User talk:Jerome Kohl

Common tone

I would appreciate it if you would look over "Common tone". It seems crazy that there are no links to articles about the term or concept in other languages. Hyacinth (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I see you have been very busy with that article! I did a quick scan of the German Wikipedia, where it appears that the expression "gemeinsamer Ton" is regarded as such an obvious notion that it does not merit a separate article. However, given the discussion by Engebretson, it does seem as though the idea is important enough in both German and French theory (never mind in the English language) that your astonishment is well justified. I shall need to look into this a little further, since the terminology in those languages may vary from one author to another. BTW, the mixture in that article of up-to-date professional-level research sources (such as the Douthett/Hyde/Smith anthology) with century-old introductions for school children or undergraduates (such as Diller 1921, Klauser 1890, and Woodruff 1899) is rather disconcerting. It suggests that there are really two competing articles in there, both trying to get out. Perhaps this is part of the reason multi-language links are absent?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Presumably there should be a redirect from "gemeinsamer Ton" to an article such as the German for "voice leading" (or maybe "arranging" or "inversion"), which should already mention it if it is so obvious.

Are you saying the modern professionals and the old teachers are in disagreement? Are you suggesting that there are two separate terms which would have obvious links in foreign language Wikipedias? Hyacinth (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC) One of the problems is that the concept is considered so obvious that it is usually not defined in sources which mention it. Hyacinth (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article. Hyacinth (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is not that there are two separate senses of the term, as that it is odd to juxtapose such disparate sources. It appears (perhaps even is true, though I do not believe this) that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries this was a simple concept that could be explained to just about anyone in a few words, but has somehow turned into a technical term with a much more exact meaning. Either that, or we (the collective author of this article) can't make up our mind whether we are addressing complete beginners or aspirants to a graduate music-theory seminar. As for the German Wikipedia, the most closely related article is probably de:Tonverwandtschaft (tone relationship), which has no corresponding article on any other Wikipedia, similar to the problem you raised here. I have also checked the French and Italian Wikipedias, with no better results. And you are welcome for my small contributions to the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If you allow me to take part in this exchange, it seems to me that the Common tone article is dealing with two separate, fully distinct topics: first, the use of common tones in voice leading, which indeed is such a simple concept, probably as ancient as voice leading itself; second, the common tone theorem, and more particularly its importance in scales having the "deep scale property", which is a modern way to consider the matter but has little to do with voice leading.

Hyacinth recently added a line to the Voice leading article, mentioning the "common tone rule" before the "rule of the shortest way". I removed it because I think that the common tone rule is but a part of the rule of the shortest way, and mentioned as such in the next paragraph – with references to early French and German sources! I was also (and I remain) puzzled by the references given by Hyacinth. The first one, to Music Theory and Mathematics by Douthett e.a., certainly was incomplete, it should probably have mentioned Nora Engebretson; but also, it probably is more about the common tone theorem than about voice leading. The second reference, to Klauser's Septonate, is also troublesome because Klauser does mention common tones, but seems to dismiss this way of explaining voice leading because his own theory, he appears to believe, provides a better guide; this, in addition, seems to me an extremely odd source and an extremely unusual theory.

It appears now that the two articles, Common tone and Voice leading, should be considered together and these questions sorted out between the two. I leave it up to you. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We're all confused. I'm pretty sure that the quote from Engebretson mentioning voice leading clarifies the claims I make based on her work. It's funny when concepts so basic they may not even have a term for it in German requires multiple articles in English. Hyacinth (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hyacinth, I see that you created Common tone (chord) and Common tone (scale). This is fine. Another possibility might have been to make these clearly distinguished sections of a single article, but your solution works all right. As to the reference to Engebretson that I removed from Voice leading, the problem was that you did not mention her, you merely gave the title of the volume and a page number; I did not realize that her paper had a historic dimension. As to the German for "common tone", it is Liegende Ton, for which a research on Google results in many early references. The expression could probably be found in Vogler, Weber, Hauptmann and A. B. Marx that you mention (after Engebretson, apparently) and many others, also earlier ones. I'll check that and come back with some results. I still find that Klauser is not a very good reference, because his theory is so far away from the main stream and had so little success. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Hucbald, for the correct German term. I presume this is a particular usage in the context of Schenkerian theory, since the German Wikipedia seems to use "gemeinsamer Ton" with nearly equal frequency, though mostly in non-Schenkerian contexts. Neither term, however, has its own article there, unlike the (only superficially) related terms Gleichton and Gleichtönig, neither of which have corresponding articles in any other language's Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think of Schenker, Jerome, but indeed liegende Ton is the term he uses in Der freie Satz for "common tone" (also liegenbleibende Ton, in Harmonielehre). Browsing through the treatises in my digital library, I find the term also in Albrecthsberger, Anweisung zur Composition, in Kirnberger, Kunst des reinen Satzes (also Töne die liegen bleiben), and in Richter, Lehrbuch der Harmonie. Hauptmann, Natur der Harmonik writes of bleibende or gemeinschaftliche Ton; A. B. Marx, Kompositionslehre, of Verbindungston or gemeinschaftliche Ton; Riemann, Handbuch, of gemeinsame Ton (also Halteton), Sorge of gemeinschaftliche Ton. Frakturschrift does not really facilitate this kind of research. But these few cases suffice to indicate, I think, that there is in German no standard technical term. All these examples connote ordinary language, as would also be the case, I think, with note commune in French. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for confirming (with copious examples) my assumption that only English-language theorists would think such an obvious idea requires a specially dedicated term, let alone an entire article to explain it!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

2point4 Children edits

I'm currently in the process of finding the original sources for the items you have removed. Please restore these so I can cite the references. Andrew Marshalls comments are on imdb and can be backed up 13ten (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You can easily find the deleted items in the edit history for the article (click here). Restoring them should only be done once the sources have been found. If you are not familiar with the editing procedure, I would be happy to talk you through it. I was frankly very surprised to find that no one had managed to find verifying sources for that material in such a long time, and had begun to suspect some of it might have been fabricated. Thanks for making the effort.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Titles in English

The published title is Twelve Fantasias for Viola da Gamba solo. It is easy enough to understand. Why not use it? (with a bit of IAR) - The composer's published title is A Boy was Born. You know what happened: even a picture from the score showing that version was removed from the article. - What do you think about the title of the Brahms songs? "Zwei Gesänge" - what's a good translation? "für eine Altstimme", same? Problem is that the German "Lied" translates to "song", and the German "Gesang" to the English "Lied", a song on a higher level. Any better word? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, the published title (of the recent German edition) is Zwölf Fantasien für Viola da Gamba solo. Telemann's original title of course is in French: Fantasies / pour / la / BassedeViole (please observe the line breaks (indicated by virgules) and the lack of spaces in the name of the instrument, transcribed from the title-page facsimile reproduced in the booklet for the CD recording). The publisher's formatting of the English translation does not follow Wikipedia's format (which happen to coincide with the almost universally accepted capitalization rules). If we are going to revisit the "it is printed this way on the cover of the score" argument, we might as well look at the designes on various editions of the Telemann flute fantasias: "Twelve Fantasias for transverse flute without bass" (Bärenreiter edition no. 2971, edited by Günter Haußwald), "12 Fantasias for Flute Without Bass" (IMSLP, edited by Llorenç Lledó), or Telemann's own title page, "Fantasie per il Violino, senza Basso", which he unfortunately failed to give in an English version. Generic titles are of this nature: the whims of publisher's title-page designers are of even less importance than for true titles. The same applies to translations of both generic and true titles from other languages: for the English version, English capitalization rules apply.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I won't change, and you can move, but I am sure that the publisher thought about it. My thinking: "solo" is not in the original title, it's an added explanation, - better lc then, also to not take "solo" as part of the instrument name, which is capitalized unusually in German, where we have Viola da gamba. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. I have been thinking about that English title, and the capitalization is actually according to German rules of orthography (first word and nouns capitalized, all other words lowercased). The problem with "original titles" I have already outlined above, but generic titles are another matter entirely. There are still many problems (for example, should the number of items in a set stand at the beginning of the title and, if so, is it spelled out or given as a numeral?), but the basic idea is that the genre (Sonata, Symphony, String Quartet, Fantasy, etc.), scoring, and key (if applicable) are treated as parts of the title, while things like opus or catalog numbers are not. Once this has been sorted out, normal capitalization rules are applied. Whether or not the word "solo" or "unaccompanied", or the phrase "without basso continuo" is to be included in the title or not is one of those problems for which there is no solid rule but, if the phrase is taken up, then it is subject to the same capitalization rules as any other part of the title.

We have some inconsistencies here amongst the three sets of Telemann's fantasies for which there are currently Wikipedia articles (12 Fantasias for Solo Flute (Telemann), 12 Fantasias for Solo Violin (Telemann), and Twelve Fantasias for Viola da Gamba solo). Given that these are all three generic titles, they really ought to adopt the same format. Please notice that the word "solo" is capitalized in two of the three cases, and also appears before the instrument name in those two titles, and that the parenthetical disambiguation "Telemann" is also inconsistently used. Given that, at present, there are no other Wikipedia articles about sets of twelve fantasies for any instrument at all, this disambiguation seems unnecessary. However, I would not want to jump in and change those titles until the interested editors have had a chance to discuss this, either on the respective talk pages or (probably better) at the Classical Music Project discussion page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's your premise that the title is generic, - it didn't look generic to my until you made it so. I knew that String Quartet is generic, but didn't think Fantasia was, - can't even explain why. Consistency is nice, but both 12 and twelve will be understood, and I wouldn't care if solo comes before or after the instrument, - it seems just a different kind of accent to me. But probably I should keep my mouth shut on English matters ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha-hah! Perhaps everyone should keep their mouths shut on English. It would spare us all a lot of aggravation. The line between generic and true titles is sometimes hard to define, but the main criterion is that word "genre". If multiple composers (or their publishers or editors) have used a word to describe one or more of their compositions, then it may be regarded as a genre. Note that this need not be a "form", for example, Ricercar, Impromptu. If, on the contrary, there is only one work known by a title (e.g., Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, Çoǧluotobüsişletmesi), it can safely be described as a true title. There are plenty of cases for dispute, including the question of "partial" generic/true titles (e.g., should Ives's piano work be the Concord Sonata, or the Concord Sonata?), and I feel it is futile to hope for a good rule everyone will agree on in such matters. As for the question of numerals or spelled-out numbers, it should make no difference at all, if the traditional rule is followed that the numerals are understood to represent the words for purposes of alphabetization. I am surprised and pleased that the WP category "Fantasias (music)" has managed to get this right, but distressed to find "Carmen Fantasia" somehow alphabetized under W and, even worse, something called "Symphony on a French Mountain Air" inexplicably alphabetized under I, and "Fantasiestücke, Op. 12" under S ;-).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! - How about a list of genres in classical music, with a few examples, which an editor can turn to and see: "ahhh, a genre"? Unfortunately, genre (music) isn't it. genre (classical music) perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome! That article on music genres did crash onto the rocks, didn't it? I recall a protracted and somewhat heated debate about the difference between "genre" and "form", with particular reference to "symphony". It does not appear to me that this problem was ever satisfactorily resolved. Fortunately, for the purposes of "generic titles", this disagreement scarcely matters. You may be interested to learn, if you do not know this already, that the distinguished musicologist and editor D. Kern Holoman got so fed up with this hairsplitting that, when he wrote the style guide for the journal 19th-century Music (eventually published by the University of California Press as Writing about Music: A Style Sheet) he decided to ignore the distinction and simply italicize all composition titles. He is not alone, but most publishers' house styles still cling to the traditional usage, perhaps because they enjoy aggravating people.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Everyday life in early 19th-century Spain

Purple doors and blowtorches. It got noticed at ... a site I had better not name.

I've made it into a long stub in what I hope is reasonable English, because it wasn't created as a hoax. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't intended as a hoax, though it was a bit short on sources, and said some extraordinary things (possibly not on purpose), including the purple doors. I'd say it's about time somebody noticed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Purple. Sexual assault. Blowtorches. Yes, a year and a quarter is entirely too long. Did you have any source for Reglas de Policía Urbana? All I found was 1840 statutes in Madrid and Barcelona establishing or regulating the police themselves. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No source as such, but after trying several possible variants of the phrase in Spanish, found a few hits for "Reglas de Policía Urbana", probably the same ones you found. Since the entire article was unreferenced, and the links I found did not confirm the specific claims made in the sentence in question, it did not seem suitable to cite them. As with many of the other edits I made, these were simply sincere attempts to clarify the mangled syntax of the original, no matter how preposterous the claims appeared to be. I guess the blowtorches were a bit of an embellishment, but it did already seem extraordinary to use knives to shave or wash.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Le marteau sans maître‎‎ caps

Why did you restore capitalizatoin to Le marteau sans maître‎‎? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) perhaps because that is the French title? Compare Le Petit Prince. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

When the article was created, English Wikipedia followed the simpler of the two French standards for capitalization of titles, which is "sentence case"—that is, capitalize the first word and any proper nouns only. In the meantime (I think about two years ago) this was changed to the more complicated style (favoured by the Modern Language Association, amongst others), which is described here. This change was only brought to my attention in early June of this year (to be precise, on 7 June, shortly after I made this mistaken edit on 6 June. The capitalization of the article title should be changed, as well, but since it had previously been given the capital M, this reversion requires the assistance of an Administrator, and I have been too lazy to seek this help.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My usual helper is Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Graham seems to be on holiday until 25 August, but I'm sure I can find someone if I really try.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am indeed on holiday, but I'm still editing ... I've just done the move. Graham87 18:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks, Graham. That is far beyond the call of duty!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

I am not sure if your interested in this topic but you never know:

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is decidedly outside of my field of interest. Best of luck with the project, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Shawn Mendes

Cornerstonepicker removed acoustic when says "isn't a genre", however Wikipedian1818 added back with "acoustic". "Acoustic music is music that solely or primarily uses instruments that produce sound through acoustic means." 115.164.209.53 (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That is one more issue that is yet to be resolved in the article Music genre. I wish that the editors who understand this subject better than I do would make up their minds and tell us exactly what a music genre is and what it is not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For you...

	For tireless dedication to the cause!
	Because you just get on with what needs doing around here... — Iadmc♫talk  09:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Metre, again

Hi Jerome, I've had a go at that troublesome opening sentence. I think we concluded on the talkpage that no one source seems to have a definitive solution to a formal definition; so I've tried to be safe in winding together what appear to be the essential elements—in a way I think no source would complain about. It's not a definition I agree with personally—rather, it's a reflection of how scholars generally appear to understand the concept. I didn't mention "entrainment", but that should be included somewhere further down, I believe. Could you take a look?

I don't intend to edit the article further—at least not for some time.

There was Noetica the other day singing your praise ("a true intellectual"). He left WP long ago, but we occasionally talk. :-) Tony (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It is better, but I am not very comfortable in this context with the words "oscillation" and "onsets", which sound rather pretentious in an introductory sentence, even though they are accurate. Noetica is very kind to remember me, and I am pleased to learn that, at least, I do not present as a "false intellectual" :-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

:-) Can you think of alternative items for "oscillation" and "onsets"? I tried unsuccessfully. (Is it that musicians don't like science?) Tony (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

How about "regular patterns" and "accents"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Like that? Tony (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! That is much more "user friendly". I think that will do nicely.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Admission of blacks as well as whites in music conservatories, end of XIXe century

Sir,

In the article Antonín Dvořák, I corrected:

The Conservatory had been founded by Jeannette Thurber, a wealthy and philanthropic woman, who made it open to women students as well as men and to blacks as well as whites, which was unusual for the times.

into: The Conservatory had been founded by Jeannette Thurber, a wealthy and philanthropic woman, who made it open to women students as well as men and to blacks as well as whites, which was very unusual for the times.

You reverted my correction. Let you know that in fact NO black or coloured person was admitted in the XIXe century in ANY American music conservatory. That's why I put “very unusual” instead of “unusual”, for it was nearer of historical reality. You may like it or not, but as this is the truth and nothing else, methinks that reverting to a redaction farther away of reality is definitely NOT proper in an encyclopædia.

Now what will you do? Carrying on prefering your opinion to historical truth?

--5915961t (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing at all to do with "historical truth"; it has to do with writing style. As I said in my edit summary, the adverb "very" should be used with caution. The reason is that it makes the writer sound like he/she is trying to convince him/herself that the statement is true, despite misgivings. If you really, really, really think the adverb would be replaced, I suggest you do so, but make sure to repeat it at least three times, in order to make your point very, very, very clear. I promise I will not revert it (though I cannot speak for the many other editors on Wikipedia who might take issue with this style of writing).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Major false edit

Dispatch, the source that you implement about Greensleeves had conformed. You wish to delete official status of it and thank you for the attention. User:KaplanAL (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hampli. Gong flitet niksai. Spliful!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

List of music theorists

I was very disturbed that IronGuard (whose talk page doesn't reveal any knowledge of music) removed all the redlinks from the list. I wrote him about it, but so far no response. (Personally I take the position that The Signpost took some years ago, that it's important to leave redlinks so that people know what has yet to be done.) What do you say? - kosboot (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a difficult problem. On the one hand, you and I both know that there were a lot of important theorists in those redlinks; on the other hand, there were an awful lot of redlinks. As you also are aware, there are two opposing views on Wikipedia about redlinks: one is that they should be used to call attention to articles that need to be written; the other is that they are useless clutter and should not be allowed to accumulate. Generally, I tend toward the latter view, mainly because I have not seen very many redlinks actually turn into articles, over a very long time. This case seems different to me, but I can't quite explain why. If someone were to object that it is because I am prejudiced because I am a music theorist, I am not sure I could refute the claim.

There is a third possibility, though. What I have already set out doing is searching other Wikipedias (especially German Wikipedia) to see if there are already articles in another language that can be linked via ILL. So far, not much success, but I have only started. Perhaps you would like to try this as well. This has satisfied more hardline editors on other Wikipedia lists.

There is one category of redlink, however, that is probably not worth pursuing (please try to convince me I am wrong): the anonymous authors of this and that medieval treatise for which a separate article cannot reasonably be justified. If anonymous authors are to be retained in the list, then there need to be articles on their notable work (e.g., the Alia musica). There are of course already a few of these (the one on the Musica enchiriadis, for example). Perhaps a discussion needs to be started about this issue on the list Talk page (perhaps you have already done this—I have only just now found your message, and have not yet scanned my Watchlist).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the redlinks. In general I agree with you about the anonymous authors, although I have seen one article that tries to describe (through conjecture) a particular anonymous author's characteristics based on the treatise (it wasn't Anonymous IV). I've been busy in all summer and have made only light edits, but now I have more time. In general I'm against making stub articles, but I would do so in order to have fewer redlinks on this list (if only to prevent names from being removed). Your idea of consulting other language Wikipedias is a good one - thanks for that. (Won't be able to work on it until Sunday at least.). - kosboot (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead

Hilarious, but will they get the point? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the caption could be changed to read "Recent photograph of the composer Johann Pachelbel"? ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please wait

Please wait a proper amount of time from the last edit of an article before you start editing. You just destroyed my work on Cor Fuhler. I know that external links require a URL. Give me some time to finish and then you can do what you want.
–Vmavanti (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. All I did was to add the needed link. How did this "destroy" your work?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Pour l’ensemble de votre travail sur Wikipédia. — Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I shall proudly display this in a prominent place on my mantlepiece!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

musikFabrik

What happened to the familiar name musikFabrik. I understand that it was changed in 2016, right? Shoudn't we at least mention that until some time it was different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. According to the edit history, User:Deskford changed the article title in August 2016 to reflect the official change of name. Are you saying that the article does not now make clear that the name used to have an idiosyncratic capitalization, or that we need to go through all the various article mentioning them and annotate the two styles of the name?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Guilty as charged! I agree with Gerda though that ideally the article should document when (and why) the name was changed, but finding sourcing to back this up might be difficult. What often seems to happen when an ensemble changes its name is that its publicists try to hide the evidence that it ever had any other name. Something similar happened a few years ago when the Cape Philharmonic Orchestra changed its name to Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra and all references to the old name were removed from the article. The fact remains that there are still many CDs in circulation credited to "Cape Philharmonic Orchestra", just as there are to "musikFabrik" (and also to "MusikFabrik NRW", an earlier form of the name). Anyone seeing the name on one of these CDs might be puzzled if they look up the ensemble here and don't find mention of the previous form of the name. --Deskford (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

All I'd like to see is in their article that until 2016 it was this, and now is that. I don't suggest to change older articles where they are mentioned, because they are all historically correct and correspond to concert announcements etc. Same thing happened for ensemble amarcord. In both cases, I don't understand why a signature name would be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hesitate to ask: why haven't you made this adjustment already yourself? And, as long as Deskford is feeling guilty, why did he fail to leave behind this information when he updated the article last year?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Peter Harlan

Hi Jerome. FYI I've translated the German page on Peter Harlan and added it to the English Wiki. Feel free to hack it about! More seriously, any additional references and citations would be appreciated, I've just reformatted the German ones and they aren't really up to our standard. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for making the effort of translating the article. I will take a look and see if there is anything I can do to improve the referencing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jerome Kohl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DASH

I noticed that you applied MOS:DASH recently to a few lists. I don't know how you did that, but if you did it manually or by search/replace, I wanted to let you know of a tool that I use for that purpose: User:GregU/dashes.js. I've installed it in my environment by adding this line to Special:MyPage/common.js: importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js"); (note that link goes to your profile, mine is at User:Michael Bednarek/common.js). I found it does exactly the right thing, changing what needs to be changed and leaving alone what must not be changed. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! I have been looking for a tool like that for a long time. My heart sinks every time I see a list with something like 152 instances of spaced hyphens. I have been doing this manually, and it is not a lot of fun done that way. I think you may have saved my sanity!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Jerome Kohl. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Stravinsky

Hello- on the Stravinsky page, having the page needed template inside the citation code ruins the formatting and makes it show the actual bare code on the page instead of the the intext citation. Basically, there can't be a {{ }} inside of another {{ }}. It would have to go outside of the brackets. I hope this makes sense. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be either browser-dependent, or determined by editor-preference settings. It displays correctly for me (or at least, it used to—I have recently made some changes to my preferences). In any case, the correct procedure then would be to move the pn template to outside of the first template, no? Otherwise, it looks like the editor believes a page citation is unnecessary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to have a citation without a page number than have a broken in-text citation. In any case, another user re-added the tags properly. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well,as I said, the citations were not broken in my browser, but if it will affect other readers that way, then they should be fixed to read properly. I tend to clean up after other editors who remove cn or pn tags, assuming they simply forgot to remove the unsourced material when they deleted the stale tag.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Colonel March of Scotland Yard

Hello. I've noticed and appreciate the work you have recently put into this article. However, as a Brit, I'm a little unhappy that you have created a 'Critical Reception' section which - at the moment - contains nothing but the views of Bernard Levin on the early days of commercial television in Britain and only briefly refers to the Colonel March programmes. I knew of Bernard Levin in his heyday, and he was renowned for the savagery of his reviews. I remember watching the two occasions when he was physically attacked on live television (on the BBC) because of his 'unkind' reviews. He was also an intellectual who was rudely dismissive of almost all popular culture, so his views on this programme is hardly a representative view of the critics in this country. Much the same could be said for the paper he was writing for, The Manchester Guardian, a newspaper then with a very small circulation. I realise that finding other reviews of this programme may be difficult but nevertheless I would like to see Levin's view considerably cut back, perhaps just to "the adventures of 'Colonel March of Scotland Yard', the intellectual content of which is the nearest thing to a hole I have ever seen" - everything else is more about early programming on our ITV stations than this programme. Also, he should be named in the article so that it is clear that it is Levin's opinion. (Although not strictly relevant here, Levin's opinion of ITV was clearly not one shared by a large proportion of the UK population, because, in those parts of the country able to receive ITV programmes, audience figures very quickly exceeded those of the BBC and have done so ever since.) Best regards, Blurryman (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I do take your point. I am of course familiar with Levin's savagery, which is what makes him such fun to read. However, it is a little much as it stands, and I agree could be cut back as you suggest. Better still would be to find an enthusiastic contemporary review, but I have not succeeded in this so far. As far as I can tell, however, from contemporary reviews (I was not there to experience it first-hand), a considerable proportion of the UK population did share Levin's jaundiced view of Independent Television and, despite viewership figures, a great many of them persisted in that opinion for some time. This may have been a minority, but it clearly was a substantial one (and the majority is not always in the right).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I look forward to seeing what else you can find. Levin's opinions may have been amusing for outsiders but I'm sure they were not so amusing for those who were his targets. On the side issue of commercial television in Britain, I was there (here), of course, and I think the division of views you identify fairly closely followed the class divisions then still much in evidence in Britain, with more than an element of the cultural elitism which had always been evident at the BBC, and which was also not unrelated to the large proportion of US programmes bought in by ITV. Whilst I certainly agree that "the majority is not always in the right", I would contend that in cultural matters there is no "right" or wrong, only likes and dislikes! Blurryman (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM

If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47.622928°N 122.322312°W / 47.622928; -122.322312 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2018 at the meeting as well. Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083.

06:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Jerome Kohl. AfC submissions Random submission 4+ months 2,913 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Script error

You should know that the script you're using introduces errors if there is already a non-breaking space before an ndash. It's frustrating, I know--I've been using it for several years. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ach! That's one I hadn't noticed yet (quite a few others have already caught my eye as I scan the results each time I use that script). Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my eye peeled for this one, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Colin Brumby

When I changed the template to Use Australian English, I wasn't commenting negativiely about anyone's edits or the article in general. I was just putting the correct template on the article. I'm sorry if you thought I was making some criticism of your edits. Kerry (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, no! Not at all! It was a perfectly sensible thing to do. I was only commenting ruefully on my insufficient experience of Australian English! I am reasonably acquainted with UK and US standards, but shaky where other national varieties are concerned.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, for encyclopedic purposes, Australian English is very similar to British English in terms of spelling with a tiny smattering of different vocabulary (we say "creek" not "stream" and "township" rather than "village/hamlet"). We defer to the Macquarie Dictionary rather than the Oxford (although I am old enough to have gone to school before the Macquarie was published when the Oxford was our standard dictionary). The differences between British and Australian English are far more evident in everyday conversation but that doesn't really affect Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall remember the Macquarie Dictionary for future reference. My limited experience with Australian English has led me to surmise that following UK practice would not lead me far astray. Best wishes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Chemistry environment

In this edit [1] hyphens inside a <ce>...</ce> tag were changed to en-dashes. <ce> is basically another form of the <math> mode tag which needs hyphens for correct LaTeX processing. The same applies to <chem>. I think the lines

var m = string.slice(pos).search(/<\/?(math|pre|code|tt|source|syntaxhighlight|gallery)\b/i);
    if (m >= 0 && string.charAt(pos+m+1) == '/')
        return str;             // don't break a <math> equation, or source code

need to be changed to include the ce and chem tags.--Salix alba (talk): 00:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Beyond my competence, I'm afraid. Apologies for changing symbols that looked like mistaken hyphens for minus signs. Please revert my edit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Radio 3

Dear Jerome, please forgive what will probably sound like a stupid question but I promise I will explain it soon.

• Do you listen to / are you aware of BBC Radio 3?

There is method in my madness ... really! Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot think how you can possibly imagine that is a stupid question. Yes, I am not only aware of BBC Radio 3, but even listen to it now and again, principally the Saturday-night programme "Hear and Now". As a matter of fact, I have even appeared as a guest on that programme on one or two occasions. Now, what is your method and/or madness?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice answer. Well, I worried that it was at risk of sounding like a stupid question if you were Radio-3-aware ("who is this condescending fool who thinks that I might not know about Radio 3?") or equally if you were not ("who is this Anglocentric presumptuous fool who thinks that everyone in the world should know about a foreign radio station?"), but I am delighted to hear that you are aware, and terribly impressed that you've actually been on it.

So, the question is really this: you probably know about Tom Service. Would you be surprised to learn that he is currently the subject of a deletion discussion on the grounds that he is not notable? Now, please note that I am absolutely not canvassing for you to rush over there and !vote. Far from it. The discussion is happening anyway and improvements have been made to the article and ... well, que sera, sera. But what did get me was that it appears to be a good faith nomination by someone who is familiar with the rules, and on the face of it it looked as if they had a point. I was absolutely astonished to see the nomination, because to me he is a self-evidently notable figure. He's never off the radio, he's all over the Guardian, and if you Google him the body of work he has produced is massive. But the way the rules are structured seems to deny the usability of much of this. If he dropped his trousers at an awards ceremony, thumped Simon Rattle, then was investigated for tax evasion then he'd be notable, because there would be news coverage, but producing colossal quantities of public, high-profile work doesn't seem to do it. He is literally a household name (OK, in some households more than others!) and was even on Christmas University Challenge (where, to our hilarity and no doubt to his eternal shame, he flunked on recognizing a bit of the Nutcracker!) ... I couldn't take that to the deletion discussion, but, blimey, you can't get much more mainstream than that round our (yes, gritty, Northern, working-class) way! So, was this a fair cop, or is there something wrong with the notability guideline for critic/broadcaster types? In classical music especially? Or is it something else? Maybe it just wasn't a very good article, but is a deletion discussion the best way to improve it? I'd be most interested in your thoughts. With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Aha, so that's it! I was unaware of the discussion, but of course I know Tom Service's work, and even met him once (briefly), in the BBC studios in London in November 2008. If his article is to be deleted on grounds of non-notability, then I suppose the floodgates will open on other non-notables like Nicholas Kenyon, Paul Griffiths, Andrew Porter, and George Bernard Shaw. I shall have to look into this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - and yes indeed, all those other people whose fame is poorly documented - out with them all, the non-notable wretches! :) I do worry, and wonder if something is a little broken or needs tweaking. Ah well, thanks again and good night. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Overture on Hebrew Themes

Could you tell me what sentences need references and I will try to add them? Do you give permission to change the format of the referencing to parenthetical to footnotes like in Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)? Thank you Triplecaña (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look at the article, which I have not seen now for long enough that I cannot remember anything about citation needs. I see no reason at all to change the referencing style hy would you want to do that? Wouldn't it make just as good sense to change Lieutenant Kijé to use parenthetical formatting?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have checked the article, and it looks generally well-referenced. There is one sentence already marked as needing a source ("Overall, his years in America were not as successful as he had hoped"), and this does not look like it is relevant to the article subject at all. I will delete it for this reason. If you think it is relevant, and have a reliable source for it, please feel free to restore it with a citation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

I have some music and images to offer to express that, in case you didn't watch my talk then. Why is this so? - I'd just like to understand better? - Just came across this, and like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda. I will have to check out your music and images. I'm afraid I have not become one of your Talk-page stalkers. To understand better my edit removing the inbox, consider the immediately previous edit, which added "background = non_performing_personnel". Now, what on earth is that supposed to mean? This is what I was referring to in my edit summary. Quite apart from that, evaluating his "years of activity" is quite problematic. Considering he was publishing books from 1929, giving him a 1942 "start date" (presumably based on his compositional catalogue) seems quite odd. Is he to be regarded exclusively as a composer? If so, why? I agree with you about the Mengelberg article, but why do you especially like it? Because I have never participated in editing it, or in spite of the fact? I noticed it has an inbox, though I did not actually look at it. Is that an attraction?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what (at least to me) was not obvious. - Two suggestions: look at Max Reger and tell me what you'd change, - we can change parameters and content, - don't have to remove the whole thing. I try to stay completely away from the topic (of course adding infoboxes to "my" articles, but not interferring with others), and you could do the same ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Forgot two things: I meant just the infobox in the Mengelberg article, not the whole thing, and Seiber's could be repaired by just using {{infobox person}} (which comes without added coloured boxes) instead of the more specific one. I use "person" for all people, and never fill "years active" and "nationality", not even "Alma Mater", - I use "Education" instead. - DYK that back in 2012, I was among those who found an infobox redundant? See Talk:Samuel Barber - It was in that discussion that I was turned around (to: yes, redundant, but on purpose, for us idiots foreigners, vision-impaired, searching for just a bit of information), by the unforgettable comment "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person..." which won my heart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I would change about the Max Reger infobox would be to remove it but, as it is established on that article, I'm not going to waste a lot of time fruitlessly trying to whip up a consensus for its removal. As for the Mengelberg infobox, I barely noticed it was there. Now that I look at it, I don't see any indication that he was a composer, though this activity is mentioned briefly in the article itself. Given that he was a conductor, anyone with the experience of playing in an orchestra might well argue that "Infobox person" is not appropriate, because conductors are not people ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Concerto in E-flat "Dumbarton Oaks", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E-flat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Symphony No. 4

Hello and thank you for tuning Symphony No. 4. I'm not a musician and would welcome a second opinion. I made the edit because a report (large page) flagged it as having several missing entries (Harbison, Hill, Honegger, Karetnikov, MacMillan, Rouse, Schnittke, Schuman, Tansman). It also threw up other articles such as Piano Concerto No. 3, which I've just edited. Do you think the revised format works here, or should I keep more closely to what was there before?

Thanks again for your help, Certes (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you have done the right thing. The various "Symphony No. X" lists have been annoying me for some time because of their inconsistent formatting. It had not occurred to me that invoking the disambiguation-list format would be a good way of establishing a uniform style. There are some elements that still need cleaning up (for example, the "one blue-linked item per line" rule), but you are definitely on the right track here. The only nagging doubt I have is the inclusion of lines with no blue links at all. It seems to me that, when there is no separate article for a particular symphony or concerto, that the composer's name should be linked, though of course that creates an inconsistency in itself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I'll try to do something similar for the other numbers when I get time. If a line has no blue link then we should link the article with most information on the symphony. That's probably the composer's biography but may be a List of works by Joe Composer if they were prolific. If there's no such article then we should consider removing the line altogether per WP:DABMENTION — there's little point in teasing the reader with "Symphony No. 4 (Doe) by John Doe" when there's no mention of the work behind the blue link. The alternative would be to make the page into a set index article, which can legitimately hold a line or two about each item with multiple blue links and references even if that symphony isn't mentioned in any other article. Certes (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This is just the sort of subtlety that leaves me trailing far behind. It sounds good to me, though I do not entirely understand it! I do understand (and thoroughly agree with) the principle that lists such as these function primarily to guide readers to one or more of the multiple articles containing the title phrase, and therefore are useless if there is no article to which the reader can be directed. On the other hand, I just a little while ago added a Piano Sonata No. 3 entry for Paul Hindemith, whose three sonatas are (in my judgment) of fairly equal importance, and yet only the First Sonata has an article (so far) on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm here to help readers rather than follow rules, but mature guidelines such as WP:DAB usually tick both boxes. In principle, we could have a section link to List of compositions by Paul Hindemith#Piano^[a] or even make Piano Concerto No. 3 (Hindemith) redirect there. However, in this case the article gives no information on the work other than its date, which would probably be on the dab page anyway, so it barely scrapes through WP:DABMENTION and it's a close call whether to include it at all.

[a] except that the wikilink breaks because the section header contains a reference. I'm working out what to do with that! — Certes (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Except for the small detail that Hindemith's work is a sonata rather than a concerto, this all seems sensible to me. That footnote in the header should not be there, per MOS:HEAD. Maybe I can figure out a graceful way of moving it to the body of the section it introduces.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Script

ALL the dashes you "fixed" in 1993 are incorrectly spaced. Please do not use that script in articles with date ranges. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I did not carefully enough check the results. The script is expressly designed for use in articles with date ranges, and I have successfully used it now in more than a thousand articles (mainly the various "year" articles like 1993, going back to the 14th century) with only two errors until now, both of which had to do with some special use of hyphens in sports scores, which I did not understand. Normally, the script renders cases like this correctly. I cannot think what caused the problem this time, but I will study the original formatting to see if I can discover why it happened. In the meantime, I will increase my vigilance. Thanks for calling my attention to this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I now see what caused the problem. The script does not understand the piped date links. By ignoring the double brackets, it understands both the date before the dash and the date after the dash as compounds, rather than reading the second as the (abbreviated) single number, and therefore uses a spaced instead of an unspaced en-dash. Although I believe this is not best usage of date formats (and it is certainly not usual in these "by year" lists), I have seen it before, and even used it myself from time to time. I shall certainly keep my eye out for this eccentricity in future.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years

Precious

Six years!

Very fitting that we have Christopher White on the Main page today, who played in the premiere of Phoenix Arising, Tribute to William Waterhouse. In Freundschaft --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Easy listening edit

Missed the link to Beautiful music below in paragraph. Thanks for catching this. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Symphony No. 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Gillis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying the dab page. I fixed the link to Gillis. Do you think we should include Symphony in E-flat major, Op. 11, No. 3 (Stamitz)? I'm not sure whether that's his "symphony no. 3", as he also wrote a Symphony in B-flat major "Mannheim No. 3" (Stamitz). Certes (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I knew full well there was more than one Don Gillis, but forgot to put in the disambiguator. Thanks for fixing my mistake. I doubt very much that Stamitz's Op. 11, No. 3 would be only his third symphony. Without consulting his list of works, I would not be surprised to learn that Op. 1 is a set of twelve such symphonies, and also Opp. 2–10, which would make Op. 11 No. 3 his 123rd symphony. The problem with those early symphony composers is that they didn't bother numbering their symphonies, either because they were regarded as rather trifling little compositions, or because they simply couldn't count high enough. This only begins to change with the 19th century, when passing elementary-school math was added to the requirements for obtaining a composer's certificate ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave Stamitz out then. I've had a go at Symphony No. 2 if you'd like to check it over at some point. No obvious problems. Certes (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Boulez article assessment?

Hi Jerome - I was wondering whether you thought it would be a good idea to request an assessment of the Boulez article. I've done a fair amount of work on it but am struggling to know how to move it on and would welcome an outside eye as to what needs attention. I have no idea how to request an assessment though... Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Dmass (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not read through the Boulez article for several months now, though I have noticed the huge amount of work you have been doing on it. Since you are now at the point where you want some feedback, I will be happy to look it over now. For a formal review, the place to start might be with what is called a "peer review". Everything you need to know will be found at this link. If you are feeling a little more confident, you can nominate the article for good article" or even featured article status. I do not have a great deal of experience in these matters myself, but I believe it is usual to start with a peer review. I have participated in a few of these, on both sides of the fence, and the results have been consistently supportive and encouraging.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome, that's really helpful. I'd really welcome your feedback if you have time.Dmass (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made a first pass through the article, and I am astonished at how much improvement you have made. I should have been paying better attention over the last year or so. I have made a few minor adjustments, and there are still things that need attention, mostly of a mechanical nature. The main thing I notice is inconsistency in the formatting of references. I believe you have addressed this already in some of your previous edits, but now is perhaps the time to systematically deal with this. The predominant style seems to be short-footnote style, but there are a number of full-footnote references. Those sources are mostly not found in the main reference list, and so will need to be added there before SFNs can be substituted in the footnotes. With this out of the way, I would say that the peer-review level could be skipped, and a nomination for Good Article should be implemented right away. I cannot recall reading any Wikipedia article lately that gave me such pleasure. Congratulations on a job very well done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jerome, I really appreciate your taking the time to read through the article and your positive feedback means a great deal to me. Thank you very much—also for picking up the various formatting slips. I will spend some time working through all the references, as you suggest, before nominating it. You may not recall, but you and I had a lengthy debate (now archived) a couple of years back about their format and reached something of an impasse (with no one else willing to chip in!). Without rehashing, my main concern was that I didn't want to clog the list of sources with newspaper articles, some of which are only cited once, some of which have no author. I think I'm going to stick to my guns on that—for the time being at least! But there are also some references which don't come into that category (articles, chapters in books etc) and I'll go through them and include them in the list of sources and then refer back to them. I'll also check that the links are all working, which seems to be a consistent criticism in the reviews I've just looked at. I may have to revert to you with further questions along the way, I hope that's OK?

On a specific point: you added a 'citation needed' tag at the beginning of the opera section. The statement there was intended to identify a theme which (I hoped) was then borne out by the rest of the section, which sets out the pattern of PB starting operatic collaborations which then break down. But you are the second person to tag it, so it obviously sticks out like a sore thumb! Would you be very kind and just have another look to see if it's justified? If you think not, I think I will just delete that sentence.

Once again, thanks for your help. I was really delighted by your comments. Dmass (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Cleaning up minor formatting inconsistencies is a tedious business, but such things are the easiest to spot for an editor who is not familiar with the subject. When the article goes up for review, someone is bound to bring this up, so it is just as well to get as much of it out of the way first. I had forgotten our dispute on this matter until you mentioned it.

I will reconsider that "citation needed" tag but, if someone else already tagged it, then it is highly likely that one or more reviewers would also think it needs a citation. I agree that it makes for a smoother narrative by preparing the reader for what is to follow. Perhaps there is some way of making it acceptable by means of a minor tweak.

Do please feel free to come back to me if there is anything further I can help with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jerome—and for your offer of further help, which I'm sure I will take up. I've tweaked that passage in the opera section, as you suggested, which I hope now solves the problem by making a narrower assertion which is covered by the citation already there. I'll make a start on working through the references over the next week or so. Dmass (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) The usual way to higher article quality certificates would be Good article (GA), but I think in this case you could right go for Peer review (PR), with the advantage of addressing multiple editors, not only one. You could ask in the PR if reviewers think it's fit for Featured article (FA). FAs for composers are rather frequent for English and early 20th century, but I don't know a single more modern one. - I could help, but only from next week. Thanks for what you did, both! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda. I think as I haven't been through this process before, I'm going take it step by step and nominate it for GA in the first instance. No doubt that will lead to many suggestions for improvements and if in due course it then seems that FA status is a possibility, I will press on with that. Dmass (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Elliott Carter

Greetings -- could you do me a favor when you get a moment and look at the most recent edits to Elliott Carter? To my eye baldly using the words "harmony and rhythm" is a disservice to a casual visitor -- but would like to know what you think. I'd leave a note on the talk page but don't think anyone else is watching it. All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I did see those edits and wondered about them. What they replaced, however, also had problems. Both versions look to me like unsupported opinion (i.e., Original Research). I am still thinking about how best to respond to this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Bold headings on Vivaldi

Thank you for catching those headings that I had accidentally left bold -- I hadn't realised, since they were just plain bold text before I made them headings. — Hugh (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. As I'm sure you know, the Wiki markup automatically renders the heading text bold. It is an easy mistake to make.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Systems of tuning not closed under inversion (question at the RD)

I've posted a question at the RD you may have some expertise on. If you feel like answering, please, don't hesitate. Basemetal 13:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I took a look but, frankly, I am baffled. The whole invertibility thing seems to rely on arbitrary definitions, for a start. I'm afraid I cannot be of help on this one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Any definition is (by definition) arbitrary. Here your "arbitrary" is just another way of saying "uninteresting". That's fine. But there was a factual question in there that you could surely answer: namely Do you personally know of any Western tuning system, among the tuning systems you are familiar with, containing intervals whose inversion is not an interval of the system? You can surely answer it, at least in one of the following three ways: either (1) no, I can't think of any; or (2) there is at least one, namely...; or (3) I don't know, I'd have to take a look and I've got better things to do right now. I've looked at the tuning systems I was familiar with and as far as I can tell it's (1), but I thought you are probably familiar with so many more tuning systems than I am. Incidentally by Western I mean post 16th c. European. Basemetal 12:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Under those circumstances, my answer would have to be no, I can't think of any.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your teacher?

Has Donald A. Lentz been a teacher of yours? Basemetal 21:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. How did you know?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you've told me, but I wasn't sure I had not just imagined it, so I wanted to make sure. I guess I could have just gone through your archive, but this way seemed quicker. Basemetal 06:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: Do you happen to have his 1961 book Tones and Intervals of Hindu Classical Music? Basemetal 06:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! That would explain it, then. No, I don't have his book on Hindu Classical Music, and can't recall reading it, though I did once read his 1965 book on the Gamelan Music of Java and Bali, and went back to consult it on a few points after the idealogical tide turned in ethnomusicology on the doctrine of mathematical explanations for every tuning system. I remember Don telling us with some glee in his voice about all the bad reviews his book got on this point, but he was not cowed and believed one day he would be vindicated. I believe he lived long enough to see this happen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The bad reviews for the 1961 book or the 1965 book? I've just discovered I could have searched your archive, that in fact people's talk page archives are searchable. Watch: Special:Search?search=Lentz&prefix=User+talk:Jerome+Kohl/&fulltext=Search (never mind the redlink). Basemetal 17:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how the 1961 book was received, but the 1965 book was seen as an attack on the soundness of theories espoused by some of the most respected authorities of the time (as indeed it was). Thanks for the trip down memory lane, in the archives of this talk page. I do now remember that conversation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Donald Lentz's 1961 book came up in this conversation. Unfortunately the other editor can't find his copy and you've never owned one. Was Donald Lentz able to read the Sanskrit sources? Did he do fieldwork in India? (Although that wouldn't have helped since from what I understand the book is about ancient theory not modern practice). Basemetal 21:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well, I can tell you that he did do fieldwork in India (amongst other places) but, as you say, this would not make much difference where interpreting ancient texts is concerned. I do not know whether or not he could read the Sanskrit sources, but I doubt it. What I do remember was his incredibly fine sense of absolute pitch: he was perfectly capable of discriminating a deviation of a schisma. Of course that, too, would not rule out the possibility of a mathematical error creeping into his table.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I have just checked, and there are two copies of Tones and Intervals of Hindu Classical Music in the library here. I could easily check to find the answer to this question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm continuing the zigzag. I'm actually starting to prefer your in-out alternate style to the usual permanent-drift-rightwards-until-someone-is-finally-fed-up-and-decides-to-throw-an-outdent-tantrum. I'd guess the error was introduced by the editor, but it would be incredibly kind of you if it's no too great an inconvenience to check. Plus maybe now's exactly the right time to finally read that book at long last . (What does the Chicago Manual of Style say, smiley after or before the period?) The error in cents is absurd and can be ignored. The change of that ratio is interesting. Whoever perpetrated it replaced the real 2nd F sharp (tiivratam madhyam) with a 2nd F sharp that was an inversion of the 1st (tiivram madhyam). The two F sharp are on different sides of the half-octave √2 (in my opinion the best neutral term for that interval, rather than augmented 4th, diminished 5th, tritone, etc. which are bound to specific theories, I don't know what you think) but they are not symmetrical with respect to it. They may have thought there was something wrong with a system that was not symmetrical with respect to the half-octave, that it was an error and decided to correct it. That's why I very much doubt it was Lentz. There is some logic to this, but unfortunately that introduces an interval that's not supposed to be there. The shruti system is built of three sizes of elementary steps. The consequence of that is that the system is invertible for all steps except precisely the two F sharp and that seems to be exactly the reason. The other failure of invertibility, namely that there are two Fs but only one G, results from the same type of consideration seems to be an ideological rather than a technical matter. That could easily have been fixed by the Indians themselves within their requirements of only three sizes of elementary steps but never was. The ideological reason seems to have been that. [What follows has now become a parenthetical observation which, though true, is no longer directly related to the topic of the ratios of the shrutis] G (pancham), that is the 5th of the raag, is supposed to be "acal" ("unmovable"), whereas the F (madhyam) that is the 4th is "cal" ("movable"). That's why they also deny the existence of G flat (komal pancham). Even in raags, such as Raag Lalit, where the best analysis seems to be that the raag contains F and G flat (a bit analogously to our Locrian mode if that really exists) they stubbornly insist on describing it as a raag with two versions of F, F natural and F sharp, and no G. They say it's a six note raag (shadav jati) because two versions of F's do not count for them as two different notes (when it's so obviously a seven note raag). Here's a nice little snippet of Raag Lalit by two flute players, one left handed and one right handed. Unfortunately in this particular style of playing which is characteristic of the end of a recital the melody doesn't dwell on all seven notes equally and leisurely but that's the shortest I could find because I don't suppose you would be ready to listen to a 30 minutes alaap in Raag Lalit. I think there's a discussion of Raag Lalit in Nazir Jairazbhoy's The Rags of North Indian Music: Their Structure and Evolution, among other things regarding this business of how suspect the G flat seems to be to Indian theorists. [Here we're getting back to the topic] In any case, to go back to Lentz, I'm reading the Nāṭyaśāstram and in 1961, when Lentz published his book, a translation of it had barely been published that very same year so he couldn't have used it. That's why I was wondering if he could use the Sanskrit sources directly. I can't imagine what resource in a European language he could have relied on. Of course there are other Indian theorists, more recent than "Bharata", and maybe there were translations available of their works in European languages, but from what I understand the Nāṭyaśāstram is an essential piece of the puzzle since the actual ratios for the intervals are based on a construction described there. Intriguing stuff. I see there's a new 2013 printing of Lentz's book. I might just buy it. But before that if you get around to getting it from the library, I may ask you how big it is, is there a bibliography, what Indian treatises are mentioned... Basemetal 01:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I might be breaking some law with the zigzag, as you call it, but it does seem a lot more sensible than the usual right-drift-with-eventual-sudden-snap-back, especially when there are only two discussants involved. I can tell you this much about Lentz's book: it is only 25 pages long, so more of a booklet than a book.

I can just about follow your race through the shruti system (thanks in some part to Don's lectures back in the 1960s), which strongly calls to mind aspects of both ancient Greek and medieval European modal theory. The former of course had four fixed notes in an octave— and four wildly movable ones, but the medieval system tended more to the stable-dominant-and-everything-else-can-wobble-around idea. My attention was drawn back to this concept recently by a performance of the Machaut Mass given here in Seattle by Marcel Pérès—not so much Machaut's polyphony as the plainchant Pérès chose to fill out the programme. If you know his work, you will be aware that he has been strongly influenced by Eastern Christian chant, and what was so very plain in his solo performances was the drone-like stability of a certain small number of pitches and the motility of all the rest, especially the fourth above the final. This obviously relates directly to the theoretical status of the Lydian mode up until that half-informed meddler Glareanus started insisting on fixing all seven steps of the scale and brainwashed the general public into believing there was therefore a difference between Lydian and Ionian. What rubbish!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Aha! So you're siding with the Indians and accepting a variable 4th degree! I must quickly correct a conjecture I made above before checking the ratios rigorously, namely that the Indian system's failure to include a second G (40/27) to correspond to the second F (27/20) had something to do with their dogmatic position regarding the 5th degree. I checked the ratios rigorously and it turns out this is not the case. Instead it is also a result of the same technical consideration that prevented them from taking the two F sharp to be inversions of one another. The rest is well known and not a conjecture of mine. I've struck out above my hasty conjecture and grayed out the whole business about Raag Lalit which has now become a parenthetical remark irrelevant to the topic of the shrutis. I hope you enjoyed Raag Lalit though which would never have come into the picture without my hastily connecting the two situations. Basemetal 05:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hold on just a dadburned minute! I was simply stating the medieval traditionalist position with respect to Glareanus, and Marcel Pérès's Eastern-Orthodox-influenced approach to performance. Recall that I also mentioned the ancient Greek system which, in the Dorian and Phrygian tonoi, at least, has fixed fourth and fifth scale degrees. It is probable that Glareanus, who could read Greek and was familiar with Greek theory, was influenced in this respect by the Greek system. I did enjoy Raag Lalit, by the way. Very much so! Thanks for the link.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I now have Don Lentz's book in my hand, and I can answer the question. He did not make a mistake, but this case shows how important it can be to read the annotations to a table. First of all, Lentz's table is not solely intended to display the intervals of the Indian system, as the caption makes clear: "Comparative Chart of Tones within the Octave in Hindu and Western Music Systems". It has a total of 14 columns, compared with six in the Wikipedia article. The offending interval in question is marked with an asterisk in the column for Western just intonation (column III), but finding the meaning of this mark requires reading the following chapter where, on p. 13, Lentz explains some simplifications made in order to facilitate comparison with Western just intervals: "Large ratios have been reduced, such as 1024/729 to 45/32, or 729/512 to 64/45 (which differs slightly from the 11/8 of the F sharp in column III). The discrepancies are so slight as to be negligible and do not affect the understanding of the system. The exact derivation of any particular tone can be checked from column VIII or column IX. The numbers in these columns indicate the number of fifths or fourth from the fundamental (1)." Indeed, the interval in question is marked as being 7 fourths away which, when reduced to the same octave, gives the more complex ratios. The values in cents in Lentz's table are rounded to the nearest whole number, but otherwise correspond exactly to the corrected values in the current version of the Wikipedia article's table. The incorrect numbers in the earlier version are clearly transcription errors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Does the book have a bibliography? What source does it use for the data it presents? Another thing: the note to that table that explains why 729:512 has been reduced to 64:45 ("large ratios have been reduced") also says that 1024:729 has been reduced to 45:32. This one I'm puzzled by because 45:42 is the ratio used in the Indian system, it's not a simplification, and 1024:729 is not actually used. Basemetal 06:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. The book has no bibliography, but rather acknowledges seven authorities at the beginning ("Conferences with outstanding musicians and scholars throughout India were a very productive source in obtaining material for use in this book. ...It is impossible to acknowledge all who generously contributed ideas and information, but I wish to express my gratitude and thanks to the following in particular ...". Mainly heads of music schools are listed, in Benares, Karachi, Madras, Delhi, etc.) So, no Sanskrit involved, nor even printed sources, apparently. The table is large and complicated (as I said, there are 14 columns, but there are also some inter-columnar and inter-row annotations), and I am faced with an additional problem: the copy I checked out has been library bound, and that table is displayed broadside across two pages. The result is that the tenth row of the table has been completely swallowed up in the sewn binding. Nothing at all of it is visible.

That note did puzzle me, as well. For what it is worth, the ratios in column II ("Ratio of Indian interval [above fundamental]") are: 1/1, 256/243, 16/15, 10/9, 9/8, 32/27, 6/5, 5/4, 81/64, [?], 27/20, 45/32, 64/45, 3/2, 128/81, 8/5, 5/3, 27/16, 16/9, 9/5, 15/8, 243/128. (There is no 23rd row for the octave above the fundamental.) Columns VIII ("Appearance from fundamental in cycle of fifths") and IX ("Appearance from fundamental in cycle of fourths") show (following the invisible tenth row) 12/–, –/7, 7/–, 2/–, –/5, and so on. This does suggest that Lentz was thinking the "true" values of rows 12 and 13 (rows 11 and 12 in the Wikitable, which begins with zero instead of 1) were 1024:729 (Prati Madhyama) and 729:512 (Chyuta Panchama), respectively. I hope this answers your question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is funny. (Ok, first I have to get this off my chest: Damn those librarians and their book bindings!). It's amusing because the mistake we feared he made he didn't, but the one we didn't he did: at the center of the table (from F to G) you should have: 4/3, 27/20, 45/32, 739/512 and 3/2. Having 1024/729 instead of 45/32 is exactly the same kind of error as having 64/45 instead of 729/512. It's replacing the real ratio with the inversion of the previous (or following) ratio. I understand he did not put 1024/729 there but 45/32, but from what you're saying he thought the correct value was 1024/729 and 45/32 only a simplification. Could it be a result of getting your data verbally from musicians and scholars, be they ever so eminent? (Karachi? He must have visited India before Independence.) This said, that there is agreement currently in India as to the ratios of the shrutis is obvious. You can check several websites, for example the site of a guy who's invented a 22 shruti harmonium, several Wikipedia pages in Indian languages, etc. and there's no question there's agreement. But is that based on what the ancient treatises said or is that apparent uniformity just an artifact, all going back to an influential recent (end of 19th or beginning 20th century) formalization such as Vishnu Narayan Bhatkhande's who may have dogmatically oversimplified things? Based on Lentz's book we don't know. From a practical point of view it matters little. No sitar player places the frets of their sitar by taking out a pocket calculator and an electronic tuner. They place it where they sound good to them for the particular raag they're playing, where they've been taught by their teacher, who learned it from their teacher, and so on. But from a cultural history point of view it is a pity and really frustrating that it is so difficult to find a source that clearly establishes a link between the ancient tradition and the modern theory even (let alone modern practice). Btw, reading your answer, where you're quoting the Southern names, I've just noticed that the Southern name of 729:512 is "chyutta pancham". I had never paid any attention to the Southern names because I know almost nothing about Karnatki Shastriy Sangeet. But that means my statement about the dogmatic refusal of the G flat may not be accurate for the Southern tradition. You will notice that the Northerners call that note a "madhyam" (4th degree), that is they think of it as a kind of F sharp. But the Southerners apparently refer to it as a "pancham" (5th degree). In other words they think of it as G flat. Hmm. I'd like to look into this, but I've spent so much time trying to get to understand and enjoy Hindusanti Sangeet that the idea of now embarking on the same kind of effort for Karnatki Sangeet doesn't immediately appeal to me. I think I'll wait for a few years. In any case, thanks again. On another topic completely: you are a flute player (among other instruments). Have you ever tried the Baroque (traverso) flute? Basemetal 17:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, he does say "Karachi, Pakistan", and two of his acknowledgments go to Colombo, Ceylon. It is possible, I suppose, that some standards have changed over the past 50-odd years, or that a certain select group of performers had a differing opinion about Prati/Tivya Madhyama at that time (or, as you suggest, that it may be a Northern/Southern difference). FWIW, Lentz is slightly biased in favour of the Carnatic tradition, at least insofar as he uses the southern names by default, and lists them one column earlier in his table than the Hindustani names.

I first learned flute from Don Lentz, but did not progress very far with the Boehm instrument. I have spent a lot more time with the Baroque one-keyed flute, though I cannot claim to play it very well. I have also played the keyless Renaissance flute, likewise only to a modest degree, and it has been five or six years since I have actually played flute at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

At least I suspect you can answer this: from what I've seen Europeans stop the holes with their fingertips. (Is that correct? I've just looked at pictures and video, I play no flute and certainly no Baroque flute). But, I don't know if you've noticed, Indian flute players (cf. the video) stop the holes with the 1st finger joint (is that a word?) Strange. As a flute player could you adventure a guess as to why? Basemetal 19:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I can answer the first part: yes, European flute players stop the holes with the pads of the end-joint of the hand (not quite the very tips of the fingers, but I think this is what you mean). I have known a few players of some woodwinds—flutists, yes, but mostly clarinetists—who reach further across and close some of the holes with the second joint of the finger (I think this is what you mean by "first joint"). Players of the Scottish Highland Bagpipes normally use this technique. The reasoning is that the finger action is simpler when the finger is kept straight. On the bagpipes, at least, certain ornamental figures will only "snap" properly when played with absolutely straight fingers and, for the longer fingers, at least, this requires using the second joint instead of the tip joint. As far as the Baroque flute is concerned, Hotteterre advises the player to keep the fingers of the lower hand as straight as possible, though he does not seem to suggest that the tip joint should not be used. I advise the same thing to my recorder students, since even a little curl in the right-hand fingers can result in bringing the tips of the fingers down on the tone hole, rather than the broader finger-pad just behind the tips (not to mention the more complex action of curling and uncurling the fingers, using three joints instead of just one). It may be that, on those larger bamboo flutes, the tone holes are so large that they are more easily closed with the second finger-joint although, considering the size of some of those instruments, it does seem like it would make reaching the holes more difficult.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

There's one more question I'd forgot to ask that I wanted to ask, about Pérès, specifically his peformance of Machault's Mass. I like to be exhaustive when I pick your brain though not exhausting if I can at all help it (because that I don't like to be). It is about what you described as "the plainchant Pérès chose to fill out the programme" while performing Machaut's Mass. Here I was intrigued by what you were describing ("solo performance" and "drone-like stability of a certain small number of pitches and the motility of all the rest"). Although I'm not very familiar with the performance of Medieval Music, as far as Machault's Mass I was used to the idea of people performing the Mass by embedding Machault's polyphonic ordinary into a proper sung in plainchant, more or less consistent with the liturgy, even though the actual proper chosen may differ: for example I've heard a performance of that mass by Andrew Parrott where the proper used had an Introït starting with "Gaudeamus omnes in Domino..." and another by Marcel Pérès actually which used an Introït starting with "Suscepimus Deus misericordiam tuam..." But it seems what you heard in Seattle was not this sort of thing. First of all you say Pérès peformed it solo and then that he actually improvised (or possibly prepared) that part and that sounded very similar to Eastern Christian chant and was characterized by a "a drone-like stability of a certain small number of pitches and the motility of all the rest". Is my understanding of what you were describing correct? Basemetal 14:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that all of the plainchant material was sung by Pérès as soloist. Only the parts that would ordinarily be taken by the officiating priest or the cantor. I can't find a copy of the programme leaflet, nor can I recall just which chants were used. Most of the chant portions were attributed in the programme to a Limoges manuscript of the late-14th century, with which I am not familiar. One of the longest cantorial solos, however, was not so attributed. This may have just been an oversight, or it may be that it was entirely improvised by Pérès. Naturally, the manner of delivery of plainchant is one of the more debatable things in the performance practice of medieval music, and Pérès's approach is often described as "controversial". There is a rather nice review of the performance I heard, which you can read here. There are even a couple of photographs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this and for always being ready to help. Many people call on your expertise. It must often divert your time and attention from what you'd planned to do. You must sometimes go: "Oh, no, not again!". But if you do, you never show it and instead receive everyone with the utmost kindness. Basemetal 21:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Smith

Now I understand! You were right: "or" was not a typo. It just looked like a mistake for "full name of William O. Smith". Your latest fix is an improvement, anyway. Regarding the way it was before, now that I see what was intended, I'll admit it was only a cursory Google search, but I can see only "William O. Smith" as the credit for Smith's classical compositions. Of course I can't prove that he was never credited as "William Overton Smith". On a side note, I'll add that I find Smith an interesting figure. I'm familiar with some of his jazz, and I had the pleasure of seeing him perform with Dave Brubeck some years back, but I'm not familiar with his classical compositions (though I knew about them). Glad to see he's still around. --Alan W (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the jokey treatment of your edit. I studied/worked with Bill at the UW and think I can say I know him fairly well, though I have not seen him for several years now. I cannot recall ever seeing his full middle name used in connection with his compositions although, considering his identification with multiphonic techniques, we sometimes referred to him as Bill "Overtone" Smith.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I took the jokey treatment in stride. We were clearly both editing "in good faith". As for your having studied and worked with Bill yourself, I'm impressed. And I get the "Overtone" joke after having heard what he was playing about twenty years ago. He hadn't yet developed that style in the earlier jazz recordings I have. Not, personally, my favorite kind of music (the later stuff), but it is intriguing in its way, and he certainly grabbed my attention at the time. --Alan W (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is also true that Bill didn't use multiphonics all the time, even after he had begun developing the technique in the early 1960s. His experimental attitude to performance, however, was one of the main attractions of the University of Washington at the time I was deciding where to go for grad school. That was way back in 1971, so quite a lot more than twenty years ago.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to hear a bit about your own background as well as Bill's, and your pointing out that he didn't always use multiphonics even later on. Some day I must get around to listening to more of his music. I also see that, like myself, you are not exactly one of the Wikipedians who were born yesterday. <wink> Well, we bring a lot of experience to this project. I know that, for my own part, if I ever finally retire, this is one thing that will keep me busy. It's all good. Whew, late over here. Time for some of us to call it a night. --Alan W (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Coming for help again

Greetings: I'm coming for help once more ("not again!") but this should be quick: I've seen someone use the following convention when transcribing Indian (Hindustani) music into Western notation: to them this

means an F♯ followed by an F♮. (E.g. https://ibb.co/dM4ehH and https://ibb.co/bVzqpx: the Indian notation below the Western staff notation makes it clear they intend the F without a sharp to mean F♮ even when it immediately follows an F with a sharp) Are you aware of any genre of music or field of musicology or ethnomusicology where Western staff notation is used, where such a convention is used? Article accidental (music) is of no help and Double sharp, while he thinks it is highly unlikely that such a usage can exist, cannot absolutely rule out the possibility. What do you say? Basemetal 17:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the conventions within that particular corner of ethnomusicology, but the practice of an accidental only affecting the immediately following note is not unknown. In fact, it was normal notational practice in European music up until the late 18th century, and is often specified in 20th-century scores when the musical texture is highly chromatic, in order to reduce the number of accidentals. However, when it is a case of two successive notes, it is still usual to regard the immediately repeated note as affected by the accidental on the first one, and to require a natural sign in case that is not the intention. It is also necessary to supply a warning note that an accidental does not carry through the bar, since most people will assume that it does.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So if you (or any musician or musicologist not familiar with that area of specialization) saw those two examples, and w/o further information, you would assume by default that two F♯ in a row were meant. Is that a fair statement? Basemetal 20:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, unless there was a suitable warning posted with the example, I would.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Help expanded article by Maureen Wroblewitz from [2]. Thanks you.Kim Mai 13 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)