should also be mentioned, but we don't need to find an umbrella term that lumps concert bands, marching bands, and military bands together, as they are all quite different ensembles. So, lets mention marching and military bands, but separately from concert bands. Saxophilist (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the same logic apply to orchestras? Should we then mention dance orchestras, wind orchestras, baroque orchestras, chamber orchestras, etc., wherever appropriate?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, a dance orchestra is a jazz band, a wind orchestra is just another name for a concert band, a baroque orchestra is just an orchestra from the baroque period. All of them are quite different from a modern symphony orchestra. It just depends on what the article is talking about. You wouldn't mention a symphony orchestra in the same place as a jazz band, for example. Saxophilist (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Probably not, which is why the simple word "orchestra" may be misleading. Similarly, the article "Concert band" subsumes a number of different wind-band classifications that really do not belong there at all. The issue therefore becomes much larger than simply deciding what terms are appropriate to insert in various articles on particular wind instruments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I just realized there wasn't any mention of marching bands on the clarinet page. I made a section for marching and military bands. Please feel free to expand it. Saxophilist (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What are the differences?[edit]

What do you think the differences are between concert bands, wind bands, wind orchestras, wind symphonys, symphonic bands, wind ensembles, etc? I think they're all referring to the same ensemble, except I think wind ensembles only have one player per part, except perhaps on the Bb clarinet parts. I think all the others could technically also have only one player on any given part, but it's not required. Saxophilist (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, what you and I think matters less than what reliable sources say but, since you ask, I think a "concert band" performs from a stage to an audience seated in an auditorium, and is functionally indistinguishable from a "wind symphony", "wind orchestra", or "symphonic band". A "wind ensemble" can be any number of things, and the meaning varies from place to place (it is one thing in American university culture, quite another in continental Europe, and probably yet something else in the UK). A "wind band" is all of these things, and many others (for example, it includes brass bands, military bands, Feldharmonie, Kapelle, orchestre d'harmonie, fanfare, batterie-fanfare, waites, marching bands, flute bands, pipe bands, bagad, coblas, and drum-and-bugle corps, none of which fall comfortably under the category of "concert band"). That said, I might have some trouble tracking down sources to support my opinions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Stockhausen references[edit]

I hadn't seen that part of the references guide. It just seemed natural to make them conform to style since I found the article very difficult to read laid out as it was. Patrick Neylan (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find such a thing as an unfamiliar style of reference formatting makes an article difficult to read. Perhaps if you get better acquainted with parenthetical referencing, you sill come to agree with me that it is much less awkward and distracting than footnotes. You will find that this method is used quite widely in music articles on Wikipedia, especially those dealing with recent music, for example the biographical articles on Arnold Schoenberg, Luigi Nono, and Milton Babbitt, and topic articles such as Tonality, Atonality, and Serialism.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for link. It's illuminating. It's not the unfamiliarity that makes it difficult, it's the presence of the notes in the text obstructing the flow of the narrative. It seems to me that this is an academic practice, where the author is just as concerned with covering himself as with providing information. That strikes me as inappropriate for Wikipedia, where checking sources (from a reader's point of view) is only relevant if the information is in question. Readers, for the most part, aren't interested in sources; they want to know the facts. My qualification here is that I'm a professional editor, and my priority is always to ease the flow of knowledge from expert to reader. The test for this is to read it aloud, references and all. It's very difficult to follow. Having looked at your talk page, I can see you are a serious and knowledgeable contributor who doesn't take difference of opinion as a personal slight. I have no interest in flame wars or edit wars. Thanks for the polite explanation of your reverts. Patrick Neylan (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As a fellow professional editor, I do know what you are talking about (even if my own experience is primarily with academic/scholarly publications). However, if I read aloud an article such as the one we are talking about, I would no more read aloud or hesitate over the parenthetical references than I would read aloud the footnote numbers in a text using that form of referencing. Perhaps I have more interest in the sources than most Wikipedia readers. This is in part just a matter of personal preferences, but it is also conditioned by my experience editing Wikipedia, where every important fact needs to be attributed to a reliable source. When this is not done, some other editor is bound to plant a {{cn}} marker or similar, demanding that the missing citation be supplied. This in turn leads me to want to be able to determine as quickly as possible what is the nature of the supporting source. Parenthetical referencing does his instantaneously for those already familiar with the sources, a little less quickly if you have to look them up in the alphabetical list of sources. Footnotes, on the other hand, are of two types: full reference, and abbreviated reference. The latter is the most awkward on Wikipedia, because jumping to the note (or floating your cursor over the number in order to display the note content) merely provides you with what you would already have had before your eyes with parenthetical referencing. Full-reference footnotes avoid this problem, but do not—on Wikipedia, at least—provide an alphabetized list of sources (what people in the real publishing world call a "bibliography"—a term reserved for other use on Wikipedia, in practice even if not in the guidelines and Manual of Style). This in turn makes it difficult to assess quickly whether the sources include substantial publications, or consist merely of a series of blogs, popular-magazine articles, and sensationalist newspaper stories. For the editor already expert on the article's subject, it also hampers the job of seeing whether any important items have been overlooked or, worse, whether the sources have been systematically biased in favour of one side or the other in any matters of controversy. While I would not claim that editors take priority over the reader, this is nevertheless a contributing factor when all other aspects are equal.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. My point about reading aloud was that we read silently in the same way as we read aloud, so a reference such as "(McKinsey, VI p22)" is much more intrusive than a simple "[1]". By putting the references in the text, we are putting the editor's interests before the reader's. While that might be appropriate in strictly academic texts, I don't think it's right for Wikipedia, where most visitors to the page only want information - a story, if you prefer - and not a list of sources. I'm not going to revert (as I said, edit wars aren't my thing), but have a look at the history and tell me it isn't an easier read with the references tucked away in footnotes, where the minority of readers who care about such things can easily find them, while the majority who don't care can more easily find what they came to Wikipedia to find. Patrick Neylan (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree that we read silently in just the same way we read out loud, that is not really important. I think perhaps you are right that we are catering more to editors than to readers by using parenthetical referencing, but I cannot agree that those garish blue numbers are less distracting than an author-date citation enclosed in brackets, which I find much less arresting to the eye and therefore easier to glide over than a footnote number. Also, speaking as a reader rather than an editor, I find the numeral always raises a nagging doubt: "should I look and see whether there is some content hidden away here, or ignore it because it is just a source reference?" This is, I submit, far more distracting than an honest, straightforward parenthetical reference.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets Talk about the Musical Nationalism article : )[edit]

I'm confused by your recent content removal. I restored, expanded, and cited some of the content that needed references, and left other sections of your removal alone. I'm a bit confused about your decision to remove some uncited material, and leave other material alone. The citations I added are now the only citations in the Musical Nationalism article.

I hope you will engage me in discussion on the articles talk page, because I'd like to understand your decision.

Thanks for your time, and for all the work you do.

Discussion is here:

Ollie Garkey (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That was over three months ago! If I left any passages that had been flagged as needing citations for over a year, I will be happy to remove them now. That was the basis of my edit. As a rule, when I see unsourced material that needs a citation, I put a {{cn}} flag on it, in order to offer the opportunity for the editor who inserted that claim to justify it with a reliable source. I only delete the material after the tag has been in place after several weeks or months. Naturally I also try to find sources that either verify or falsify the claim, but often this proves impossible. I shall check the discussion page and see if I have anything to contribute.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Microtonal music[edit]

I don't know if you are watching the article on Microtonal music, but I thought I would tell you about a recent edit to that article. I cannot figure it out; I cannot even tell whether it is in English or not. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I do have that article on my watchlist, but I had not noticed this edit. Thanks for calling it to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Roy Harris Roy Harris Symphony Recordings on Naxos[edit]

I've added a list of the released (& one unreleased) recording of Roy Harris Symphonies by Naxos Records to the Roy Harris Talk Page. The information about the unreleased symphony recording comes from a list of upcoming releases in the American Classics line that was included with Naxos CD 8.559167. You will not find the catalog number 8.559109 on the Naxos website, but I am willing to scan the booklet if you need other proof (I know some people seem to think 'not online = not real' which is a dangerous attitude to have).Graham1973 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, and for a good laugh: I personally have strong misgivings about accepting as 'real' anything that is only online!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Flute etymology[edit]

You're correct that the Danish>Dutch change may take time to appear. Here is a section of the email I received:

"Dear Mr ______,
Thank you for your comments.
I am an etymologist at the Oxford English Dictionary; John Simpson forwarded your query to me to investigate.
I have looked into the forms of the word in all three languages and I agree with your assessment that Danish is incorrect here; in addition to the points you make, it is also much more likely for Dutch than Danish to have influenced English in the late medieval/early modern period.
The entry FLUTE has not yet been revised for the 3rd edition, so it still looks essentially as it did in 1897, when it was first published. The printed version of the Dictionary used abbreviations for language names, and in this instance, the language is specified as "Da." even in the first edition.
I suspect that this was either a random typesetting error, or (as you suggest) that the typesetter misread a handwritten "Du." for "Da." Both are standard abbreviations, but "a" and "u" are not always easy to distinguish in some forms of handwriting.
I will correct the language name on the database, but please be patient as it can take some time for a change to appear online.
Thank you very much for pointing this out; in a work of this size (especially a printed work), occasional slips of this kind are inevitable, but they are also very difficult to spot, and we are grateful for your help."

Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. If you see the change on OED before I do, do not hesitate to change the material in the "Flute" article. It is always satisfying to see Wikipedia cause a correction to be made in an august source like the OED!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we should change it. I believe I have proven to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that the information currently posted is incorrect AND that the source (database) from which the OED is printed has been corrected, leaving the Wikipedia page clearly in error. I have neither the time nor the energy to monitor the Flute page daily for the next year, and I certainly don't find it useful to be a stickler where practical reality is concerned. I would just like to point out also that Wikipedia did not cause the change to be made; that was entirely my own initiative, and what allowed its success was a lack of excessive deference to authority on my part. Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to minimize or dismiss your efforts in this matter; I merely thought that, had this not crept into Wikipedia, you might not have been so quick to notice the OED had gotten it wrong. I have checked the OED database (or at least, its outward manifestation in the online version) and it still has not been corrected. However, I am inclined to agree that it is time to correct this, even if it may seem to some that we are jumping the gun.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I'll go ahead and change it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I see it's done. Excellent. Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Enharmonic genus[edit]

Arithmetic mean A = (x1 + x2)/2
Harmonic mean H = 1/[ ( 1/x1 + 1/x2 )/2 ] = 2 / ( 1/x1 + 1/x2 )

L1 = 4/3; L2 = 5/4
f1 = 1/L1 = 3/4; f2 = 1/L2 = 4/5

A(L1, L2) = (4/3 + 5/4 ) / 2 = ( 16/12 +15/12 ) / 2 = 31/24
H(f1, f2) = 2 / ( 4/3 + 5/4 ) = 24/31
therefore A(L1, L2) = 1 / H(f1,f2)

A(f1, f2) = ( 3/4 + 4/5 ) / 2 = ( 15/20 + 16/20) / 2 = 31/40
A(L1, L2) ≠ 1 / A(f1, f2) ≠ H(f1, f2)

Derekhmartin (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't immediately see what you are trying to say. Presumably this has to do with the edit I made on the Enharmonic genus article. It appeared to me that someone did not notice that the comparison being made was between string lengths on the one hand, and frequencies on the other. Since these two things are inversely proportional, it did not make sense to say that the their measurements are directly proportional.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Magnificat by C. P. E. Bach[edit]

Good morning,

By chance I came across this splendid piece of music, you may be familiar with it:

Two things stroke me immediately when I listened to it: Emanuel Bach must have known his father's version, BWV 243, but his setting is different from the beginning to the end. As if he was saying: I did it my way. It's almost heroic if you take into account that he wrote it in 1749, when his father was still alive but probably bedridden.

The second thing is the concluding fugue, "Sicut erat in principio" (from 33:00 onwards on the present CD). The theme is introduced in a major tonality, and when it comes to the minor version, the resemblance to the "Kyrie eleison" in Mozart's Requiem is really striking. I think it can't be a coincidence, and it seems to me sort of ironical that Mozart, during his last few days, was remembering Emanuel Bach, while on the other hand, when Sebastian Bach was already very ill, his son was trying hard to forget him - at least in a musical way.

I was thinking to point out this resemblance, maybe in the article about Mozart's Requiem, but I wouldn't like to be accused of "original research", and so I'm waiting for the moment. Do you happen to know if anything has been published about this resemblance between Mozart and Emanuel Bach?

Thank you for your patience, and greetings --Goliath613 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And good morning to you! I am not familiar with the C. P. E. Bach Magnificat, but your description has awakened my interest in it. I shall have a look around, to see whether I can find any literature in which it is discussed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Culture of Hungary[edit]

I just wondered if you agreed with the recent edits to the article Culture of Hungary. While the edits concern geography, the material is about music. - CorinneSD (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the changes from "Eastern" to "Central" Europe, with reference to Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. I really have no strong opinion about this, but I believe the Wikipedia guidelines specify certain boundaries for these terms. If they are not being followed, then they probably should be. For me, personally, "Central Europe" is the region from which my ancestors hailed (Bohemia), together with Austria, Hungary, and perhaps Poland. At the same time, "Eastern Europe" evokes the Cold War division of Europe into two sectors, which leaves no room for a "Central Europe", but also makes for some rather peculiar geography, since Austria was "Western" but the DDR "Eastern", in spite of their relative geographical positions and the fact that Austria's name in German, Österreich, means "Eastern Realm".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm BitBus. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Piano without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BitBus (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow - Whoops![edit]

Definately my error, I was actually working on another edit and ended up on the wrong tab. My apologies! BitBus (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted. This kind of thing happens to us all, from time to time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted fifths[edit]

Got it, you're one of those "cops" who contributes little but loves removing the work of others. Get a life!

Pitch classes[edit]

Hi -- I see you reverted my edit, I'm sure for the better, as you seem to be a specialist in this area. [2] (Despite an undergrad in performance and some aptitude for music theory, the material feels rather Greek to me). In trying to understand, if you have a moment: is the idea that a hexachord refers to a set of six notes within an octave, which are not necessarily sounded together, but which are also distinguished from a scale in that they could fall in any sequence? Ultimately, I was trying to decode the Guidonian hand. Thanks. (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: Your edit equated hexachord with the notes of a hexatonic scale. The edit summary for my rejection of your edit read, "in a tone row, it is part of the chromatic aggregate, and not in such a context considered a hexatonic scale". While it is true that a hexachord may correspond to a hexatonic scale, it is not the only way a hexachord can be construed. In a twelve-tone context, a hexachord refers not to fixed pitches, but to pitch classes. (I imagine this is why you have titled your comment in this way.) This means first, that scale-wise arrangement is not appropriate and, second, that it is only part of a larger set of pitches. Similarly, in medieval music theory, although hexachords consist of six adjacent scale members, they are only subsets of scales. Whether those scales consist of seven notes or more is a complicated matter, but there is no question of a hexatonic scale. Does this help, or am I missing something?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I see my subject heading didn't entirely match my note. So a "hexachord," according to the article, can be just the interval of a sixth, but generally it refers to that set of six "pitch classes." Which is, in other words, a set of sets, or something that I certainly couldn't play on the piano. OTOH, when I read about the use of the hexachord in the Guidonian hand, I don't believe it has that characteristic of extending across the octaves; isn't Guido dealing with sets of notes, rather than pitch classes? I believe the hand covers several octaves from bottom to top. Possibly that is part of what is confusing me. Thanks for responding. (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Quite so: The term was also used to refer to the interval of a sixth, though implicitly this was thought of not just as a distance (as it is treated today) but as a span of six notes—in other words, what is called a "composite" interval. In this context, it is similar to that hexatonic scale notion, but does not constitute a scale as such. The Guidonian hexachords, which are a closely related idea, are still not scales in the usual sense, because they are not regarded as complete scalar sets, but as components. In order to form a complete scale it takes two of them, involving what is called a "hexachord mutation", and even then we are usually talking about two partial hexachords. Consider the construction of a Dorian octave from D to the D an octave above. We must begin with the "natural hexachord", which runs from C up to A. The C is of no particular use for a scale starting on D, but the remaining five notes of the hexachord are also insufficient to reach the upper octave. In order to do this, the pattern begins re-mi-fa-sol-la (D-E-F-G-A), at which point we must mutate to the "hard" hexachord (G-A-B-C-D-E), which has the same intervallic pattern and the same solfège syllables as the natural hexachord, only starting on G instead of C. Mutation can take place either on G or, more typically, on the last possible note, A (meaning that at the point of mutation either the note G is momentarily both sol and ut, or the note A is both la and re). Continuing up the scale in the new hexachord, the octave is completed with mi-fa-sol (B-C-D). In this way, a heptatonic scale results from overlapping portions of two hexachords, and the composite solfège is re-mi-fa-sol-la/re-mi-fa-sol. In this way, you can see that the hexachords are not in themselves complete scales.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, as I've been distracted for a few days. The above is interesting and helpful to me, but I'll have to give it some more thought at my leisure! Thanks. (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

List of tone rows and series[edit]

Either my computer is to old or the article is to big, or both. Many of my edits to that article time out, and it's difficult for me to fix edits, simultaneously edit, and the like. I figure I/we should simplify the table, and I've been working on that. Hyacinth (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been experiencing the same problem. The list is fairly large, but not as large as, say, the List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date, which edits slowly, but nowhere near as slowly as the list of tone rows. My computers are old, also—one is a 12-year-old "classic" Mac G4, but the other is an Intel Mac only five years old. I don't think aging computers have much to do with it, since almost all other articles edit quickly. I suspect the large number of "tonerow" templates may be the problem, but I know next to nothing about how templates work, or how multiple copies may interact.
More generally, there are a number of structural issues about this list that should be ironed out (e.g., the criteria by which "prime form" should be defined, whether this is a systematic list of possible series or a list of the rows that happen to occur in notable compositions, what do we define as a tone row, and so on), so while we are going about simplifying the list, we should address these questions, as well. But let's start with your ideas for simplification of the list as it exists.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Hyacinth/Test rowspan is 2,465 bytes, User:Hyacinth/Test numbered lists is 2,393 bytes (72 byte reduction), and User:Hyacinth/Test consolidate row forms is 2230 bytes (235 byte reduction). Hyacinth (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I take it that the first test is the current format of the list, and the other two are attempts at reducing the file size. It does not appear that the reduction is very dramatic in either case but either of these should work, though I slightly prefer the aligned data in the original, as opposed to the numbered lists in the other two. I am a little concerned that the music-notation image appears to align with the RI form in the third version, and with the R form in the second, which could cause some confusion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Hyacinth/Test written out is 2,412 bytes (53 byte reduction). Hyacinth (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
None of these make a significant difference, if we consider that the present list will eventually at least double in size. I'm also not at all sure that file size alone can be the problem. This list is about 139K, compared to over 300K for the "List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date", which hasn't got anything like the edit problems of the tone-row list (I kept an attempted addition of the eleventh version of the second aggregate of Klavierstück I spinning on "Save page" for nearly three hours this afternoon, and it never did finish loading). You have a lot of experience with templates. Can the operations called by your "tone row" template possibly have anything to do with this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Formatting of musical works[edit]

What is generic about Mass in b minor? Tony (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music but, since these guides are not always completely transparent, and this "generic" vs. "true title" business is open to interpretation in many cases, I would explain it in the present case by analogy. Comparable examples are Symphony in D minor, Sonata in B minor, String Quartet No. 4, and Octet for strings in E-flat major, Op. 20. In such cases, the titles are "derived from the name of musical forms" and "are set in roman type with initial capitals. .&nbsp.&nbsp. The names of keys may use musical symbols and or the words 'sharp' and 'flat'" (New Oxford Style Manual, OUP 2012, pp. 147–48). Several examples are then given, beginning with "Bach's Mass in B minor or B Minor Mass". I cite Oxford because the article on Bach follows UK (though not Oxford) practice; if you prefer American usage, I can cite Chicago Manual of Style or D. Kern Holoman's Writing on Music, but they do not differ from Oxford on this matter. I believe you will find that the Wikipedia Manual of Style is based on one or all of these sources, and the article Mass in B minor follows this practice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, Noetica confirms what you say. It is ungainly in an opening list, though, and many readers will wonder why. Can you tell me: Stravinsky's "Symphony in C" but Symphony in Three Movements? Tony (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) PS However, Noetica says: "Mass in B minor I regard as a difficult case though, because Bach is not a Catholic liturgical composer, expected to write series of masses. So "in B minor" is almost a sui generis epithet in his case, like "solemnis". Tony (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for overwriting your comment. The software is supposed to prevent this sort of thing by notifying the later user of an edit conflict. This failed to occur in this case.
Forgive my ignorance, but who is Noetica, and how reliable a source is he/she/it? It seems to me unacceptable hair-splitting to make the composer's religious beliefs a criterion for how we format titles of works. After all, what are we to do in the case of anonymous works, or works by composers who underwent religious conversion? As for Stravinsky, the Symphonies in E-flat and C are generic titles because they follow the rules established in sources like New Oxford Style and Writing about Music. The Symphony in Three Movements does not, because "in Three Movements" is neither a key, a number in a series of works, or an opus number—that is, it makes the title idiosyncratic. Much more difficult are titles like the Concord Sonata of Charles Ives (sometimes styled Concord Sonata, or Piano Sonata No. 2, Concord, Mass., 1840–60), or Beethoven's Eroica Symphony. These are the titles where Holoman, Chicago, and New Oxford part company.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
In the Oxford resources, of which New Hart's Rules is a part, you appear to gloss over the uncertainty and context points they make.

NHR—"8.6.1 General principles: The styling of musical work titles is peculiarly difficult because of the diversity of forms in which some titles may be cited, issues related to language, and longstanding special conventions."

And: "8.6.3 True titles—A distinction is usually made between works with ‘true’ titles and those with generic names. The boundary between the two types of title is not always clear, but, as with all other difficult style decisions, sense and context provide guidance, and consistency of treatment within any one publication is more important than adherence to a particular code of rules." Context here might be the prominent list of works at the opening of the Bach article.

By the way, that mass is often called "B Minor Mass". That shows how it is an idiosyncratic qualifier. We would not call it that if Bach written many masses, of which several were in B minor. Nor would "Minor" be capped in "B Minor Mass" if the titling were straightforwardly generic, don't you think? Tony (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, (New) Hart's Rules have been combined with the (New) Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors to form the New Oxford Style Manual. I "glossed over" the portions you quote because they are not relevant to the question at hand. As I have subsequently pointed out, there are plenty of examples that create uncertainty, but Bach's B Minor Mass is not one of them. The very fact that it can be rendered in various ways (e.g., Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, Symphony No. 7, Symphony in A major, Symphony Op. 92) demonstrates the generic nature of the title. Just try doing similar things with Missa solemnis, Così fan tutte, Sinfonia domestica, or Ouvertüre zum Fliegenden Holländer, wie sie eine schlechte Kurkapelle morgens um 7 am Brunnen vom Blatt spielt) (apart from rendering them in translation, which is quite another thing). There is no uncertainty about any of these, amongst other reasons because standard references such as the New Grove may be consulted to verify their correct form (this is in part of the New Oxford Style Manual we have both "glossed over" until now: section 8.6.1, ref on p. 146). If you think italics and roman type are incompatible in such lists, then I strongly suggest you consult just about any composer article in New Grove.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
NHR goes against the very authority it cites (New Groves), and caps "Minor" in "B Minor Mass". No less an authority than Christoph Wolff (in Johann Sebastian Bach:The Learned Musician, Norton, 2000) usually calls it B-minor Mass. That's not generic; but when he names it generically, he calls it "Mass in B minor". In accord with the text in WP's Bach article, but rendering wobbly your claim that this is all simple and agreed.

Richard Taruskin ('"Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries", Vol 2 of his Oxford History of Western Music, OUP, 2005) calls it: B-Minor Mass, and B-minor Mass, and Mass in B Minor; Taruskin gives no italics to St. John Passion.

So much for specificity versus genericity; so much for consistency, under an Oxford banner? [I was assisted by Noetica in this post.] Tony (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now you are venturing into two other areas: capitalisation of titles, and hyphenation of unit modifiers. Hart's Rules is especially flexible on capitalisation, describing a variety of options and emphasising the importance of "house style" in deciding amongst them. Chicago Manual is more restrictive, and I can't recall the position taken by Holoman on this issue (his book is elsewhere at the moment). Unit-modifier hyphenation is also a matter of common sense (according to Chicago and, I think, Hart's Rules), being most important where ambiguity may result in misunderstanding: If "fast sailing ship" is not to be understood as a vessel with sails that is capable of traveling rapidly, then it must by "fast-sailing ship". An alternative style (found as a minority practice in UK publications) holds to the opposite logic, and insists that if it is any type of ship underway at top speed, then it must be "fast sailing-ship". In the case of Bach's mass, there is only a small chance anyone will think it a secondary or small composition in the key of B (major), or a lesser work (B-grade), but if the house style wants to be sure, then of course it should be hyphenated "B-minor Mass" or "B-Minor Mass". The key phrase here is "house style". While in many areas Wikipedia does not have a house style (reference formatting, for example), this is thankfully not the case for music titles. Here we can securely say: no italics for Bach's B(-)minor Mass, and the word "minor" is not capitalised. About the hyphen, I am not so sure. I shall go and look at WP:Manual of Style/Music and find out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Late to this: there was a move discussion a while ago, which changed from Mass in B Minor to Mass in B minor. The work is so unique - as far as I know - that you don't even have to mention the composer, there's only this one. I had the great pleasure to sing it (choir alto 1) in 2013: work in progress Mass in B minor structure. House style applies because Bach didn't name the work, only the four parts. If he had named it, would you say we should use his name, or would we have to apply house style? - I came to ask if the spelling of "Ausserhalb" in Für kommende Zeiten is a Stockhausen specialty, because otherwise it would be "Außerhalb". Thank you for the article! I think it's meaningful that "Über die Grenze" was written on 13 August, anniversary of the Berlin Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It took me a while to see the difference (capital vs lowercase "m" in "minor"). I suppose not seeing this distinction is something like being colourblind, but of course historically the difference had to do with whether you were carving an inscription in stone, or copying a poem into a papyrus scroll: there was never any question of mixing the two. How a composer names a work is not relevant to whether a title is presented in italic or roman type. I'm fairly certain that Peter Maxwell Davies (to pick one name at random) chose to title his Third Symphony "Symphony No. 3", but that doesn't make it a "true title": it still is the name of a form (or genre, if you prefer), followed by a specifier ("No. 3" in Davies's case, "B minor" in Bach's case). I have absolutely no doubt at all that other composers have written masses in B minor (however obscure they may be), just as there are masses in E-flat major, F minor, and so on.
Thank you for bringing up "Außerhalb". This is in fact a mistake and I should know better, but it has been carried on from one article to another for so long now (including yesterday's copy-and-paste from the article on Aus den sieben Tagen) that I didn't even notice it. In the score, Stockhausen used full caps (according to his preference of type design for titles of his own works): AUSSERHALB, just as on the title page the collection is FÜR KOMMENDE ZEITEN. (I suspect, but do not know for certain, that this may have been a reaction against Universal Edition's short-lived house style in the 1960s, which—contrary to tradition, all reason, and the Ordinance of God—rendered everything on score covers in lowercase except for Roman numerals, thus karlheinz stockhausen: nr. 4 klavierstück IX, for example.) Of course there is no such thing as a capital es-zet (ß), so double-S was substituted in the usual way. Someone (probably me) simply lowercased the two Ss automatically instead of engaging the brain first, whenever it was that this first happened. I shall correct this, both in the new article, and on the List of compositions by Karlheinz Stockhausen, where it is probably also given incorrectly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The lack of a capital "ß" leading to "SS" made me finally understand a while ago why we have ship articles Friedrich der Grosse (which looks atrocious/gross to a German): because on ships, all letters are capital, and then it gets to lowercase in the sources as you describe. - What do you think about Britten's A Boy was Born, - spelling, not music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I have already expressed myself on the Talk:Benjamin Britten. The guidelines are plain: First and last word, and all words in between, except for articles, conjunctions, and prepositions (of less than four letters) should be capitalized in English titles. This is the Wikipedia style manual—others do vary, but none to my knowledge arbitrarily lowercase all words of three letters or fewer, which would result in such absurdities as these (some hypothetical) titles for novels: When war Will Come, If I Should die Before I Wake, Out of the red Planet, Now Shall we go to our Destiny. The style manual used by Faber & Faber (or whoever published the Britten score) has no bearing on how titles are capitalized in other publications, any more than Stockhausen's preference for full caps or Universal Editions (former) preference for all-lowercase should do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Firebird Bird[edit]

Then why don't you see Rise of the Guardians i am pretty sure that is the same music. Byzantinefire (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should I want to see Rise of the Guardians? If as I suppose "the same music" to which you refer is Stravinsky's Firebird, what you are looking for is a reliable source, not my verification of what you are hearing. On the other hand, Firebird has been in the repertory for more than a century now, and bits of it probably have been used in hundreds of films. I don't see the point of cluttering up the Firebird article with a lsit of such trivia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well its rare to hear that theme in pop culture without Fantasia 2000 i would never have known about it and i really wish it had more references to it. Byzantinefire (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Dear Jerome,

"And" is the appropriate conjunction because it implies no relationship between harmony, rhythm, and color, which are not inherently related. "But" is inappropriate because it falsely implies that harmony, rhythm, and color cannot differ without contradiction, and "yet" is inappropriate because it implies that readers would expect a contradiction where they would expect none. Also, compromising between a correct and incorrect application of grammar's figuratively black-or-white rules commits the Golden Mean Fallacy.


PS I know that I may sound arrogant or bitter. I am neither.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 06:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC) :

Please be reassured that you sound neither arrogant nor bitter. You are, however, wrong to maintain that "interdependent" and "independent" are not opposed concepts. I am pleased to hear you say that compromising between a correct and incorrect grammatical application is unacceptable, and thank you for conceding that "and" should be replaced with "but" in the referenced construction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "independent" and "interdependent" are opposed concepts, and that if a piece of music were said to be independent and interdependent, then "but" would be the appropriate conjunction.  :) Whereas in the Conterpoint article "but" is inappropriate because it falsely implies that the statement "these pieces of music have independent harmony" contradicts the statement "these pieces of music have interdependent rhythm and color," and therefore further falsely implies that counterpunctual music cannot exist. And I did not concede that "and" should be replaced with "but". O_o If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You clearly understand that "but" is the correct conjunction in this case. Thank you for your gracious concession.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't "clearly understand that 'but' is the correct conjunction in this case," and whether I did or didn't, I don't.  :) The conjunction "but" should only be used to connect contradictory clauses. The sentence wherein you want to use "but" can be restated in (and therefore is logically equivalent to a series of) clauses: "Counterpunctual music is harmonically independent, but counterpunctual music is rhythmically and colorly independent". These two clauses are not contradictory because some music (specifically counterpunctual music) is harmonically independent and rhythmically and colorly independent. Therefore, the conjunction "but" should not be used in the sentence wherein you want to use "but".

Whereas "and" groups clauses without logical implications. If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive my attempts at levity; I was in a silly mood last night. I probably would have had no problem with your preference of conjunction, had it not been for the earlier abomination of the non-word "contourally", which I had recast the sentence in order to remove. I was concentrating so hard on the structure of the sentence that I failed to notice its content, which is at least dubious if not outright wrong. It plainly is confounding "counterpoint" with "polyphony", and then tautologically uses the latter word to explain what is meant. As it stands, the sentence may be marginally acceptable with reference to 18th-century (or "tonal") counterpoint, but the invocation of "harmony" becomes doubtful as soon as one ventures back to the modal practice of the 16th century, and the rest falls to pieces when considering still earlier contrapuntal theory and practice. Think only of organum, conductus, discant (with the related technique of "sights"), and fauxbourdon, all of which obey rules of counterpoint but/and none of which feature rhythmic independence of the parts and/but some of which also do not employ independence of melodic contour. At the very least that sentence needs a citation, though I think any decent authority would not be so incautious.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timbre may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • :<math>T3 = \frac{\sum_{h=5}^{H}{a_h}}{\sum_{h=1}^{H}{a_h}}</math> (Peeters 2003; Pollard and Jansson 1982, {{Page needed|date=December 2013}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

I realized when you thanked me for moving Time-point that you are not an admin. I believe that, if you would like, you should be (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship & Nominate). What do you think? Hyacinth (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I had just been thinking about this over the holidays. Thank you for suggesting that I apply. I presume that I may count on your support.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Definitely. Please, keep me updated so I may vote & support. Hyacinth (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I am reading the guidelines, which are a bit intimidating (probably not without good reason!). I will keep you posted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines seem vague and overly long. Having read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship the only concrete thing I've learned is that you must have an account (which you do) and be trusted. I find you trustworthy, but the guideline does not define trust. Hyacinth (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have prepared a statement in support of your adminship (which I could post to your talk page or email you first) to go along, if you wish, with your answers to the questions:

  1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
  2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
  3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Hyacinth (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Hyacinth. It is that first question that I really need to think about. Perhaps that is why I have not up to this point seriously considered Adminship: I'm not sure what administrative work I am especially interested in. I shan't take too much time over this, though at the moment there are significant non-Wikipedia demands on my time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Carmina Burana[edit]

I just read the article on Carmina Burana and made a few minor edits. I had a question about a phrase in the lead/lede and posted it on the article's Talk page. It is not exactly a musical question, but I thought you might know the answer. If you have time, would you take a look at it? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that must have been the very last article on Wikipedia that was not on my watchlist! There are some problems there, to be sure, so your concern is not misplaced. Answers may take a little longer to find.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Carl Orff[edit]

I have just started reading the article on Carl Orff, and I have two questions, both regarding the section "Early Life":

1) In the fourth paragraph in this section, we find the following sentence:

"Many of his youthful works were songs, often settings of German poetry."

I was puzzled by the phrase "often settings of German poetry". Is this correct? I had never heard songs that were "settings of" something. Aren't musical works more often "set to" passages in literary works? If I'm wrong, I will learn something new.

Upon reading the rest of the article, I found the following sentence in the fourth paragraph in the section "Musical work":

"About his Antigonae (1949), Orff said specifically that it was not an opera but rather a Vertonung, a "musical setting", of the ancient tragedy."

This seems to say that a work of music can be called "a setting" of a literary work. I guess that answers my question, to a certain extent, although I still don't know what that means, exactly.CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

2) In the fifth paragraph, we read the following sentence:

"In 1911-1912, Orff wrote Zarathustra, Op. 14, an unfinished large work for baritone voice, three male choruses and orchestra, based on a passage from Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical novel of the same title."

There is a link at "same title" to the article Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The link is, of course, all right, but what I wonder is why someone would say that the musical work by Orff called "Zarathustra" is based on a novel of the same title, when the title of the novel is "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". I think it is stretching it say that the two works have the same title. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

First, it is perfectly correct to speak of "setting words to music", and conversely songs are often described as "settings of poetry". There is therefore nothing wrong with the passages you cite. The second example obviously has a mistake in it, since there is no novel by Nietzsche titled simply Zarathustra. Unless, of course, the mistake is with the title of Orff's composition, which should probably be cross-checked. I must admit that I am not very well acquainted with Orff's music. Apart from the Carmina Burana, I have scarcely heard anything at all (the Catulli Carmina is the only exception I can think of, but I can't recall what it sounded like the single time I heard it).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I found the following in a biographical sketch of Orff on (I have no way to know whether it is the type of source that can be used on WP):
"Right from the beginning, Orff concentrated exclusively on textually related music. His aim was to combine theatre, music, dance and acting to form a single unified whole in which the rhythmical organisation of language frequently provided the compositional framework. Orff composed his first choral work (“Also sprach Zarathustra”, based on Nietzsche) and an early opera strongly influenced by Debussy entitled Gisei, das Opfer, which was completed in 1913."
This seems to show that the mention of Orff's work in the article Carl Orff as simply "Zarathustra" is incorrect. I could correct it, but I know neither whether I need to look elsewhere for a reliable source nor how to add a reference.CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That source should be sufficient, though I can always have a look at the biographical entry in New Grove. Oh, look! There it is, under "Vocal", it gives "Zarathustra, Bar, male vv, orch, 1911–12", so I guess it is not titled identically with Nietzshe's novel, according to New Grove. I would say under these circumstances that an adjustment to the article is in order.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I changed the sentence, but I wanted to ask something about the title of Neitzsche's novel. I had always heard the title as "Thus Spake Zarathustra", but the article on WP is "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". I made a link with a pipe so that it goes to that article but the title with "Spake" appears. But then I realized there were two references there, [2] and [3], and I don't know what they have listed as the title. Is it all right that I put the title of the novel that way, or should it just be "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"?CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that Nietszche did not title his novel in English (though he was unusually adept in that language, and deeply interested in English philosophers in an age when they were not widely respected or understood on the continent), there are of course several ways of rendering the German title, Also sprach Zarathustra. It is cast in a somewhat archaic style, and earlier English translators sought to reflect this by using the antiquated verb form "spake". More recent fashion in translation is not to go quite to such an extreme (which I personally feel does exceed the effect of Nietszche's German), hence the different versions. My advice would be to use the form found on the Wikipedia article, unless it is in reference to a particular edition or in a direct quotation that uses another form.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Carl Orff - The 1920s[edit]

In the section "The 1920s" in the article Carl Orff, I came across the following sentence:

"The passionately declaimed opera of Monteverdi's era was almost unknown in the 1920s, however, and Orff's production met with reactions ranging from incomprehension to ridicule."

Since I was not sure of the meaning of "declaimed", I looked it up in Wiktionary. I found three different definitions. I assume the first definition is the one meant here. However, it sounds like Monteverdi's opera was declaimed in Monteverdi's time, but I'm not sure. From the second half of the sentence, it also sounds like Orff's "Orpheus" was declaimed in the 1920s. My question is, which opera was "passionately declaimed", and when. Do we have two different operas, both disliked by their audiences? (Also, m-a-y-b-e another word could be used instead of "declaimed".)CorinneSD (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference is probably to the early Baroque operatic solo style called "monody" (the second meaning of the word, as presented in the lined article). Although this applies to Monteverdi, he was scarcely the only composer of that time to use it. The idea was to follow the natural rhythms and contours of the text, as if it were being spoken. The result must indeed have been strange to listeners in the early 20th century, at least if they were told they were listening to opera. Change the genre to "melodrama" (in the late-19th century German sense of the word) and it might have fared better. I don't think a particular opera is meant by the citation, but rather a general style of vocal writing. I haven't looked up the passage in question. Is it perhaps referring to a production of L'incoronazione di Poppea? (I vaguely recall that Orff made an arrangement of it at one point.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. In the sentence from the article that I quoted above, "Orff's production" refers to Orff's opera "Orpheus", which is his version of Monteverdi's opera "L'Orfeo". My question was about the first phrase of the sentence: "the passionately declaimed opera of Monteverdi's era", which I found to be a bit ambiguous. First, does that mean Monteverdi's opera "L'Orfeo" was "declaimed", or disliked, by his audiences? Also (and I didn't notice this before) why does it say "of Monteverdi's era" instead of simply "by Monteverdi" or "Monteverdi's [opera]"? – CorinneSD (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to look up the word "declaimed" in a dictionary. It basically means "spoken aloud", not "disliked". Perhaps you are confusing it with another word, such as "decried"? The style of the monody would gradually give way by the middle Baroque to a separation between the "declaimed" (ametrical, or "prose rhythm") style of the recitative and the "arioso" (metrical) style of the aria. Early baroque opera, to modern ears accustomed to the alternation of recitative and aria, tends to sound like "all recitative", and therefore very "dry". It doubtless refers to "Monteverdi's era" because this style was not particular to Monteverdi (nor to just one of Monteverdi's operas), but rather to opera in general at that time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the description of the two types of opera; that explains the phrase "opera of Monteverdi's era"; I understand now that it meant opera in general, not the specific Monteverdi opera that had just been mentioned. However, as I mentioned above, I did look up "declaim" in a dictionary. Here are the three definitions for "declaim" in Wiktionary:
  1. To object to something vociferously; to rail against in speech.
  2. To recite, e.g., poetry, in a theatrical way; to speak for rhetorical display; to speak pompously, noisily, or theatrically; to make an empty speech; to rehearse trite arguments in debate; to rant.
  3. To speak rhetorically; to make a formal speech or oration; specifically, to recite a speech, poem, etc., in public as a rhetorical exercise; to practice public speaking.
Now, after reading your description of the recitative-type opera of Monteverdi's era, I can see that the pertinent definition is the second one, not the first one. – CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll be hornswoggled! That first sense is one I have never come across—I stand corrected. It may be that the phrase can be edited so as to avoid this possible misunderstanding. This style is often referred to as "declamatory style", though the word "passionate" here works more gracefully with "declamation" than with "declamatory". See what you can come up with to help clarify the intended sense.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I will work on it, but before I do, I want to show you the sentence I quoted above with the sentence that appears before it in the article:
"Orff's German version, Orpheus, was staged under Orff's direction in 1925 in Mannheim, using some of the instruments that had been used in the original 1607 performance. The passionately declaimed opera of Monteverdi's era was almost unknown in the 1920s, however, and Orff's production met with reactions ranging from incomprehension to ridicule."
It would help me to know whether Orff's version of Monteverdi's L'Orfeo was largely recitative and similar in style to opera in Monteverdi's time and whether you think that was the reason "Orff's production met with reactions ranging from incomprehension to ridicule". It can't be just the use of a few old-style instruments. From reading the rest of the article, it is clear that some of Orff's works were different, creative, almost experimental, using elements of theater and dance, but I don't know if his "Orpheus" was like that, and, even if it was, whether that was the reason for the negative reactions.CorinneSD (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have no idea what Orff did with Monteverdi's material but, if he stuck basically to what Monteverdi wrote (and that seems to be the implication), then it would seem reasonable to suppose that the audience was reacting more to Monteverdi than to Orff. In 1925, that would not surprise me in the slightest. I suppose that, for his original works, Orff must have drawn on Monteverdi as a model, amongst other things. He was scarcely the only composer in those days to take inspiration from earlier music. Hindemith and Stravinsky both famously drew on earlier music, which was being rediscovered by the then-new discipline of historical musicology (and Webern was one of those musicologists, before he turned away from the academy to focus his attention on composition), and the shock of the old often exceeded the shock of the new.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Carl Orff - After World War II[edit]

In the section "After World War II" in the article Carl Orff, I could see no particular order for the works listed. They are not in chronological or in alphabetical order. Wouldn't the best order be chronological?CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The four works named there are in chronological order now. Perhaps you have already fixed this problem?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. I don't know what I saw before. Sorry.CorinneSD (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Carl Orff - Musical work[edit]

In the first paragraph in the section "Musical work" in the article on Carl Orff, we read the following sentence:

"While "modern" in some of his compositional techniques, Orff was able to capture the spirit of the medieval period in this trilogy, with infectious rhythms and simple harmonies."

I wonder whether the quotation marks around the word "modern" are necessary. I know from reading a bit later in the article that Orff made an effort to use techniques in such a way that it would be difficult to tell in which period the music was written, but isn't the truth that he did use some modern compositional techniques? I'll certainly defer to your knowledge here, though.

I made a few edits throughout the article to improve clarity and the flow of sentences. Would you mind looking at them to be sure I didn't change something incorrectly? I particularly struggled over the last sentence in the second or third paragraph in this same section, about a union of words and music. (Look at the "before" and "after".) If you have any suggestions for improvement, I'd be happy to hear or see them. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It all looks good to me, though I do see why you are concerned about that passage concerning words and music. It is not clear to me how a composer can avoid musical techniques of his own time, in order to achieve a "timeless" effect. If you use musical techniques of the past, then you achieve an effect of a past time, which is no more "timeless" than the present. Perhaps this is meant to say that he mixed together various conflicting historical techniques? This is beginning to sound like a reliable source is needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Langgaard's Music of the Spheres[edit]

Hello Mr. Kohl, I don't know if you are familiar with the Music of the Spheres by the Danish composer Rued Langgaard, but in case your are not I would like to bring it to your attention. It's quite an extraordinary work, in some cases on the cutting edge or maybe even ahead of its time. I have created an article about it. So far it's just a stub so please excuse any errors and the incompleteness of the article. I fully intend on expanding it further, but I would also like others to take part, if there is any interest. As you are one the most prominent contributors to the articles on 20th-century classical music I thought it would be appropriate to let you know about this work. --Danmuz (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to your newly created article. I'm afraid that Langgaard is only a name to me, but I shall take this opportunity to learn more about him.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope you will find something of interest. His output was very mixed, sometimes extremely conservative and backward-looking, other times ahead of its time. The Music of the Spheres belongs to the latter with his use of "pre-Ligeti" stasis-like clusters, etc. (as Ligeti himself acknowledged) --Danmuz (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The Ligeti connection alone is enough to pique my interest. It does make one wonder how well Langaard's composition was known in mid-1950s Europe, since this kind of texture is decidedly "in the air" by that time (Xenakis's "clouds", Stockhausen's "swarms"). It would be interesting to know whether Ligeti had already come upon the idea through his work with Stockhausen at WDR, and later found confirmation when he heard Langaard's piece, or if it worked the other way around, and Langaard was in some way a source for or at least an influence on the whole lot of them. Debussy's Jeux of course is acknowledged by Stockhausen as an inspiration (together with natural phenomena like swarms of bees and shoals of fish), and it is also possible that Langaard got the idea from Debussy's music. Tracing influences can be a tricky business. Thanks again for bringing my attention to Langaard.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Watch the scene and make sure I have the correct piece. It is hauntingly beautiful. It starts at about 55 seconds. I hope it makes it into the film, and is not just for the trailer. Write me back. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to you or me to verify whether or not Ligeti's composition is used there. It requires a reliable source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The trailer itself is the reference, a primary source, which we use with caution. A secondary source would determine whether it is notable. That is why I asked you to confirm it. Should I assume you are agreeing it is in fact what I have stated, or are you disagreeing, and saying I have mis-identified it the piece? That is what I was asking you to do.
OK, so I have listened/watched. If you think that is Atmosphères from about 0:55 to about 1:05, then you are sadly mistaken. Atmosphères is an orchestral composition, and the music in the trailer at that point is largely choral. Those vocal sounds are similar to parts of Ligeti's Lux aeterna, or possibly passages from his Requiem. However, that is as far as I would venture to say. The texture is easily imitated by those wishing to avoid paying royalties or risking copyright infringement. The resemblance could be accidental, purposeful, or an actual excerpt, but with little snippets like that, overlaid with electronic music and sound effects, it is impossible to say. This is why a secondary source is needed: not to determine notability, but to document what the Sound Editor actually spliced in at that point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake Lux Aeterna ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
A prime example of why reliable sources are required on Wikipedia. An expert could tell you whether what he/she hears on a film soundtrack is such-and-such a piece of music, but all editors here (including experts) are totally anonymous, at least in theory. I am not particularly expert on Ligeti but even if I were, you would want me to commit to such an opinion in print (or online in electrons) in a reliable source before you would want to invoke my name.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for all your work on that Chavez list (which I copied from Spanish Wikipedia). I note you're using the Parker book. The list of works in that book is not as good, nor accurate, nor complete as the Halffter book (which I think is the true source of this list). I also added a few items from NYPL's catalog (they hold his manuscripts). -- kosboot (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I believe that the list on Spanish Wikipedia was in turn taken from a Carlos Chávez website (no longer accessible) that had bilingual French/English (or was it French/Spanish?) pages. This might explain the odd sprinkling of English words amongst the Spanish ("piano and orquesta", etc.). I must apologize for teasing you about the scoring of the Sonata and Concerto for four horns. The Spanish word for trumpet is "trompeta", while the word for horn is "trompa". This usage dates back to the 17th century, when the two instruments were not clearly differentiated, and not only in Spanish. Somebody obviously got careless when partially translating the work list. I shall correct this and take down the "citation needed" flags. I do not know the Halffter book. Would you be so kind as to add it in a "Further reading" section in the Chávez article? I am aware of some shortcomings in Parker's book, as well as in his New Grove article based on it. Of course, it was published back in 1983, and a lot of research has been carried out since then (not least by Parker himself). I have García Morillo's biography also, though that dates back even further. For the music up to 1958, however, it is an excellent source, and avoids the linguistic self-consciousness sometimes evident in Parker. I also have the Compositores de las Américas series, but the work list there is even further out of date, though sometimes useful as a cross-check against the more up-to-date lists, and occasionally provides details not easily available elsewhere. I hadn't thought of consulting the NYPL catalog, but should have done. I think LoC holds some of his manuscripts also (or should do), unless they were transferred to NYPL at some point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Tone row licenses[edit]

Would you consider depictions of tone rows in notation or in audio form as owned by the creator of the depiction, fair use, public domain as ineligible for copyright, or what? Hyacinth (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you getting static from the Copyright Police on Wikimedia Commons again? I am no lawyer, but I don't see how a tone row can be copyrighted, any more than a common chord progression can be (say, I–IV–V–I). I should think that the principle of "common material" would come into play: the basis for the rejection of a claim of copyright infringement against Vangelis in a famous case involving Chariots of Fire and a Greek television soap-opera called City of Violets—the judge effectively said that neither score contained anything original, despite manifest similarities between the two. Audio presentation of a tone row also seems to me quite a different thing from performing an actual composition, with rhythms, orchestration, pitch registers, etc. As an example, I might mention the "wedge" row, which has been used by any number of composers over the years, without (as far as I am aware) ever being the subject of copyright infringement lawsuits from, say, the estate of Alban Berg against Luigi Nono. For that matter, I do not believe that Nono either sought or obtained permission to use the row from Schoenberg's Op. 41 in his Variazioni canoniche. However, as I have already said, I am not a lawyer, and have no experience as an expert witness in copyright cases, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think courts/judges would differ on where the boundary lies between common-property patterns that are either already ubiquitous technically or lack distinctive elaboration that would comprise their "art" (the second would be at issue here). The "distinctiveness" argument seems hard to argue for a raw tone row without musical context. Tony (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I had gotten notices for local files including File:Berg's Lyric Suite Mov. I tone row B-P.mid, which I had listed either as fair-use or as PD because of date. However, based on this discussion I have created Template:PD-tone row. Hyacinth (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds so eminently sensible that it is bound to provoke trouble from the petty-minded and unreasonable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of jazz-influenced classical compositions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Actions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Béla Bartók[edit]

Hi Jerome, I would like to know why you reverted my recent changes on Bartók page. If I recollect rightly, good manners should call for a notice to the editor before undoing his work. Waiting to hear about your reasons, your lack of tact calls now for a second reversion. Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Carlotm: As I explained in my edit summary, your edit violated a rather firm guideline at WP:CITEVAR. I presume from the tone of your message that you have not yet read that guideline. As far as I am aware, it is not customary on Wikipedia to consult an editor prior to making such a correction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"good manners should call for a notice to the editor before undoing his work."—that's taking out the "bold" from WP:BB. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Toccata, but I do not find that quotation at the source you cite. While the sentiment is sound, I find it ironic that I have recently modeled my edit summaries on the ones you yourself use: including links to the relevant guidelines, in order to save time. I suppose in each case you have previously placed a notice on the editor's Talk page, warning them of what you are about to do. This is admirable politeness, but I'm afraid if I did this myself, I would scarcely have time left to edit anything at all. If it had been a matter of disputed substance, I would have made an exception, but when it is a question of clear violation of formatting guidelines (of which in this case Carlotm was obviously not aware), it seems to me that an edit-summary notice should be sufficient. Please tell me if I am out of line with preferred editorial practice on Wikipedia here; my experience so far indicates otherwise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I misunderstood you to be citing WP:BB, when in fact you were citing Carlotm's message, above. This puts an entirely different light on things. My apologies, and I withdraw my testier remarks, while standing by the rest.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Suddenly a guideline becomes firm; you decide that? I thought everything has to be taken and given cum grano salis. Are not “common sense” and “occasional exceptions” allowed anymore in Wikipedia? How dare you quash another's work, quite long and nasty, not even looking into it. Oh yes, you have no time. So, please, take some time instead and tell me in the specific if what I did did improve the page, because that should be your first obligation. Don't you agree that parenthetical referencing is painful and difficult to use on long and complex pages? Going down and up the page again and again looking for the full explanations. Oh my god, I breached a WP:CITEVAR guideline. Oh my god.
In reality, the two citation styles are quite close, the only difference being that some medium specific advantage was added, that's the hyperlink beauty, allowing one's fast movement around long pages without losing the thread of his mind. Isn't that fabulous? I am pretty sure that the main editor of the page will totally agree with me. Isn't good that some jobbers are doing the dirty work? So, even tough nothing changed in the substance of the page, there was an improvement in its readability. Or not? Your rude and reckless behavior can be quite dangerous, the danger being that everything in Wikipedia is kept frozen to death, that “reverting drives away editors”.
Please, take a look at WP:ROWN. I know, an ideologist like you will pinpoint right away that's not the law. Still ….:
  • “you should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time”
  • “a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement”
  • “Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo. …....In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.”
  • “Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor.”
I still call for you to revert your reversion. Otherwise I'll do myself.
Another question. I noticed lately that you are following me like a shadow in my small editorial operations. It is quite stressful to find your changes within minutes of my changes. Nobody likes stalkers and I am not an exception. So please take three steps back from me, oops, three days, at least three hours, and make sure that, by correcting my errors, for which I tank you much, you don't incur in your own errors. Try to be helpful.Carlotm (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth (and it does not sound like you are actually very interested in hearing my explanation), you are of course entirely free to revert my edit. I shall then revert your edit, you will revert mine, and so on. This is called an "edit war", and is one of the most fruitless exercises possible on Wikipedia. It is for this reason that it is strictly forbidden, and avoiding it is the reason for implementing WP:CITEVAR. This was the result of many months—even years—of debate concerning a standard reference format for Wikipedia. One underlying principle here is that of civility. Accusations of bad faith, bias, or punishing other editors (as you seem to be doing here) are difficult to reconcile with the notion of civility. I suggest you re-read what you just wrote, and ask yourself if you are really trying to carry on a productive discussion here, or are you instead trying to provoke me.
As to your other question, I have only noticed a single other edit of yours, which involved a much more minor reconfiguration of references in the article on Edgard Varèse. I corrected this following a standard used in English-language publications of which you are evidently unaware (the original publication is cited when accessible, and reprints are given generally as a courtesy to readers who may find them easier to access). It is hardly the "big deal" you seem to feel it is. I am sorry if I have offended you, but I can assure you this is in no way "stalking". If you will care to check my own edit history, you will discover the subjects and specific articles I am most concerned with. These are heavily weighted toward music articles, particularly those involving 20th-century European composers. It is hardly surprising that Bartók and Varèse are both on my watchlist. If you believe I am in some way violating the code of behaviour expected of editors on Wikipedia, then there are mechanisms for formally voicing your displeasure and requesting the intercession of higher authorities. That is your right and your privilege. However, I believe you will be disappointed in the result.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly after 21 min of my changes you posted yours. Considering 10-15 min for reading the page and writing down your novelties, it means that after only few minutes of my posting you were on Edgard Varèse page. Just by chance? Please. Don't hide your hand after the stone was thrown. There is some irony in all this. The staunch defender of the law, is the one that breach it at will. I am quite sure, stalking is not in the Wikipedia etiquette. About the specifics, try to assume that maybe there are reasons why usage has not been followed. In fact, with your changes, the reader will be amazed not to find the right quote in the given linked Google page, which is much easier to reach than a journal printed in 1966. And that's because the page numbers are not the same. But these are minutiae you don't care for. Facilitating the reader and giving him a fruitful reading experience seems not to be on your screen.
On the main topic, which pertain exactly the same question, I am very glad you dressed up with sheep clothes. Still your wolf teeth are shining when you write “or are you instead trying to provoke me”. My dear mister Jerome, you were the provoker here and I gave you already a clear explanation of my opinion about all this. To which you can only suggest that we have to wage war. I may misinterpret Wikipedia guidelines, and the ubiquitous text box saying that “guideline is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply”. Imagine this scenario.
Dear Carlotm, I am glad you contributed to Béla Bartók page, and I tank you for that. However you breached the WP:CITEVAR guideline. If for me, I would revert your work, but, maybe, that's too harsh, given the time you certainly spent on it. So I'd like to reach some consensus and ask for more input from others. Sure Jerome - I would have replied - I only pray you, in case of a revert, let me handle it. I'd like to save the restored links as well as the new ones. It will be easier for me to do that.
This, I think, is civility. Anyway, don't worry, far for my mind to wage war to anybody.
As a last resort, I'll post a message on the Béla Bartók discussion page in hope of exciting some reaction from other editors. If it fails, I quit. It's sad to admit such a behavioral failure, but I cannot accept the reckless and hostile doings of yours. Carlotm (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To Carlotm: I just read your comment here, and then the exchange of comments before it. I am not by any means an expert in music, so I cannot judge the merits of either of your views. However, I can express my opinion on the tone of your comment. I am amazed at the tone of your comment. First of all, if you read Jerome Kohl's User page, you will see that not only has he made thousands of edits on Wikipedia over quite a few years, he has a Ph.D. (that is, a doctorate) in music and is a published author in his field. Also, in the few exchanges I have had with him on various articles, he has not only been invariably polite but also generous in explaining the reasons for his edits and his decisions about others' edits and material in articles. He is extremely knowledgeable about many topics, particularly those related to music, and he writes very well. He is also thoughtful and not dogmatic in his replies. I also believe he is open-minded. We are lucky to have someone of his caliber and someone so pleasant and generous as he is to help with editing on Wikipedia. He absolutely deserves everyone's respect.
Regarding your feeling that Jerome Kohl might be stalking you and too closely monitoring the same articles you are working on, you need to think about it in a different way: there may be ten, twenty, a hundred editors watching the same articles you are. Every time a change is made to an article, it appears on their watchlist. If they are interested, they take a look at the changes that have just been made. As Jerome explained, just because he made an edit to an article just after you had made one does not mean that he is stalking you. It just means that he is interested in, and watching, the same article and happens to be working on WP at the same time you are.

If someone reverts an edit, it is customary to provide an edit summary briefly to explain the edit. If you don't agree with it, rather than revert, start a discussion on the article's Talk page. Three things might happen:

1) By providing reasons and/or citing additional sources, you may succeed in persuading the other editor(s) that you are right;
2) the other editor may succeed in persuading you that he or she is right; or
3) through discussion, you may reach a consensus that involves further changes and compromises.

I think you should step back, re-read what has already been written, reconsider your own reactions, and adopt a new attitude. Try to discuss ideas and possible changes to articles in a courteous manner and in a spirit of collaboration. Your ideas and contributions are certainly welcome, and you will see that your ideas will be respected if you show respect toward others. I also urge you to be open to learning something new from other editors such as Jerome Kohl.CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the eloquent testimonial, CorinneSD. I am humbled by your comments, and only hope I can live up to your generous opinion. I hope this makes an impression on Carlotm, so that a productive discussion may follow over on Talk:Béla Bartók.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Was not ironic.[edit]

Was not ironic, mostly lost. Here I am with a good pic that can be fine somewhere, an no idea where. Just thought this is a great pic with geat feeling in it, maybe you know a better place for it? Hafspajen (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Das Hofkonzert. Rudolf Alfred Höger (1877-1930)
The irony that I see in that painting is two-fold. On the one hand, the term "Romanticism" was first applied to music by E. T. A. Hoffmann, with particular reference to the later works of Haydn, as well as the music of Mozart and Beethoven. By this measure, the subject of the painting is only just a little too early, since the costumes and furniture appear at first glance to be more Louis XV than anything else. On the other, the painter is not a Romantic artist, having not even been born until 1877, a good decade after even the most generous art historians regard that period to have ended. A third aspect, however, is that the artist is obviously indulging in nostalgia for a distant past (that is to say, from a time before even his grandfather can have provided a first-hand account) which is one of the leading traits of 19th-century Romanticism in literature, painting, and even music (in the Cecilian Movement, for example)—though of course this trait is also found more recently, for example in certain later manifestations of musical historicism such as those espoused by the Delian Society.
The problem that I see with placing it where you did is primarily that it represents musical practice from a time earlier than is usually considered part of the Romantic era. This is liable to confuse the reader, who may be led to suppose that Romantic music begins with Telemann, Handel, and Bach. If properly explained by surrounding text, the nostalgia for a past that never existed might well suit the article on musical historicism. The Cecilian Movement, on the other hand, regarded Bach and Mozart as far too modern, and wished to push music history back to the time of Palestrina or earlier, though Höger is contemporary with the second and third generations of that movement, which was German in origin.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite so. Can you find a better place for it, please? Hafspajen (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have already suggested the possibility of adding it to the Musical historicism article, though that would require some explanatory text. The best place for it, of course, would be in an article on the artist himself, but there is no such article at present. I know nothing at all about him, so this would be best done by an art historian with a specialty in late-19th/early-20th century Austrian art. Perhaps the article on the German wikipedia could be translated for the purpose?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we might need a translator, yes. Gerda Arendt, maybe. She can make that to a DYK, too. I like the athmosphere, people before they didn't had TV, CD, radio - just had to get together and play music if they wanted to listen to it. It was a different world. This picture shows a different world, a forgotten world when people seaked the companionship of the others; this way. Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If that is all that attracted you to this picture, then there are plenty more for you to enjoy, many of them painted by artists of the period depicted, and so are a much truer representation. For example this, or this or even this (though the last one was painted by an artist who cannot have known the subject personally). What strikes me about this picture by Höger now is how inauthentic it appears. The artist must have based its details on older paintings he had seen in museums, much as historicist composers base their music on old scores, without being able to work from direct experience of the period in which the events took place. As a result, there is an uneasy feeling about just where and when this scene might be (Vienna? Paris? Berlin? 1714? 1743? 1786?). This has a fascination all its own, of course, and a work of art created according to these methods is not necessarily to be condemned simply because it did not originate in the period being represented. Painters of many periods, for example, have depicted Biblical scenes without ever having witnessed them at first hand, and a composer of the stature of Bruckner (for example) may be counted on to create superb music, even when imitating masters of an earlier age, as he did in many of his sacred works. The evident nostalgia, however, for a time not actually in the artist's experience is not unlike trying to paint an imagined remote future Utopia, when "things will have gotten better". It is, in short, a denial of the artist's own time—a wish to escape from it by retreating into fantasy. This makes me curious to learn a little more about Höger: is this painting characteristic of his output, or is it exceptional in his catalogue? What were his models? Was it perhaps commissioned to the taste of a patron? Was it a student exercise, or a mature work? Was he a solitary figure, or one amongst many artists of his time with these interests?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Lovely pictures above. And. How clever of you to notice that nostalgia. Rudolf Alfred Höger indeed lived 1877-1930, that is one explanatiom why it is so hard to place. Yes, it does raise a lot of questions. Rudolf-Alfred-Hoeger Hoeger Motifs de:Rudolf Alfred Höger, - past-auction-resultsHafspajen (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Weird coincidence[edit]

I can't believe you edit conflicted with me at exactly that moment, on exactly that detail -- made me laugh out loud -- the date for Dufay is precisely known but there is other uncertainty. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can hardly believe that I finally got there ahead of you for once! I can't tell you how many times (on Dufay as well as other articles with similar issues) I have tried to correct such a detail, only to be greeted by "EDIT CONFLICT" and discover you had already made the correction I was trying to make. I feel so smug that I beat you to it at last. Wikipedia ought to have a special edit function to enable an editor to say "Snap!" in such circumstances!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Baroque Music[edit]

Monsieur Kohl,

I have absolutely no problem with your reverting me on the *barocque* orthography, but do have a problem in being put in the *possible vandal* category! What brings me here now is that, after your revert, I put a hidden note by the word *barocque*, asking that a more precise reference be given the quote by adding a page number to it. This daring action brought the immediate wrath of a Bot upon my head with, again, the suspicion of vandalism. At this point, I do not know if I should be angry or amused, and opt for the latter... anger can come later if it becomes impossible to touch an article without becoming a suspect. Please read below the note I left at ClueBot's discussion page. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why ClueBot reverted my last comment at Baroque Music article: my comment was a hidden question & a suggestion very politely addressed & signed, concerning the source of the word *baroque* spelled *barocque* in a 1734 text:

"Is the quote "c'est du *barocque* found in the 2001 New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians? If so, then the page number is needed (Blue Indigo)"

I do not see how my using the correct orthography, then the following day adding a hidden comment after being reverted can be considered acts of vandalism!

Also, please note that I did not revert the correction brought by Jerome Kohl, but only added that hidden comment.

Should you take the time to look at the various changes/corrections etc. I have brought to articles for the little time I have been on Wikipedia (English & French), I do not think you will find much vandalism or even many mistakes.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cher Monsieur Indigo: How bizarre! I suppose this is another of the strange events to which one eventually becomes used on Wikipedia. They are usually produced by "bots" (as in this case) which, lacking human guidance, make judgments based on mathematical algorithms. I have occasionally experienced similar things myself. A polite note on the bot controller's page usually produces an apology, and general laughter all round. As for the request for a page number from New Grove, although it can be provided, it is not usual to cite page numbers from dictionary and encyclopedia articles, since these are rarely more than three or four pages long, and are located alphabetically within their volumes. For what it is worth, the context of the passage (taken from the Grove Online version, which lacks page numbers entirely) reads:

This occurs in a satirical letter prompted by the première of Rameau’s Hippolyte et Aricie in Paris in October 1733, printed in the Mercure de France in May 1734 (‘Lettre de M*** à Mlle*** sur l’origine de la musique’, pp.868–70). The anonymous author covertly implied that what was new in the opera was ‘du barocque’ and complained that the music lacked coherent melody, was unsparing in dissonances, constantly changed key and metre, and speedily ran through every compositional device.

Ideally, I think the page reference from the Mercure de France would be more useful, but we are rightly cautioned not to cite sources at second hand, and I have not checked to see whether a facsimile or modern edition of the Mercure is available. Besides, the actual word "barocque" cannot physically occur on more than two of the three mentioned pages. Let me have a look and see whether the bot also treats me as a vandal, when I restore your perfectly valid editorial comment!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Cher Monsieur Kohl - Breathing a sigh of relief learning that my so-called vandalism was not the result of judgment by a human being, but that of a (ro)bot - although the idea of being supervised & wrongly-labeled by brainless non-beings sounds dangerous for the future of human rights...
A quick search for the year 1734 brought me here: Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb: Unfortunately, not May, but June 1734 came up, so I could not find the exact quote. When I have more time, I will try Gallica bibliothèque numérique de la BNF. However, by now, I am certain that we can all live without that detail.
Thank you for your courteous response.
--Blue Indigo (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It was my pleasure entirely. It is not often one is offered an opportunity like that (see below)! Please let me know if you succeed in finding online access to that issue of Mercure de France. I should like to read the entire diatribe against Rameau which, to judge from the New Grove citations, sounds as if it must be very funny indeed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Out-botting the bot[edit]

Your latest edit summary was pretty funny. What a pity bots have no sense of humour. :-) Contact Basemetal here 00:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know—there are some rather funny bots around, I think. (Besides, I believe I have had cause before to communicate with ClueBot NG's remote operator, who seems aware that a machine can sometimes prove to be almost as imperfect as a human being! In any case, thanks for letting me know you got a chuckle from my edit summary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Monsieur, You've got 2 chuckles! As long as humans have wit, machines will not win. Thank you. --Blue Indigo (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Dukas family background[edit]

Trophy.png Paul Dukas family background
Please stop deleting information on the family background of Paul Dukas and the origin of this Byzantine Greek family name, it throws light on who he is and on his diverse musical influences. Greek and Balkan/Ottoman Jewry is part of the rich heritage of Paul Dukas. When editing Wikipedia articles none of us should even unwittingly succumb to the preferences of extremist francophile snobs or closet anti-Semites who prefer to conceal or downplay the Jewish family histories of people like Paul Dukas who have contributed immensely to European culture and thought.
 A Gounaris (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If you will kindly provide a reliable source that suggests there may be a connection between Paul Dukas and this Byzantine Greek family (instead of saying just the opposite: that there has never been any research along those lines), then I will cheerfully refrain from reverting your edits. I think it is an interesting line of inquiry, but Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. For what it is worth, I am no francophile (though neither am I francophobe), nor am I an anti-Semite, closet or otherwise. I will thank you to retract these entirely unfounded and offensive accusations against my person and character.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of this?[edit]

What do you think of the following: "Greek and foreign historians agree that the ecclesiastical tones and in general the whole system of Byzantine music is closely related to the ancient Greek system"?

It is found in the lead of Byzantine music and it's been there since November 10 2007 (

As far as I know it is nonsense, but I thought I'd check with you.

Contact Basemetal here 14:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am neither a Greek nor a foreign historian, so I cannot speak from personal experience. I think that musicologists and music-theory historians are very skeptical on this subject. Although there are points of similarity (tetrachordal construction, for example), there are also stark differences. The theoretical and practical presence of tonal centers, organization into a system of eight modes (echoi) with plagal/authentic pairs, and lack of a system of transposition levels (not to mention the comparative rigidity of modal types in practice) are all traits of the Byzantine system not present in Ancient Greek music. However, if there is a reliable source saying that all historians agree on this point, then I have no quibble with that claim. In the absence of such a source, I would tag that sentence with a {{Cn}} flag, and see if anyone can come up with support for it. Of course, simply removing the word "closely" would probably resolve the entire problem (a bit like "mostly harmless" in the revised edition of the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy?).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
And it should be "are closely related," not "is closely related": "...the ecclesiastical tones and...the whole system....are closely related to...." – CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Pedant! ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, for grammar nerds, this is our bread and butter. We have to compete with content nerds: "tetrachordal construction...transposition levels...." CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, have you seen this? [3] It works in Google Chrome; gives only a description in Internet Explorer. CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen that before. I think I've still got Internet Explorer 5.1 on my machine (the last version before it was abandoned in 2001), and Google Chrome is not available yet for my operating system (OS-X 10.4), though we live in hope. Safari produces an image of changing bubbles, with titles of Wikipedia articles in them. Scrolling down, I find a description (perhaps the one you mention for IE). I gather it is intended to produce beeps or something, every time an edit is made to an Wikipedia article. Someone deserves a round of applause for devising such a useful thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, the beeps you mentioned are not beeps. They are delicate chimes in different tones, one per bubble, that evoke images of a medieval cloister, a Zen temple, and futuristic music. It's not very useful, but it is mesmerizing. CorinneSD (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the inaccurate term, which was based solely on what I had read. I do not ordinarily have the sound activated on my computer, since the output is too soft to hear properly, unless I plug in an external amplifier. Something tells me (from the context of cloisters and temples) that when you use the word "futuristic" you mean something more like new age than futurism. There really are very few things as funny as looking at old predictions of what the future will be—though the occasional accurate forecast can be chilling.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
(Back to Byzantium)
The webpage given as a source does not seem to amount to much.
When you say "there are points of similarity (tetrachordal construction, for example)", are those genetic, inherited similarities, due to Byzantine music being a continuation of ancient Greek music, as the lead of the article I mentioned also implies in another sentence?
Or do they happen to share similarities formally (if that's the right word), like for example Arabic music which also features tetrachordal construction, without anyone implying, as far as I know, that there is any relation of descent between ancient Greek music and Arabic music?
I'm asking this because I'm trying to figure out if we're dealing with a nationalist agenda that doesn't care about scholarship or with a person that's genuinely interested in scholarship, but is in good faith contributing what they honestly believe are valid alternative opinions.
As far as I have read, and of course I have read very little about any of this, Byzantine music descends from a Syriac tradition that has nothing to do with classical ancient Greek music, that Byzantine music is not a continuation of ancient Greek music, that there was a clear discontinuity.
Have I been misled? What is the scholarly opinion on this matter?
Contact Basemetal here 11:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It sounds to me as if you are much better-informed on the subject than I am. Unfortunately, the Byzantine segment was skipped when I took History of Music Theory back in grad school, and I never did catch up on this. There is one evidently very well-informed editor, User:Platonykiss, who has contributed an enormous amount of information to the octoechos article. You might ask his opinion, which would certainly be worth a great deal more than my own. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the practice of music and its theory are two very different things. If (as seems plausible) Ancient music of the Eastern Mediterranean basin (and even further afield) shared many stylistic traits, and furthermore was very diverse over time and even at the same time within one ethnic group (which we know to be true from several ancient writers, including Plato), then it is likely that the actual basis of scales, rhythms, and melodic types was part of a common heritage, and/or a product of mutual cross influence. The job of the theorist is ordinarily to try to make order out of the diversity of experience. While theory may in turn shape subsequent musical practice, it does not put a patent on how musicians may create their art. It is therefore not beyond the bounds of reason to suppose that music of the Greek, Persian, Syriac, and other traditions shared a great deal, so that for example when Arabic music theorists beginning in the 8th or 9th century discovered and translated Ancient Greek sources, they found many similarities with—but also many important differences from—what they perceived in the music of their own time. There is nothing mysterious in this, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that something in the long history of Ancient Greek musical practice might have trickled down into the Arabic music of a later millennium, even if other sources were more immediate and of a significantly different nature. Byzantine music, of course, is geographically and temporally more proximate to the Ancient Greeks, and so the hypothesis may be considered stronger, without however incorporating any claim of direct lineage.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for these clarifications. I will ask Platonykiss what he thinks of that contribution and of the value of the reference provided. Maybe I was influenced by "A history of Byzantine music and hymnography". I remember when discussing the Hymn to the Holy Trinity, Wellesz, who took the view that work was in the lineage of Byzantine music rather than ancient Greek tradition, despite it being notated in the ancient Greek so-called vocal notation, was stressing heavily its differences with the few relics of genuine ancient Greek music that have come down to us, and more generally the differences between the two musical cultures, Byzantine and ancient Greek. Since that book is more than 50 years old I thought I would update my opinions by asking professionals here. If find it very hard to navigate the topic and to assess what's current scholarly consensus. I don't think there's been a general overview since 1960 and Wellesz's must really be outdated by now. Not to mention assessing the value of the available discography. There seems to also be a lot of "noise" out there surrounding these questions. Thanks again. Cheers. And please, more humorous edit summaries:-) Contact Basemetal here 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Trophy.png Apologies
Understood. You're right, these are unfounded speculations on Paul Dukas' family origins and so probably shouldnt be edited into this article. Apologies if I gave the impression I was accusing you of being a francophile snob or closet anti-semite, you obviously arent - I should have chosen my words more carefully. All the best A Gounaris (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Your very gracious apology is accepted. I should like to repeat: if you are able to find a reliable source for a possible link between Paul Dukas and this Byzantine ancestral line, then please feel free to re-establish the claim on Dukas's biographical article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


I noticed that an editor added a large amount of material to the article on Goliard. While it seems generally well-written, and there is a reference, I wonder whether too much was taken from one source, whether there are enough specific references for all that material, and whether any of it was original writing. I know you are much better able to judge these things than I am. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I briefly examined that article when you called my attention earlier to the article on the Carmina Burana, but I shall take a closer look now. Sometimes a single source has nearly all of the best information in it, and so there may be nothing wrong it relying heavily upon it, even though Wikipedia guidelines warn against this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello Jerome, could you take a look at Benedetto Marcello. I added a link pointing to a disambiguation page Flautino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver), but I have no idea what kind of instrument was used. You probably can fix this. Kind regards, Taksen (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Flautino can mean any of several small recorders, but New Grove identifies it in this case as a soprano.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Manfred Bukofzer does not have any detail on the operas by Veracini. I am not surprised because he was accused of a German bias. (Music in the Baroque era, p. 234-5.) By the way I used to work for quite a few years with the mother of Kathinka Pasveer and heard stories from her when Light was performed in the Scala. I met Kathinka (and Stockhausen) once in Berlin where she performed one of his works. I don't remember any title. One work was with a saxophone, and Stockhausen, controlled the electronics. I was invited by a member of Calefax. May be you like to check their website [4]. They have a lot of success here. Taksen (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite apart from any German bias, Bukofzer's book was published more than sixty years ago, at a time when Veracini was scarcely known outside of some very rarified Italian circles. Newman's landmark books on the history of the sonata were probably what first brought Veracini to the attention of the English-speaking world in particular, and the musicological community in general, but these were not written or published until long after Bukofzer's book. And to be fair, Bukofzer devotes almost all of his chapters about the early history of baroque opera to Italy. One thing about German musicologists is that, as soon as they are finished defending the honour of German music, they catch the first train to Italy to enjoy the sunshine—and, in order to justify this as a business expense, they put in some hours in the archives of Italian libraries. You won't find them doing this much for, say, Polish or Norwegian music. Thanks for the anecdote about Stockhausen and Kathinka. The saxophone work was probably the arrangement of Amour, though it could have been the excerpt from Der Jahreslauf titled simply Saxophone. Of course, I do not imagine for a moment that Kathinka performed this!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I worked on the article, fixed some of your comments, but then discovered you and someone else changed the text, so I saved my work in the sandbox. Take a look. I added some pictures and details on the coronation, the wedding of the crown prince, on the jump, on the Stainer violins. I am tired; it is bed time here.Taksen (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that all of this information is found (in a succinct form) in Hill's 1979 biography. (For example, I recall the story about Charles VI's coronation, but what I remember is that it was a violin concerto, not a concerto grosso that was performed. I am still working on this.) One of the websites which you cited proved to be a cut-and-paste copy of another website, which is turn was a cut-and-paste copy of Hill, word-for-word, right down to idiosyncratic typographical details. That earlier website was taken down, possibly because of this copyright violation, but an archive copy still exists. It is very important under these circumstances to cite the original source, attributing the information to its actual author, rather than to some anonymous entity. This is a constant danger when relying on websites (which are not all reliable sources, and may dishonestly or inaccurately portray both themselves as authors and the subjects about which they write), and the only remedy is to investigate all sources thoroughly. Hill is still the most respected source in English, though it has been a long time since his research was done, and so it must be consulted as the starting point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benedetto Marcello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recorder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Paul Dukas' muddle: c'est la faute à Maurice Ravel ![edit]


Could not miss the Paul Dukas argumentation on his name & origin, and thought this may interest you

The book's title: Paul Dukas, authors: Perret & Ragot, publisher: Fayard, 2007

Please go to chapter I, Origines familiales & premières années (1865-1875); first paragraph, first sentence and on. There you will find Maurice Ravel's quip about Dukas' ancestry, followed by the history of the "recensement" of Jews in France from end of 18th century, plus the fact that Jews had to choose a surname, and how Paul Dukas' great-grandfather changed his to Dukas, but not that of his infant son who had been declared at birth under the name of Dockes.

Allusions of Paul Dukas' being a descendant of Byzantine-Greek aristocrats could well be a result of Ravel's joke.

Cordially, --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. Unfortunately, GoogleBooks does not offer a preview, so I shall have to locate a copy of this book in a library.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Paul Dukas' muddle: c'est la faute à Maurice Ravel ![edit]

Trophy.png The Paul Dukas' muddle: c'est la faute à Maurice Ravel !
Ah no! I contributed edits on Paul Dukas' family background and suggested - without any references or evidence to back it up - that his father Jules Dukas may have had a Greek Jew descendant originally from Ottoman-era Greek Macedonia. I thought Ottoman-Greek Jews might have adopted the name Dukas/Doukas under the INFLUENCE of their Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox neighbours. This MIGHT explain why there were and still are other Jewish families in Britain, France and Austria-Hungary who bear the name Doukas/Dukas, since many Jews from Ottoman-era Greek Macedonia are known to have immigrated to these countries. But this idea is really only an interesting line of inquiry and not historical fact.

It is important to emphasize that even among most of those Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox families from Epirus, Greek Macedonia and elsewhere in northern Greece - where the late Byzantine Doukai and Komneno-Doukai were most active - who have Doukas/Dukas as a surname (or additional surname) VERY FEW of these will even claim descent from the Byzantine-era noble family. Most of those especially northern Greek families who have the name Doukas/Dukas in the final or middle position do so simply because an earlier ancestor probably adopted it for prestige reasons. Modern Greece has not maintained a living aristocratic tradition, not just because the end of the 1967-74 military dictatorship led to the deposition of the Greek monarchy (which in any case was not indigenous to Greece) but because Byzantine Greek aristocrats in the Ottoman period tended to marry into the Ottoman ruling family or the noble families of Christian Orthodox Russia and elsewhere in Europe. Hope this helps those interested in the name Dukas/Doukas. Thanks. A Gounaris (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Francesco Maria Veracini may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 20Veracini&f=false] The Cyclopædia: Or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature]'', Volume 36.{{Full|date=February 2014}}<!--Year (this is not actually published without a date),

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Flying Editman[edit]

Sorry for the template removal...I mistakenly thought it was for the supernatural phenomena and not the opera! I was in the process of redirecting all opera links to the opera and not the legend. Sorry again :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem! It seemed so odd that the template retained the link to the article, even after the template was no longer there. Now I understand what was going on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Time point[edit]

Face-smile.svg You're welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Kentaro Sato[edit]

I'm leaving this on your talk page since the discussion at Hyacinth's has moved beyond what properly belonged there.

I've put some data I've collected about Kentaro Sato here to try and better evaluate notability.

Could you tell me what you think? Should I withdraw the nomination for deletion?

Note this is all raw web data. Not all the data has been factually checked by me and from what I could check part did check out and part didn't.


Contact Basemetal here 05:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, poor Hyacinth. We rather hijacked his talk page, didn't we? He is characteristically laconic in the extreme, and so our rather loquacious exchange very nearly tripled the traffic there in a matter of days.
I don't know what to think about the Sato article's merits, but I do not recommend withdrawing the nomination for deletion. As I said previously, I hope that the editors responsible for that article are able to answer your charges with better sources, but it is a well-justified challenge. I will take a look at your compiled data, which may change my mind about this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Transposition at sight[edit]

Called it "hellish" as requiring fluency in all clefs. Students here (everybody including strings, bassoon, timpani; not sure about voice with their "solfège pour chanteurs" rather than the regular classes) had to sing solfeggios (such as Lemoine) with one clef change per bar. If one isn't able to do it my own beotian method of choice would be by "scale degree" rather than "interval". How did you become fluent in all clefs? Contact Basemetal here 21:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I learned clefs gradually, and according to need. As for most non-keyboardist musicians, I expect, treble clef was where I started. Being a clarinetist, the most useful clefs after this were tenor and alto (for transposing A and C clarinet parts on B-flat clarinet). Bass clef of course became necessary at about the same time, perhaps even a little earlier. It was only when I began playing recorders (and other "early" instruments) that things really got under way. In the end, what motivated me most, I suppose, was an eagerness to read more music without having to go through the process of transcription. It does not take very long sight-reading from facsimile editions to begin to realise that there are actually only seven notes than can belong to a given staff line, so already knowing four clefs means there are only three others to learn. Throw into the mix woodwinds that finger most often in four different basic scales (so-called F-, C-, G-, and D-fingerings), and it is a very short step to simply checking where your fingers need to start, and the diatonic intervals surrounding that point. Once I reached this stage, I stopped even thinking about key signatures most of the time—knowing where the "mi-fa" points are is sufficient (unless you are playing twelve-tone music, of course!). Now, I agree that changing clefs every bar is a bit extreme. Not many composers are sadistic enough to actually require this of performers, and the ones who do probably don't get many of their pieces played.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You've learned it hands on by practicing transposing with your instrument and at your own pace rather than going through what those poor guys have to lest they fail their end of year tests. Those pieces with one change of clef per bar are not published music. They're exercises in solfeggios such as the "Solfège des solfèges" of Henri Lemoine and not all are like that. You may take a look the S. des s. some time if you're curious as it is now on the net. The idea of aiming at this kind of fluency is supposedly that if, for example, you're a conductor and have to jump in the score from the B-flat trumpet to the French horn to the flute in G you have to mentally "change clef" fast. When you answer this whole business of not writing all parts at concert pitch in the conductor's score is what's insane, you're told surreal stuff like that the conductor has to speak to the French horns "in their own language", that is in F, and so has to see their part the way they see it. As if it weren't saner he switch to "talking in F" when he addresses the French horns rather than having to have in front of him constantly a part he's got to mentally transpose. Our friend Kentaro Sato (remember him?:) who, though Japanese, is a product of the American musical education system, thinks preliminary training in Europe and Japan is unreasonable: see a statement I found while rummaging through his website for hints of notability. Funny thing, he slightly reworded the statement from the 10th to the 11th, I don't know why. I would tend to side with him on that, if I felt I really knew what I was talking about. And there've been other crazy things in music education in France and Belgium in the past 200 years, e.g. the fixed-do system, I had to undergo 5 years of that and I still don't understand how such an idiotic system is possible. Since I've got you on the line, do you remember a minor piece by Stockhausen where he uses an equal temperament of the 12th into 19 equal parts (19th root of 3)? Contact Basemetal here 00:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's always best to learn things when you can see the need. I can well imagine how pointless those tests must have seemed to the poor slobs who had to pass them. I do know that those test pieces were not "real music". That was just my point. If your are going to read 17th-century viola da gamba music (for example), you may expect to have to change clefs a few times per page. Perhaps an exercise requiring twenty or thirty clef changes in the same space will make reality seem easy by comparison, but it still is unreal.
Your example of the conductor is exactly the kind of thing my professor would talk about. As a conductor, this is precisely what he would do (or so he said he did), and this had a lot to do with the fact that he had an acute sense of absolute pitch. He needed to "see" the correct pitches on the page of the score in front of him.
I think the Stockhausen piece you are referring to must by the second Elektronische Studie, only the scale used there involves an interval of 5:1 divided into 25 equal parts (25th root of 5). Is there some other piece with the 19th root of 3? Stockhausen had just as acute a sense of absolute pitch as my former professor. Neither of them let this prevent them getting past twelve-equal A=440Hz tuning. My professor was, amongst other things, an ethnomusicologist with an intense interest in non-Western tuning systems (or, to be more precise, "non-systems", since he was convinced that many world tunings are not systematic at all). Stockhausen explored microtonal tunings of the most refined sort (though he told me once that he believed these subtler divisions of the octave would always remain nuances within the chromatic semitonal system). For him, too, these microtonal elements were not systematic, but rather pitch inflections of a practical compositional interest.
This sort of thing does of course exceed the usual function of clefs, and I'm not sure how music-education systems are supposed to deal with them (for example, in sight-singing exercises).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If you don't remember such a piece then it doesn't exist and I mixed up in my mind 5th and 3rd harmonic. But why 25? A 17th is divided into 28 semitones. How do his 25 pitches map into the expected 28 pitches inside a 17th? Each interval may be only slightly bigger than the 28th root of 5 but little by little the discrepancy must accumulate and you'll end up with some pitches being ambiguous, won't you? Regarding the view that subtler divisions of the octave would remain nuances, I can see how that would work if the inflected note is closer to one of the twelve uninflected tones: the ear would hear it as just a variant. But what happens if it is in the middle of a semitone and remains ambiguous and the ear refuses to identify it with either the higher or the lower tone as in the case of a neutral third that the ear refuses to hear either as a major third or a minor third? What then? Finally I'd be delighted if you had the time to expand on the opinion of your professor that non-Western traditional tuning practices are actually non-systematic. Ok I'll go listen to Studie II. Talking with you always expand our horizons. The problem is we all take a lot of your time. Lots of people have questions to ask you and you must sometime feel overwhelmed. That's the problem with being WP's resident musicologist :) In the past Antandrus pulled his weight but lately he's been sending people to you :) Thanks again for all this information, but don't hesitate to ask for a little peace and quiet if it gets too much. Contact Basemetal here 08:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I understand your question. What has a 17th to do with this? The ratio 5:1 defines an interval of two octaves plus a just major third, but this only can be called a 17th if you assume seven diatonic scale steps in each octave. Your count of semitones assumes not only this, but also division of each whole tone into two semitones. I think most commentators agree that Stockhausen must have chosen this particular interval because it is fairly close to a semitone in size (a little bit larger, in fact), and because the resulting scale misses octaves by a wide margin. It also fails to approximate perfect fifths, which is one reason that the harmonic sound of the piece is dominated by thirds. The composition is constructed from sets of five elements, which is as good a reason as any for choosing a tuning system based on 5 and 25. Semitones however are not relevant when using such a tuning system (unless you redefine the use of the word "semitone", of course, to mean an interval that divides a 5:1 into 25 equal parts—a "tone" then being the interval that divides a 10:1 into 25 equal parts).
Sorry for not making much sense. I guess I saw this file
Tone mixtures in Group I of Stockhausen's Elektronische Studie II (Maconie 2005, 134).
which uses standard note designations for the frequencies, assumed (w/o doing the calculation) that his frequencies could be reasonably approximated by the notes of our usual 12 tone equally tempered scale and so thought I'd try to understand Stockhausen's \sqrt[25]{5} system as an inflection of a usual 12-tones-to-the-octave system which a \sqrt[28]{5} system would be. That was a mistake I guess. The "octave" in a \sqrt[28]{5} system (that is \sqrt[28]{5^{12}} = \sqrt[7]{5^3}) would still miss 2 though not by much. Contact Basemetal here 01:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those notations are misleading, but there is no clear way of representing non-12-equal pitches in conventional notation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
As for my professor's contention that non-Western tuning systems are non-systematic, you can read the arguments in his book, Donald Lentz, The Gamelan Music of Java and Bali: An Artistic Anomaly Complementary to Primary Tonal Theoretical Systems (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965). As he explained it to us, he asked instrument makers in Java and Bali how they arrived at the intervals they used. Most could only say, "they are traditional", but one pointed up into a tree, and said, "Do you hear that bird? Those are the notes I use to tune these two keys", and demonstrated by playing the two notes on the instrument before him. I think to a lesser degree this same line of thinking informs his earlier book, Tones and Intervals of Hindu Classical Music (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961), but I have not read that one. The book on gamelan was very badly received at the time, since the dominant paradigm amongst ethnomusicologists was the overtone-series or small-whole-number-ratio basis for tuning, even though it was very difficult to explain certain intervals in gamelan scales that way. However, times have changed and, had he published that book twenty years later, Don's views would have found much greater favour. By then Paul Berliner's classic The Soul of Mbira had been published (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978; reprinted, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993). This book was largely responsible for the repudiation of (or at least for casting strong doubt on) the number-ratio or overtone theory, which is now regarded by many ethnomusicologists as an indefensible imposition of European music-theoretical thinking on extra-European cultures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll have to try and see where a copy The Gamelan Music of Java and Bali can be located, and that may not be easy, but before I do, I'm curious if Donald Lentz found that the scales used varied widely and randomly from gamelan to gamelan? And shouldn't we have a Donald Lentz article in WP with some description of his theories. These seem musicologically significant. Even on the web it is not that easy to come by information regarding Donald Lentz let alone his theories. This is all I got from Googling "Donald Lentz Music" (first 5 pages). Contact Basemetal here 01:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it may be difficult to track down a copy of this book. To answer your question: Yes, if I recall correctly (and it has been a very long time since I last re-read his book) the tunings varied from village to village. Berliner found the same sort of variation for the mbira, with especially pronounced differences in the sixth scale degree.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-free tone row images[edit]

You may be interested in Talk:Tone row#Non-free images. (I must go on something of a wikibreak.) Hyacinth (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Octet (Enescu), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henri Duparc (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


When I talked to a new editor about The Dream of Jacob, I remembered my old efforts regarding the Polish Requiem. Listing multiple performances is fine with me (that's why it says "performed", not "first performed", and more details could be mentioned about a premiere, example), but not everybody thinks so ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the Polish Requiem is an especially difficult case, because of the several successive versions. This is of course not a unique situation, but there cannot be many pieces with quite so many successive versions, so that each time Penderecki expanded it, there was another opportunity for a "world premiere". As a matter of fact, there was a "first performance" before any of the ones currently in the list, though only of the "Agnus Dei". This was in the Spring of 1983, I think, but was highly "unofficial", since the Requiem was not supposed to be performed, either whole or in part, until the premiere scheduled in Washington in the Fall. I know this because I was present at the performance. Of course this is "original research" and, should any documentation surface (and I don't believe that should be too difficult to find, since there is at least one published review of the concert and a published preview of it, which I wrote), it will turn out that the "Agnus Dei" performed was a completely unrelated a-cappella choral setting which has since mysteriously vanished without a trace. Those pigeon-hole-minded editors who insist that there can be only one "real" date of a premiere would be well-advised to retrieve their minds from out of those pigeon-holes (because we all know what is lurking in their dark recesses) and join us out here in the real world, where things may not be all neat and tidy, but at least things don't smell as bad.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Jacob wrestled with an angel, that was certainly not tidy, - thanks for your thoughtful response, - it's one of the reasons for not saying "first performed". One unofficial premiere happened in our living room ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I like in the infobox some kind of reference to a time (and location) of a topic. "Performance" is only one option, others are "composed" and "published". "Composed" we often don't know, but published might help in this case, two dates, I guess. Keep simple ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
As you know, I am skeptical about the usefulness of infoboxes, which I see as the ultimate expression of pigeonholing. If their purpose is to reduce the content of an article to a few basic, incontrovertible facts, then this example you give is eloquent testimony to the way in which infoboxes are self-defeating. If that "date" field can be used in so many different ways, of what use is it when surveying a dozen or a hundred different articles? On a more fundamental level, I find there is a point of disagreement amongst editors of opera articles, whether to treat the date of composition or the date of first staged performance as referential. In some cases, the difference can be extreme. There is one Haydn opera, for example, that was never performed in his lifetime. The manuscript languished in some archive until it was finally rediscovered and staged for the first time in the early 1950s. I am certain there must be dozens of even earlier operas that have never been staged, and may wait another century or more before they finally are. The details of individual cases are almost always more interesting than such generalized data, and frequently reveal the uselessness of "simple facts". Dates of publication are only useful when a work has actually been published, of course, and are not of much use when discussing music written before about 1850. I have recently been working on the article on Solage. With this composer, we know the precise year of composition for at least three songs (and this is remarkable for a 14th-century composer), but if we were to use date of publication we could pinpoint all twelve of his surviving compositions to 1950—not very useful to a reader who wants the most pertinent information about a medieval composer, I think.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for more thoughts. I see the whole topic more from view of a random reader who might like some guidance to "this is a composition, written in the 20th century", - I compare an infobox to a book cover. For the details, the reader should turn to the article ;) - When {{infobox opera}} was developed it was kept simple, on purpose. I like the last example, a self-portrait, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You are more than welcome. It seems we both have in mind the same readership, though we differ on how best to serve him/her. I hadn't looked at the instructions for the opera infobox, but I like the stern instruction not to put in it anything that is not necessary. I also see that it has no field for date of composition, only for date of premiere. I immediately think of all those operas that exist in three or four sometimes drastically different versions (I vespri siciliani immediately springs to mind), each with its own premiere date—not to mention operas whose staged premiere is unknown, but date of composition is plain. Best of all, naturally, are operas that were never completed but have been staged, and operas that require a separate completion for each perfomance, like Pousseur's Votre Faust or Nono's Prometeo. I do like the self-portrait in example 4: I have always wondered what Jacob de Backer looked like!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

knowledge and modesty
Thank you for helping me consistently, from my second article on, and for adding your admirable knowledge to this project in almost an understatement, about Stockhausen in particular. You mentioned in Freundschaft: making joyous music together, perhaps something playful as this. In Freundschaft, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 40th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - do you remember "in nomine"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence Chandler[edit]

What is your problem with Chandler having worked for Glass? One source states "he went to The Juilliard School (during which time he worked for Philip Glass)." The other two sources list engineering credits from recordings done at The Looking Glass Studio. Who owned the studio? Philip Glass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkingMusic (talkcontribs) 03:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with Chandler having worked for Glass. The one source you cite says he did so. It does not, however, say in what capacity. The engineering credits, on the other hand, do not claim he was working directly under Glass's direction, but rather for other people. Do you not understand the difference?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Annie Bélis[edit]

I am willing to create a wikipedia entry for Annie Bélis, that is the reason I created internal link. Please do not revert my modification Ayabmura (talk) It is done. Ayabmura (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is excellent news. Did you read my edit summaries and, more importantly, did you read the document I cited in them, namely WP:WTAF?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Carmina Burana[edit]

What do you think of the latest edit to Carmina Burana removing both some content and a source? CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism (it breaks the sentence off in mid-phrase, not to mention the deletion of a footnote). I have reverted the edit. There is no reason why you shouldn't do the same, whenever you see something like this and, if you can figure out exactly who did it, tell their mother to take away their computer privileges for a few days as punishment.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair use: Tone row[edit]

See: File:Schoenberg - Op. 25 Minuet Trio tone row melodies.png. Hyacinth (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to think, Hyacinth. Certainly this is the kind of thing that ordinarily ought to be covered by US and UK copyright laws under "fair use". On the other hand, does Whittall acknowledge permission for use of these excerpts from Universal Edition? UE is notorious for denying applicability of fair use to musical excerpts, however small. The other test being invoked here is whether an alternative free-use example can be substituted. If the illustration must include the rhythms and registers, then this seems impossible. If on the other hand a schematic presentation of the row segments (in a "neutral" register) would suffice, then perhaps this should be done. The problem I can foresee with this latter option is that it could be construed as "original research".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. There's no way to have a public domain tone row melody, given the age of the twelve-tone technique. Hyacinth (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This is true, though of course the same logic could be applied to any excerpt from a music score published since about 1915.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe you are correct, and anything past that date is fair use at best. Hyacinth (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested in Category:Music pupils by teacher, which I created, and the discussion regarding it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#"Pupils and pupils of pupils of X". Hyacinth (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been following the List of music pupils by teacher, and that has made me aware of the category. I was unaware of the discussion, however. I shall have a look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


regarding your note about the word "maximalism" by an artist in 1987 is still in no way relevant to a whole movement called by "maximalism" by daryush shokof, in addition to the first ar ehibition under the title "maximalism" by daryush shokof and a group show of over 15 well known artits taking part in the first group show under"maximalism in 1988 in Germany under "maximalism in Schulze gallery. there was never any manifest about "maximalism" before 1988, or an art show under that title, or not even afterwards has tere been an art exhibition with a clear definition what "maximalism" is except all that has been established as a movement, with styles of art works and a manifest done by daryush shokof.many references exist of his one man shows from Italy to Germany and the USA under "maximalism" from 1988 to date. Please, correct your absolutely wrong information about this style of art and thoughts in the English wikipedia and write me again if you need references so that i give you at least 5 more references other than Gallery Schulze exhibition in 1988 under "maximalisten" or galleria Verlato in Milan , Italy under "maximalism" in his one man show in 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8BC0:CE8:98B:80D5:F251:F204 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Head joints of recorders etc[edit]

FYI, on the recorder page we've had this IP user insisting on his noise for some time. Last December I tried to get protection to keep him off the serious page, in the end I've split recorder (educational uses) and recorder (musical instrument). See the talk page on the later. He's managed to get a citation from a German professor about the educational value of noise making devoid of melody, so the admins have to accept it as valid. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up (if you will excuse the expression). I expect this must be the same character who is putting uncited material about "rhythm bands" on the Noise in music article (and I assume this is why you are calling my attention to his activities on the recorder articles). I have no problem with discussion of noise or its place in music (as I think my extensive work on the "Noise in music" article attests), but I do have considerable resistance to the inclusion of unsourced and possibly wild opinions, whether I agree with them or not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Flute concerto?[edit]

This edit you made on the Chamber Music page seems to have been based just on the description in the caption. I don't know this painting, but if you look closely you can see at least two violinists in addition to the identified musicians, so it might be a concerto after all. Anyway, Flötenkonzert Friedrichs des Großen in Sanssouci is the title of the painting (Of course this was painted years after everyone involved was dead, but that's another matter.) —Wahoofive (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh-huh. And as you probably know, the German word "Konzert" can mean either "concert" or "concerto". I looked as closely as I could, but could not clearly make out any other instruments at all. Even assuming a full orchestra was present, we would still need to be able to read the title of the music on the stand in front of the king or on the harpsichord desk. If we could do this and triumphantly proclaim that, indeed, this is a concerto they are playing, we would merely have proven that this picture is unsuitable for illustrating an article on chamber music. Unless it is a chamber concerto, of course ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
A closer look with a better monitor still doesn't turn up any unambiguous violins, though one of the three gentlemen standing by the music stands at the right of the picture seems to be holding a bow. I guess I am going to have to travel to Berlin to look at the original! The German Wikipedia article says that one of these two violinists (both of whom are at the moment just looking on, though of course this could be during a cadenza) is Franz Benda, and that the figure standing by the third music stand is J. J. Quantz. This must all be from remarks made somewhere by the painter, who could never have seen any of these people in the flesh. Still, the only real issue is whether it suitably illustrates the concept of chamber music. A concerto, especially from that period, can of course be chamber music—it is only a form, and Bach composed concertos for an unaccompanied keyboardist—but I think the innocent reader is likely to believe otherwise and wonder why the picture is there if the caption uses that word.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Violin detail.png
That's definitely a violin at right (perhaps a viola). And since all three standing gentlemen have music stands we'd know they must be players of something, even if they didn't all have bows. But you're right overall. Perhaps we should not describe the piece being played at all since we don't know what it is. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Even in the detail—or should I say, especially in the detail, which is even more obscure than the full picture—the image on my computer screen is far to dark to make out the violin. However, by downloading the image, magnifying and lightening it, I can see the violin. Since this is the figure described by the German Wikipedia as Franz Benda, then it had better not be a bassoon!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian[edit]

Hello, Jerome. Are you watching the article Aram Khachaturian? What do you think of the many edits just made to the article? CorinneSD (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Yes, I am watching that article, and noticed yesterday a flurry of activity. I have not taken the time since then to evaluate them, but will certainly do so today.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There has been quite a discussion regarding the pronunciation of Khachaturian's name. The last one does not make sense to me, but I'm sure Kwamikagami, who is a linguist, will deal with it. I'm writing because of the very latest edit to the article in which an editor deleted "recognised worldwide as among the leading composers of the 20th century", referring to not only Khachaturian but also Shostakovich, and one more composer, saying that it was contentious and unsourced. I don't know why this would be contentious and why it couldn't be sourced if needed. CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. I shall have to read the discussion, but I imagine that Kwamikagami is better equipped than I am to resolve the pronunciation issue. I speak exactly five words of Armenian, and would prefer not to get into issues of how such a name might be pronounced by English, Russian, or other speakers. I can see how that sentence in the lede would cause trouble, not only for the reasons you mention but also because it is hopelessly vague. Every composer who actually lived in the 20th century could be so described, so long as you put a large enough number just before the word "leading" ("among the 5,000 leading composers of the 20th century" should be safe). Made as specific as "one of the three leading composers of the 20th century" and you will have an avalanche of protest. It is the kind of phrase that a publicity agent puts into a press release, and should only be allowed on Wikipedia in connection with a quotation from a cited source. See the lede to Karlheinz Stockhausen for similar examples, which are fully cited.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I realize that it would be wrong to write that Aram Khachaturian was one of the three leading composers of the 20th century, but the way it was worded before the edit, it didn't say that. Did you go back and read the way it was? It said this:
"The decree condemned Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Khachaturian, and other Soviet composers as "formalist" and "anti-popular." The three named composers had by then already become established as the so-called "titans" of Soviet music, recognised worldwide as among the leading composers of the 20th century."
How can one argue with that? Is that too much of a claim? CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I had not gone back to check earlier versions, no. While Tikhon Khrennikov undoubtedly would have taken issue with being left out of the list of "titans of Soviet music", it is not an entirely unreasonable claim, but is still the kind of thing that ought to be sourced—not necessarily in the lede, but somewhere in the body of the article, where the composer's reputation (including its growth and/or decline) should be assessed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. I can't do that. I just thought I'd point it out to you. CorinneSD (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).