User talk:Opus33

This is the page for messages directed to me. Kindly place your message at the bottom, and I'll try to reply soon. --Opus33

AfD

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart Modulations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating it. I've added my opinion. Opus33 (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

music of the classical period

Thank you for showing details of master works, for helping articles to survive (leading to O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit, BWV 210 - "O lovely day, o hoped-for time"), and for generously sharing The Creation with The Creation structure. I am working on St Matthew Passion structure and would like your help, especially regarding a question about colours in tables, see "Passion" on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerda, my suggestion is to avoid writing anything that could seem like a "parallel article" on the St. Matthew Passion -- this would confuse readers and also editors, who would not know where to put new material. Instead, I would writing or amplifying individual satellite articles that cover specific topics that relate to the work as a whole. For example, explaining the history of the "turba" chorus, or amplifying our (skimpy) coverage of chorale. In contrast, material on the structure of particular sections strikes me as better included in the main article. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last year there was an approach to exclude the list of movements from the main article, I concluded that the more complex table found on the German WP would be even less wanted. I split as for Messiah where the authors of the FA thought the music didn't fit in the main article, so now we have He was despised. - Let's keep thinking about it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Francesco Benucci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's Theatre (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) 14:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harpsichord builders

Category:Harpsichord builders, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'd like to extend a friendly greeting. We have both edited on shape-note music & quantitative meters, and we both link classical string quartets from our user pages. I hope my slightly tortured differing view on the Sacred Harp talk page is taken in the right spirit. What it really reflects is my standing frustration that I've neither personally found the energy nor inspired anyone else to rectify the larger incoherence in our treatment of a subject you'd think would have been more carefully and fully developed in recent years. Wareh (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After replying at Talk:Sacred Harp I stumbled on User:Opus33/Sandbox - this is great to see and indicates some topics I would love to see addressed, so I cheer you on. Figuring out how to do this based on RS seems a bit tricky to me, so I take heart that you are making progress there. It would be so much easier if "the book" on the harmonic and musical idioms represented in SH had been written, but as far as I can tell, it has not. By the way, on alleged misbarring, you might take a look at Malone's dissertation (cited here) pp. 79, 196f., for suggestions that traditional Sacred Harp notions of modes of time and accentuation can make sense of questionable barring. Wareh (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions, Wareh. I should give it another try soon. The sandbox material you mention has sat there for quite a while unaddressed. I got a bit discouraged when I came to realize that historical hymnology is a substantial academic field, and I would take quite a bit of background reading to become at all competent in it.

It really ought to be done somehow, because better coverage of the origin and history of the hymns would, I think, more than anything else serve to satisfy the curiosity of the readers who consult WP's Sacred Harp coverage. Opus33 (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just wrapping my head around this, which is why I'll try to silence my excessive hand-wringing at Talk:Sacred Harp for the time being. I'm not even fully familiar with everything we have in articles here, not to mention with the academic field of historical hymnology. Could you recommend a couple of titles that you believe afford the most relevant survey of the scholarship in that field that relates to the strands of music in The Sacred Harp? I have Steel, Cobb, and a couple of other SH-related titles (together with a couple of articles such as Seeger 1940 and Horn 1958), but, while I couldn't say I've mined them systematically, they don't seem really to lead very directly and deeply into sources that give a deeper account of the harmonic idiom and other musical qualities of the music in SH. Perhaps (just speculating here) I'm overestimating how much musicological stuff there is, whereas hymnological scholarship focuses more on attribution and publication history of the tunes than on the music? (I'll have access to a major academic music library for four weeks this summer.) Wareh (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For musical structure, there is a book by Dorothy Horn whose title I don't have access to right now but it's not hard to find.

Re. general accounts, there is what you mention; and the early work by G. P. Jackson (various books) still seems worth reading. And there is a rather provocative essay on line (talk given in Ireland) by Stephen Marini. He thinks some SH tunes started out as commercial pop music! (hard to pin this down though).

Hymnnology: yes, it does seem to be focused on history and attribution. My sense is that the biggest authority in this field is a musicologist named Nicholas Temperley. He has a whole book on the English antecedents to American traditions (often referred to as West Gallery). And the Fasola Discussions group on Google has a couple of people who really seem to know what they are doing, I think in particular of Wade Cotter (sp.?_)

I hope this helps; ask me if you have trouble finding these. Opus33 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those certainly are valuable suggestions--including more than one not on my radar screen at all--and I know I will benefit from them. One of these days I'll have to learn the special code used in Temperley's Hymn Tune Index. I have only looked at one of Jackson's four books so far, but I'm expecting a lot in the remaining ones; it's just a shame we don't have another Jackson working in today's scholarly conditions to do equal work, it seems.

Looking for Horn's book (Sing to Me of Heaven, which this review makes sound very interesting), I also find a reference to her dissertation, “Medieval European Harmonic Parallels in the Shape-note Hymnals,” (Ph.D., Theory, Eastman School of Music, 1953); not sure whether this Medieval line of comparison is a too-romantic pursuit that doesn't really hold up, but it's intriguing, and it doesn't seem to overlap with her book. Yours sincerely, Wareh (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC) P.S. I can't find Marini's online article and would love a reference if you can find it. (I knew about his book, and it's even in my library, but I haven't looked at it yet.)[reply]

Hello Wareh, the Marini posting seems to have disappeared; I'll check to see if I have a copy at home when I am done traveling. Re. no further Jacksons: it appears that English departments no longer hire folklorists, which is too bad. It seems to have been a lively research area (ballad-hunting and so on) up until about the 1960's. Opus33 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning

What you did was against WP policy, and I would never put up with it. I'm serious here. You disrespected me, sir. And I had enough of this nonsense on this matter, by people like you who dare not have the word "German" in that article. Enough of the silliness already. Don't start an edit war over something that is VALID AND ACCURATE. I won't tolerate it.

WP policy is to only remove or revert something that is clear vandalism or clearly inaccurate. This was neither. But just because you personally don't want the clearer wording there, to make the point about "German". That's all. You think the average reader, who may not know the nuances, will know all the time what the hell "Holy Roman Empire" is, and know right away that it was mainly a "German" thing, especially in that context? Not all do. But even so, that was the official wording for that part of it the time. Especially in that area. And that fact and wording is in the Holy Roman Empire WP article itself. Only bias and weird hidden agendas would cause you to remove that, in this context. There was no valid WP reason, per se. (It's just make sure the word "German" never sees the light of day in the Mozart article, in regard to inferring his nationality...who are we kidding.)

The article "Holy Roman Empire" says clearly... "In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was officially changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ).[10] This form was first used in a document in 1474.[8]"

And "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" is itself linked, so is valid and simply more accurate.

The people who want the word "German" suppressed or hidden, for some neurotic reason, really need to stop this already. Deleting stuff simply because you "don't like", yet is accurate, good-faith, valid, and fuller, and sourced, is against WP policy.

There was NO valid reason to remove that, as that IS what it was fully called, and is accurate, and good faith. Simply because “you don’t like” is not a valid WP reason to disrespectfully undo or remove. This is a WIKI. Do people really know what that means? No one person owns any article, to try to control it, or suppress facts or points they don't like, but that are still sourced and accurate. The elaboration is valid, better, clearer, and it stays...see talk. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "WP policy is to only remove or revert something that is clear vandalism or clearly inaccurate." Can you please cite where it says this? You've made this accusation on two different articles and for several different users. I'm completely unclear where you got this policy interpretation? Reference please? --LauraHale (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding... Don't follow me around, Laura, or it'll get ugly. Just because you don't know WP policy on "reverting" (or at least recommendation) does not mean it's not true.

This is just one example of WP policy on it, and it says clearly:

"Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy." Or "Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary".

And "Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like."

These are all words from WP help, and recommendation. I did not make up the recommendation.

Don't "hound" either...or even get near to doing that. That article has nothing to do with the other. So leave your personal biases and stalking aside, please. Or I'll report you. It's that simple. Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem sfarim: the article is called on the English Wikipedia "Holy Roman Empire", and the reasons are outlined in the article's talk page archives. On the German Wikipedia, it is called de:Heiliges Römisches Reich (a featured article), and again, the reasons are presented in the discussion pages' archives; a particularly well sourced passage can be found at de:Diskussion:Heiliges Römisches Reich/Archiv/1#"Deutscher Nation" – short summary: the extension "Deutscher Nation" was used briefly after 1512, but never gained wide currency; it was only during the Napoleonic wars and after the end of the empire in 1806 that the term was added again; current historic usage eschews it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

AfD

Precious

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Category:Harpsichord builders

Hello

Fair warning