User talk:Michael Bednarek

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17

Colin Kendell - Puccini "expert"

I see you've encountered Mr. Kendell too [1]. I've left a more detailed note about his cite spamming at the WPO talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitacre

Thanks for the clean-up! Our concert titled Lux Aurumque went well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Igor Stravinsky

Here is the list we were discussing about in List of compositions by Igor Stravinsky. This is just the backbone; arrangements and notes are still not present or incomplete. Please, feel free to suggest me anything to improve the list. Once it's finished, I will seek consensus among the editors to replace it. Thank you very much. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Two points: 1) the sorting feature needs more thought – do we want to sort the titles simply "as is", or should definitive articles ('The' …) be excluded? Also, 'Étude' should probably sort under 'E'. Further, the work numbers should sort properly in numerical order. Both these things can be done with the template {{Hs}} or similar. Sorting for the 'Notes' columns should probably be turned off. 2) Nitpick: ranges of years should be separared by an ndash ('–', or –) and not by a hyphen-minus. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Now I'm wondering how we should sort all the arrangements. I was thinking of keeping the arrangements together with the original works, regardless of the sorting criterion (with a background color or with a smaller font, maybe?). Plus, I think we should keep the "Player piano" section. And one last thing - Eric W. White has two lists: one with Stravinsky's own works (sorted as W(arabic numeral)) and one with Stravinsky's transcriptions of works by other composers (sorted with roman numerals). Should they be listed in separate tables? Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that seems a bit awkward. It's too late here now; I'll think about it and get back to you tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I showed on your sandbox how to add an arrangement to the table row of the original work; the wiki code is quite awkward. I don't like colour coding much, or small font sizes, but that can be done, too. I think it's quite acceptable to keep the pianola section as the existing list. I suppose the list of Stravinsky's transcriptions is better placed in its own table. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Looks great, I like it, but it's going to give problems when there are more arrangements than catalogue numbers and viceversa. I tried to do that with The Firebird but I can't get works and catalogue numbers to match up. How can we fix that? Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a table row has, say, 4 lines, subsequent years/work numbers need to be "pushed" into the appropriate line with <br /> . In the case of Firebird, I don't know which work number refers to which suite, so I added 2 sets of that code to push them to the top. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you that I will be unable to continue completing the table we have been discussing about lately; I'm moving to Denmark and I won't edit regularly on Wikipedia for, at least, three or four months. If you want to help completing it, you can find the necessary information on French and Dutch Wikipedia. However, if you could propose the article for substitution (so that it could draw more attention to other editors), it might be finished or discarted sooner, which might be better for all of us. Sorry for that. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad influence(s/d)

I happened to come across your several-months-old post at Template talk:Infobox writer#influences/influenced. I agree that these pernicious fields should be done away with, and I've participated in discussions that have led to their removal in specific articles; but template talk pages are so out-of-the-way that it's hardly surprising that you got no response whatever. Do you think creating an RFC at Template talk:Infobox writer and posting a notice of it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (or maybe even getting it listed on the WP:CENT template) would attract enough notice to get a consensus on the matter? Deor (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way some of the recent RfCs have gone, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RM not required, I'm reluctant to start that process and then see it veer in unexpected directions. If such a RfC should be started (and if I become aware of it), I will certainly state my position. As for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography: there doesn't seem to be much dialogue, either. On the other hand, there was a brief discussion recently at Template talk:Infobox person#Influenced by unsupported information in Infobox, sympathetic to removing these fields. On the whole, however, I am resigned to accept that there is not a lot of interest in removing these problematic fields. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing the ch'ella mi creda page redirect! david.thompson.esq —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. (For the record, this is about this edit.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clean up on Marika Rokk page

Thanks for the formatting of links and spelling corrections on my recent additions to the Marika Rokk entry. Very appreciated and helpful! kind Regards Navsikand (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestrette Classique

Many thanks for the excellent adjustments you made to my editing on this page. User:Mx96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.193.59 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The boy who cried wolf

I notice you've been policing this article for the best part of a year now and would like to thank you for your vigilance. I've no idea why but it attracts more vandals and crackpots than any other of Aesop's Fables. Like another of your correspondents, I'll soon be away in another country (Taiwan in my case) and unable to keep an eye on things. I'm therefore grateful that there are folk like you around. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music edit-a-thon

Hi Michael, a few of us are organising a classical music edit-a-thon between 8-14 October with the theme Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown. There will also be a meetup in Sydney, so we are using Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October 2012 as our main discussion page. A lot of the hard work will be done online, somehow. I hope you'll join us. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carpani

Hello Michael, and thanks for fixing up Carpani. Branscombe, reviewing Jacobs, celebrates what he seems to consider a breakthrough by the latter in getting Carpani's birth date right. So I took him at his word, but kept a footnote for the claim of other sources. Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether your not changing Giuseppe Carpani's day of birth as the 28th was intentional or an oversight when you changed the month and year; the French and Italian Wikipedias give 29 as the day. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re -piano sound file

Thanks for your edits to In the Hall of the Mountain King, which have focused the article well. I can see why you removed the See also section, when all the topics were linked to in the lead (and the repeated link to Grieg's music in pop culture didn't really help), but the removal of the melody of the piece is beyond me. Many people will want to listen to the music, if only to recognise it, and so the original orchestration isn't essential, in my opinion. Until we have a freely licenced version that includes that (and, ideally, the lyrics), the piano piece should be kept. As such I've restored it, but if you would like to discuss this further, please reply to this here, on my talk page or the article's. All the best. --xensyria^T 15:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It seems Grieg meant "cowpat" literally, though I prefer your interpretation! --xensyria^T 02:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding comments. I listened to the piano version included in that article and found it, eh, inadequate. I think the interested reader can either find any of hundreds of available recordings on YouTube, or we can provide one under "External links", e. g. this one by the CJD Orchestra, or this one by the Deutsches Filmorchester Babelsberg under Scott Lawton. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see what you mean: I hadn't actually listened to the entire recording until earlier today... I've found a public domain recording by the Czech National Symphony Orchestra through Musopen which I've put in its place. Please let me know what you think of it when you have the time. --xensyria^T 19:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Thank you (and also for Morning Mood). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-x/doc

I noticed your recent edit to Template:Lang-x/doc and I had a question regarding your edit summary. I was wondering: why shouldn't ";" be used for bolding? I couldn't find anything at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting (MOS:BOLD). Hyacinth (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD only explains when to use boldface (or not), not how to achieve it. That is explained at WP:MARKUP#Text formatting which does not mention the semicolon, and MOS:ACCESS#Headings explains why it ought not to be used. The semicolon does have a function in lists of terms and their definitions where it bolds the term; its general use to achieve boldface is a longstanding Wikipedia habit which has only recently been pointed out as erroneous and harmful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Template talk:Bach family that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Don't template the regulars. 2) I didn't and it wasn't. 3) If you wanted to collaborate in the creation of a template for the most influential composer ever, you would have sought opinions from other editors in this field at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and/or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 226

How would I (or you) describe how irregular the fugue theme is for "Sondern der Geist selbst vertritt uns aufs beste" and how regular "Der aber die Herzen forschet"? - The music is with me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is Requiem (Fauré), - now I am surprised that the article has so much on versions and pop, but not the music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of counterpoint and fugue is very limited and does not extend to regular/irregular variations. But I find a reference in J. S. Bach and the German Motet by Daniel R. Melamel to that motet's irregular contrapuntal harmonies on page 78.

Thanks for the source, however, no knowledge of counterpoint is required, just look at the themes in the score: I lack the vocabulary to describe that the first one enters on a long note on a weak beat and is full of Synkopen throughout, whereas the other has all regular Halbe-Viertel-Achtel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know those words – syncopation, half note (minim), quarter note (crotchet), eighth note (quaver) – but the terms regular/irregular fugue have a meaning among musicologists with which I'm not familiar.

A much simpler question for me is the title; the NBA calls it "Der Geist hilft unsrer Schwachheit auf" – why doesn't Wikipedia (any more)? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to find out, I found it like that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you read Bach's handwriting? Seems "unser" to me, - we sing "unsrer", though, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read it "unsrer"; there is a distinct squiggle after the long "s" (" ſ "), identical to the last squiggle of the word. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Fauré's Requiem: I know even less about that work, but the "Pop culture" section has no sources and largely no relevance – it ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you do that removing, please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I am also not fond of stressing Pie Jesu in the lead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for another clean-up! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QUestion about the template about western art music

Umm, i am perfectly aware that pop and rock music is not art music. but progressive rock is. Do you have a suggesion for your change? McLennonSon (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template is named {{History of Western art music}} and its headline link is to Classical music. That article does not mention the items you added to that template: Baroque pop, Progressive rock, Progressive metal, Krautrock; even the article art music barely mentions these genres. That's why I saw no good reason to include them in this template which is used in those articles which it listed before your addition.

All that is my opinion. If you felt that these genres ought to be included, you should have raised a discussion at the template's talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bist du bei mir

For some reason the template breaks the link.--RandomLittleHelper talk 00:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this notice. I really should have noticed that; it's fixed now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]