User talk:Jerome Kohl

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


Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music[edit]

Women in Music
Lyon Mosaïque de la muse Euterpe de la salle Rameau.jpg
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle[edit]

Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle, January 16, 2016
In the Seattle area?

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia's 15th anniversary at the
Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle on Saturday, January 16, 2016, 12:15pm to 5pm at the University of Washington Communications building, Room 126.

12:15 Potluck lunch
 1:00 Lightning talks and presentations

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia15 Animated Mark - English.gif

Ainsi parla Zarathoustra[edit]

peace bell

Any help with this In memoriam, Ainsi parla Zarathoustra (Boulez), is welcome. I don't speak French, unfortunately, and even the German of the expert is at times Böhmische Dörfer for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is new to me, as well. My French is fairly good, though not really fluent. I am not very surprised to find a previously unknown composition to surface at this particular time. The citations appear to be sound, but some investigation is certainly in order. Thanks for calling this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It was on the list of works "all the time". Do you have access to the JSTOR ref? I had no idea how connected he was to theater, and think that's of interest even for the lay readers. The scene pictured on top of my talk: I saw it in the Festspielhaus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Aha! Well, that just goes to show how shallow my knowledge of Boulez's work is! Yes, I have access to JSTOR, and can check the reference. Boulez worked for a time in his youth as music director for a theater company in Paris. It was there that he gained his first experience conducting. The date of this composition is the only real surprise, since he gave up that job in the mid-1950s.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
And the source says that he and Barrault went different ways, but Barrault still asked him (surprise) and he worked (surprise). Pretty close in time, and possibly drama, to his Wagner project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
An interesting juxtaposition. This will certainly make interesting reading. Thanks again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I was bold and started a bit on the music - please check, if what Zenck said in colourful German is recognizable in my limited English, and please improve! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for Bernado Kuczer[edit]

Dear Mr. Kohl,

I orgnanize a music-festival in Bremen/Germany for experimental and electronic music called REM ( We are trying to get into contact with Bernado Kuczer. Do you have an idea if, where he lives and how to contact him? Thank you

Jan van Hasselt — Preceding unsigned comment added by JVHasselt (talkcontribs) 10:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Scope of the term "early music"[edit]

I don't have access to the New Grove from home – what does Haskell say in his article? What definition does he give? If he says either "pre-Classical" or "pre-Baroque", we can certainly change the definition according to his authority. (Certainly the cited website does not have sufficient authority for this purpose.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Haskell's opening sentence reads: "A term once applied to music of the Baroque and earlier periods, but now commonly used to denote any music for which a historically appropriate style of performance must be reconstructed on the basis of surviving scores, treatises, instruments and other contemporary evidence." I think this addresses the issue admirably. Kennedy, I think, is not so much an "outrider" as he is (by the nature of his book) too brief to allow complete accuracy. One way or another, it is past time that this issue was resolved, so thank you for bringing it up. In addition, it should not require a reference in the lead paragraph, which is meant only to summarise the article's content. If the definition does not appear in the article itself (preferably with an adequate disussion of how the sense has changed over time), then it has no place in the lead.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! How would you phrase the lead, then?
As I hinted in my edit summary, I suspected that this might be a disagreement between practicing HIP/HAP (I love that acronym!) musicians and specialists in theory, as Kennedy's definition implies a clean three-way split: Early, Common Practice, Modern/Contemporary. Compare Template:History of Western art music. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the question of whether or not the Baroque is included no more than a matter of just temperament? (Ah, oui, monsieur, je must have my little joke, non?) With apologies in advance and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Dear Jerome

Sorry to bother you. I just wondered: are this and this, in your opinion, at a normal/average/whatever level of requests for references in music articles? It looked like a *lot* of tagging to me, on almost everything, but then what do I know? The editor may be absolutely right,but I just wasn't sure. I'd be lost grateful foray comments but please don't worry that I'm planning to start a big fight ... not my thing. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the density of requests for sources in either case is out of line, though if it had been me I might have handled things differently. For example, the piccolo trumpet article has one entire section without any references at all, and it might have been more appropriate to put a banner at the head of that section, rather than flagging every paragraph. The pocket-trumpet article seems to be infested with those "my favourite player" entries, which are not appropriately collected together into a "players of" section (which could then be marked with a single banner, thereby significantly reducing the number of individual flags.)
I am of two minds about using both a "refimprove" tag at the top of the article and flagging individual claims. On the one hand, the top banner tends to get ignored, and without the accompanying specific flags, editors may fail to understand what actually needs sourcing. On the other hand, peppering an article with dozens of individual flags looks like malicious pattern-bombing. Wikipedia guidelines tell us to make a good-faith effort to find sources for dubious claims before sticking markers on them, but often I find myself wondering at what appears to be a ridiculous claim in an article whose subject is completely foreign to me, so that I have scarcely any idea where to start looking. In other cases, I may mark all the places in an article needing sources, simply so that I can find them again when I return five minutes later with the first batch of additions. It is a judgment call, to be sure, and opinions are going to vary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That's really brilliant and extremely helpful - thank you very much for taking the time. I really appreciate the sanity check! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello, Jerome -- Do you agree with this edit to Zither? Corinne (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, though I do not quite see the point of adding the German pronunciation. Having said that, i have always myself pronounced the word with a "soft" (unvoiced) TH, as in "thick", though i believe the British pronunciation is voiced (TH as in "then") as shown in that edit. It may be a US/UK thing, or maybe just the way I picked up a regional (midwest American) accent from my dad, whose voice I hear in my head whenever I see that word.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I've always heard it pronounced with an unvoiced "th", also. Perhaps both English pronunciations should be given. Corinne (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's do little research first. It is easy enough to see what the OED has to say, for a start. It gives just one pronunciation, /ˈzɪθə/, which agrees with what you and I believe (it is always so comforting when your assumptions are confirmed by a reliable source, isn't it?). If there were different pronunciations in the US and the UK, the OED is where I would go first to confirm this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it's even comforting when I find out that someone else pronounces a word the way I do. I'm wondering whether the editor who made that edit assumed that the English pronunciation had to match (at least in the consonant) the German pronunciation. Corinne (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The trouble is, it doesn't matter which English TH sound (voiced or unvoiced) is proposed. Neither one matches the German pronunciation. Both English sounds are notoriously alien to German speech patterns, hence the actor's "quick way" to faking a German accent, by substituting S, Z, F, D, or T sounds for TH.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much German; a little, but not much. So German doesn't have a th-sound that resembles either one of the English th-sounds? How do they pronounce words with "th" in them? Corinne (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ziss iss a verry difficult qvestion you sink to ahsk me! "How do zey pronounce vurds viss "th" in zem? (With apologies to Colonel Klink, Sergeant Schultz, and all the other German characters in Hogan's Heros).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Most Germans nowadays can manage the interdentals, I think, but the most common mispronunciation is indeed as an alveolar sibilant, true to the stereotype, though more usually as an unvoiced (or half-voiced) one, i. e., [s], compare this ad, and see Standard German phonology#Loanwords from English. Th-fronting is uncommon as opposed to alveolarisation. It's easy to mishear "Smith" as "Smiff" if you're unfamiliar with the sound (I did that in my childhood), but as Germans have generally been made aware at school or elsewhere that the sound is similar to [s]/[z], not [f]/[v], they will try to produce a dental sound, not a labial one, so if they can't manage a real interdental, they will end up with something closer to [s].
I don't see a problem with noting both English/Anglicised and German pronunciation in the lede – I don't think it overburdens it. It's extremely common on Wikipedia to have the German pronunciation noted; much more frequently even, only the original German pronunciation is given and no Anglicised one, even though it would be helpful to know that one too.
For example, puns involving Bach I've encountered imply that a significant number of people pronounce the name as [bæk], and [bɑːk], I think, is common too, but the note at Johann Sebastian Bach only gives [bɑːx] (although at least the [bɑːk] variant can be mechanically derived from that). Wikipedia is unnecessarily dismissive of Anglicised pronounciations, regardless of how common they are in the real world, which I find regrettable. There should be place for both original and assimilated pronunciations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Florian Blaschke, for the interesting information and links. On your last point, I agree with you, but I'm surprised to hear that WP would not follow the advice of an expert on linguistics such as yourself. Anglicization of foreign words is one step on the way to full adoption of the word into the language, which goes on all the time in all but the most isolated languages, so why would there be an objection to including the Anglicized version of a foreign word or name? With "Bach", English speakers have a difficult time pronouncing the [x] sound to begin with, and a final [x] sound is even more difficult, so what's wrong with accepting that and giving [bɑːk] as an alternate pronunciation? Corinne (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I am under the impression that this is a Wikipedia-wide principle, to simplify IPA transcriptions (for the same reason, we give the pronunciation of a word such as border as pan-dialectal /ˈbɔrdər/, which can be easily converted into the reader's dialect – e. g., [ˈbɔːdə] or [ˈbɔ(˞)ːdɚ] etc. – by the reader). Help:IPA for English has a footnote mentioning the customary replacement of [x] with [k] and sometimes [h], but perhaps it would be better to mention this in the dialect variation section. This reminds me that the transcription given in Zither does not conform to our guidelines. Changed. Personally, I would also write /ˈtsɪtər/ for German, for the sake of dialect/accent-neutrality. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as giving the Anglicized pronunciation is concerned, the word "zither" is fully assimilated, so it would be very strange to give only the German pronunciation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Am I correct in reading the English pronunciation of "zither" (at the beginning of the article) as having a voiced "th", as in whether? Florian, both Jerome and I, who grew up in different parts of the U.S., have always heard it pronounced with an unvoiced "th". Are you saying that pronunciation is absolutely wrong? If it is not wrong, then can it be included as another English pronunciation? Corinne (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, being trained in the solidly empiricist and descriptive "West Coast" tradition of typological and historical linguistics, I would not characterise the pronunciation [ˈzɪθər] as "absolutely wrong" and indeed see no reason at all to do so. If anything, it seems to be rare and non-standard, as dictionaries (apart from the OED) do not seem to list it. (I've only looked around the web a bit, as I can't find my old Cassell right now.) The pronunciation with a voiced interdental fricative is also more obvious in view of eye rhymes, which are all pronounced voiced too. So your variant strikes me as odd, surprising or at least counterintuitive. In fact, there seems to be no other word rhyming with your pronunciation, and words ending in /-θər/ are distinctly rare (I can only find Arthur, author, and derivations in -er like norther, birther and truther). So, there is no real precedent or parallel, which is the only halfway objective argument I can field against it, but it is noteworthy. I suspect there is a different analogy though, with Greek words including -th- where it is, I think, always pronounced as /θ/, as well as the derivations in -er I mentioned. This case is a bit puzzling to me; perhaps it is a US pronunciation ignored by prescriptive linguists. If you ask me, this kind of question is cut out for WP:RD/L. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


On the topic of Wikipedia's erratic at best coverage of assimilated pronunciations, even Schoenberg does not get one. I assume his name is commonly pronounced as /ˈʃeɪnbɜrɡ/ or perhaps /ˈʃɜrnbɜrɡ/? The Anglicised pronunciation is not always predictable; more reason to include it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Jerome would know better than I how Schoenberg's last name is pronounced. Regarding the voiced or unvoiced "th" in "zither", I think it is rather difficult to keep the voiced quality going from the voiced "z" to a voiced "th", since there is no intervening consonant sound, more difficult even than saying "wither". There is something particular about the "z". Corinne (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, I did not consider this. Yes, I agree that such a sequence of voiced coronal fricatives in different places of articulation is rife for dissimilation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Florian I wasn't thinking of the changes needed to be made by the front of the tongue (which I gather from the article on Coronal consonants is what is meant). I was thinking of the changes needed to be made at the back of the throat while making those changes. Try saying "zither" with a really voiced "z" and a voiced "th", and compare that to the relative ease of saying "wither", "whether", or "feather". Corinne (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I got it. It is a veritable tongue-twister. Probably because [z] and [ð] are so close, because [ˈvɪðər] or [ˈzɪvər] are easy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Beg to differ, but in the pre-summer of love San Francisco, zither was z as in zoo, th as in the, then, than, there, that. But on Polk Street it may have been pronounced with a lithp. If you guys like zithers tho, you might consider calling it "the western guqin" ... pronounce me that ! :-) (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Vasily Andreyev[edit]

I was wondering if you could find some balalaika music to add to either the balalaika article or the Vasily Andreyev article. I mean, I guess I could search for some, but I wouldn't know how to add it. Corinne (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you know, I have never added a soundfile to Wikipedia, so I wouldn't know how to do it, either. Nor do I know a thing about balalaika music, so I wouldn't even know where to start looking for recordings. I'm afraid you will have to seek help elsewhere.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh. I thought you knew almost everything about music! ;) Corinne (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear, oh dear! Feet of clay in this case!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) here. Audio (and video) files are added in a similar format as images. Wikipedia uses 3 media file formats that are royalty free including .flac, .wav, and .oog. Here is a sample of a template to add a media file:
{{listen |filename=Accordian chords-01.ogg|title=Accordion chords|description=Chords being played on an accordion}}
Replace the italic portions with actual data.
{{listen}} is the name of the template (click on the link to the left to see other template examples)
filename= is the name of the media file
title= is the title you choose to give the piece or work (optional)
description= describes the piece or work (optional)
If you click on the listen template you will see you can also create a nested listen module within infoboxes to create an embedded media experience.
The sample I gave above renders like this:
Cheers! PS: If you add the parameter |help=no, the media help link sentence goes away. Try putting an audio file on your Talk page or in your sandbox as an experiment. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to page Corinne. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks very straightforward. Much obliged. What I meant to say, however, is that I have never uploaded a soundfile, not to Wikipedia, but to Wikimedia Commons. I imagine that it is done using the same or a similar wizard as the one used for images.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jerome Kohl. Yes. Same exact procedure. Same exact wizard if you go the wizard route. Be careful with licensing. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jerome Kohl and Corinne. Just for fun I added a short audio snippet to the infobox of Balalaika. Not very pretty but it was fun. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Moved from unnecessary new section below. Hello, Jerome – Do you think there are a sufficient number of citations in Vasily Andreyev? Does a "citation needed" tag need to be added to some of the paragraphs?  – Corinne (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two long-ish paragraphs in the main body of the article that are unreferenced, though I would not be at all surprised to discover that all of the statements in them could be cited to that one source that accounts for most of the rest of the article. What I do think needs attention is the lede which, instead of summarizing the rest of the article, presents a long list of the subject's accomplishments, some with references, others with "citation needed" tags. All of this material should be dealt with at length in the article proper (with citations, of course), so that both the footnotes and the cn tags in the lede could be deleted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK: Joseph Yasser[edit]

I invite you to visit Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Yasser. Hyacinth (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Usually the case[edit]

You wrote at Sextuple meter:

"While this is usually the case, a citation should nevertheless be supplied".

What is sometimes the case?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In slow sextuple meter, there may be no secondary accent (just as the beats in quintuple meter are not always to be grouped as 3 + 2 or 2 + 3). I have just amended the quintuple-meter article's lede to reflect this fact, already discussed in the body of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How is it possible??[edit]

Do you really think it's possible to have 4 or more notes of identical duration where the first gets primary stress and none of the later ones get secondary stress?? How?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Speed is the key. I was just listening to Villa-Lobos's Chôros No. 12, which has a rapid septuple ostinato near the beginning. It is impossible to say whether it is 3 + 4 or 4 + 3; in fact, it is seven equal beats. Consequently, whichever way you try to hear a "group of 4", it refuses to subdivide.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
knowledge and modesty
... you were recipient
no. 40 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter Maxwell Davies, may he rest in peace. I liked the article much better with the infobox, and wonder why you'd want another time-sink of a discussion. I'll pass that one, just mourn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

ps: when I read this I feel understood, quote: "it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I can agree with Voceditenore's sentiment, but I found it amusing that at almost the same time the infobox was added, there was a call for expansion of the lede, which already had all of the data in the infobox. You responded quickly to that call, and bless you for doing so. I may yet suggest that the infobox can stay, as long as the redundant information contained in it is deleted from the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to return the infobox and discuss its flaws and merits. Much easier to discuss something you see than something you have to look up in the article history. - I don't quite understand what you mean by redundant. An infobox is redundant by definition: key facts from the article. To have birth and death nicely together is an advantage (I think), even if the same information appears in the lead. Compare Beethoven, - an infobox installed after talk page consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow your reasoning, Gerda. Aren't birth and death dates together (even closer together) in the lede? FWIW, I dislike the Beethoven infobox, for the usual reasons, but I am not going to try to fight consensus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please excuse my sloppiness, to speak - on the day of death of another great musician - of just "birth and death", short for not only the dates, but data: the date of birth in a templated form which works in other languages as well, useful for comparisons and calculations, the place of birth, the date of death (...), the calculated age, the place of death. You may need none of this, but others do. Why not give the lead to you, the infobox to the others? You can even opt out to see the infobox if it annoys you, ask Dr. Blofeld or RexxS. - Too many deaths these days, - Harnoncourt was a distant relative.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I disabled the hide infobox feature because on some it didn't work and made it worse, plus in some articles an infobox is actually useful. I think common sense applies to useage, not a mandatory "every article must have an infobox for uniformity".♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My condolences, Gerda. I was not even aware that Harnoncourt had died, until you drew this to my attention. I did know of Davies, Boulez, and John Eaton, all within a very short space of time. It seems like the Grim Reaper has been very busy of late. Thanks to Dr.Blofeld for the update on hiding infoboxes. I agree (as I believe Gerda can testify) that in some cases infoboxes are useful. The problem as I see it is not so much whether I have to look at the things, as how much harm they may do to the general readership. Their "usefulness" may be compared to the Monty Python send-up of oversimplified children's programming: "How to play the flute: You blow in one end, and move your fingers up and down the outside. Next, how to cure all the world's known diseases ..."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the condolences: Harnoncourt was another great musician we will miss. (When I said distant, I meant distant, - I watched him conduct opera (L'Orfeo and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria) but didn't meet him in person, only his brothers.) - How could you miss that Harnoncourt died when I linked to it in my entry today, from "just mourn" in this thread? - I don't know to whom you speak about "How to...", - probably not me because I said just above that you may need none of this, but possibly others. - If you tell me what in a specific infobox is harmful and why, I will be the first to remove that part. - You seem to have missed the (long, long) discussion on WT:COMPOSERS where Harnoncourt's death was also mentioned. - Late here, please excuse seemingly unrelated bits ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not miss your entry, linked from this thread. That is in fact how I first learned of Harnoncourt's death (and I of course agree that he was a great musician, who will be sorely missed). His biographical article has not been on my watchlist, and I did not see the discussion on WT:COMPOSERS, which also is not on my watchlist.
As one example of the specific infobox of which we are speaking, you may have missed the flap about five years ago about whether or not it is correct to say the Peter Maxwell Davies was born in Salford, Greater Manchester, considering that he was born in 1934 but Greater Manchester did not exist before 1 April 1974; then the issue of whether Salford is in England or the United Kingdom, etc. All of this is trivia, and has nothing to do with the man or his music, so why open up such a contentious, but pointless issue?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Waking up to this, rubbing eyes: trivia, yes, past discussions of trivia. The present version has it simple and satisfactory, no? "...wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen." ("... what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence", Ludwig Wittgenstein. An infobox is not to capture a personality, - only "key facts". My first article was about a composer who also performs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say but I'm fully with Jerome on this one, the infobox in Davies is a perfect example of Wp:Disinfobox and adds absolutely nothing of value to the reader.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Your input on Talk:Peter Maxwell Davies would be greatly appreciated. We are in need of more voices in an attempt to establish some form of consensus there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I would but I don't want it to look like I'm pettily retaliating for Gerda's infobox support at Talk:Frank Sinatra. I otherwise approve of Gerda but strongly disagree with her that every article should have an infobox, regardless of quality of content. I'm of the opinion that a redundant infobox which either repeats what is in the lede or contains trivia cheapens articles and makes us look less professional, especially when it comes to printing out pages. A nice photograph in biographies tends to emulate that of the traditional encyclopedia. I'm sorry you've had to deal with this, I know what it's like to have people turning up trying to force them on articles you've written! I'm of the opinion that infoboxes should be used largely for articles with a lot of data which is best put into a box than prose. Things like aircraft/vehicles/buildings/settlements and sportspeople. In arts biographies they tend to be largely redundant and end up cheapening the article IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a pity, since there have been only two editors (including myself) who have shown the slightest interest in this allegedly contentious subject on the Maxwell Davies Talk page. Without further input, it will be impossible to declare anything but a stalemate, which I suppose means a return to the status quo of no infobox, but with a declaration of "no consensus", leaving the whole tiresome business open to future wrangling. I thought the Composers' WikiProject included a lot of passionate opinions (on both sides), but there seems to be a resounding expression of apathy in this case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I for one refrained from commenting at Talk:Peter Maxwell Davies through lack of desire to get drawn into yet more tedious infobox discussions. I did note, however, that the infobox that was added, then removed, then added again, contained one assertion that was simply wrong – it stated that Max died on Hoy. This was only later corrected to Sanday by an anon IP editor. My guess is that the editor who added the infobox saw the space for "place of death" and, having read that he died at home, vaguely remembered that he had once lived on Hoy and added that. If he had taken the trouble to read the article he would have known that Max moved to Sanday a good many years ago, but I guess infoboxes are about making an article look pretty rather than supplying verified information. --Deskford (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! I take it that you are an unqualified enthusiast where infoboxes are concerned, then ;-) While I can perfectly understand your reluctance to get involved in yet another tedious infobox discussion, if this is representative of Project members' attitude, then the position statement has lost any meaningful support and should be withdrawn forthwith, in order to let the Infobox Brigade roll on, unopposed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
" I guess infoboxes are about making an article look pretty". See, I see it as just the opposite of this, I see a nice clean photograph without a big ungainly box as making the article look prettier!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Dr B, I'm not going to disagree with you there. Perhaps I should have put quotes round "pretty". JK, I suspect I'm not the only project member who has been bullied into submission by the sheer tedium of the repetitive arguments. Maybe the infobox crusaders have a higher boredom threshold. That said, I have managed to stay awake long enough to re-read some past discussions about infoboxes, and I have various thoughts that I may post somewhere if I can work out the most appropriate place. Meanwhile, in the specific case of Peter Maxwell Davies it seems pretty clear to me that the box was added in good faith, and removed in equally good faith, both within the spirit of WP:BRD. When a third editor re-added the box without talk page consensus that amounted to disruptive editing. --Deskford (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Great minds do run in the same channels. However, since I was editor no. 2 in the above scenario, it did not seem appropriate for me to object to editor no. 3's action. If an editor no. 4 should happen along and notice the injustice, however . . .—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
My not so great mind sees it differently: why revert any good faith edit that is no vandalism? I could imagine better ways of interacting as adults, for example reach a consensus in a discussion without a revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I correctly understand @Deskford: the WP:BRD guideline specifies that discussion is to ensue directly after a reverting of a bold edit, and in the meantime the status quo from before the bold edit should be left in place.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You are right as always, but it's a guideline (no more, not binding, no rule or law which we have to follow). We could simply think that the addition of an indobox is just an edit, nothing bold, and we could discuss its flaws and merits, which - I think - we did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
ps: remember In nomine? I was reminded, writing the beginning of the works list ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I always try to imagine how I would see things if the shoe were on the other foot. In the present case, consider that it had been an infobox removed in good faith by an editor, with that edit reverted by a second editor. Would it then be the correct procedure for a third editor to once again remove the infobox, without first waiting for discussion on the talk page? I think you already see my point, but perhaps it helps to spell things out in this way.
As for the In nomine example, I can only say that some editors have memories like elephants! I do have two independent sources for transcriptions of the Sarum-rite chant, but so far have been unable to find an edition of the original, from which to make my own transcription. I have been reluctant to use either of those two secondary sources because of uncertainty about copyvio. Perhaps not actually a problem, though taking both into account (one shows the text underlay and ligatures, the other does not) might involve unacceptable synthesis. No excuse to bury my head in the sand, but it is always easier to do nothing!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
English is a difficult language. I dream of a time when there is no removal. If an edit was made in good faith, of sourced content, in a format that comparable articles have: why would you remove, instead of discussing flaws and merits. - My memory is usually bad, but I have good memories of In Freundschaft, and the friendship of William Waterhouse and Karlheinz Stockhausen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the concertos to List of compositions by Peter Maxwell Davies! Could you add a bit to the general remarks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I had not considered that, but I will, now that you ask. I cannot recall having seen very many lists of this nature that include a proper introduction, but that certainly does not mean there should not be any.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
There is only one other list of that nature so far, Carl Nielsen works, - Reger is in a sandbox, Busoni is a dream that may not come true for lack of time, at least not until his birthday (the lists we have for him are just too much), - thank you for your offer! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Beautiful Soup[edit]

This is fair enough, but when you reverted my edit (twice) you broke the link to the article and you did nothing about solving that. I've now done sorted it, but a bit of consideration over and above the pedantry would make Wikipedia work a bit better for everybody. Trey Maturin (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice the link was broken. Like most of us, I tend to see what I am focussing on, and not the broader picture. I will try to remember this lesson next time. Thanks for understanding.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


Thanks! ... I must have been asleep on the job as usual. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. Somehow that bit of vandalism slipped past my radar, as well. It was only when I was checking your restoration that I noticed it, entirely by chance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! And of course it may yet turn out that Haley Brady is indeed the best horn player ever. I shall watch with care for the emergence of a reliable source on this. DBaK (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

List of compositions by Peter Maxwell Davies has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Do you think you could add a bit to the introduction? Will appear 16 April, with image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
ps: we now have Ferruccio Busoni and Max Reger, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I will see if I can think of anything. I did already make one small addition, but at the time the introduction otherwise seemed sufficient.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Chôros No. 13[edit]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. Jerome Kohl, thanks for creating Chôros No. 13!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add in-line citations

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung: The article already has six inline citations, which I think is fairly good for a piece of music which has never been performed and whose score has been lost. I suggest you read the article Parenthetical referencing, which will explain how this fairly common format works.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation: Poll on adding two navboxes to a recent GA article[edit]

Hi. I trust you are well :). May I prevail upon your good nature and extend an invitation for you to visit a poll and vote here . Of course please feel free to ignore my request if time is too short (and I'll just go away Face-smile.svg). This vote is for a small issue—the insertion of two navboxes into Michael Laucke, a recent GA article. We thought it would be good policy to go through the democratic process of voting.

Thanks you so much in advance for your kind consideration and for your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. With utmost respect and kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

L'Histoire du soldat[edit]

Dear Jerome, I've just noticed that (as has also been remarked on the talk page) that our article on L'Histoire du soldat says nothing at all about the music except for "rife with changing time signatures". Maybe you or another kind soul could add a little bit more to mitigate this regrettable gap in the article. Thanks for your attention! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that is a serious defect! (I suppose, to be scrupulously accurate, the article does offer the information that the music is played by seven instruments, but that is not really adequate, is it?) As it happens, I am at the moment working on the article Harpsichord Concerto (Falla), which is not entirely unrelated to L'Histoire. I will see what I can do. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Henry VIII[edit]

If you don't mind, I've reverted the recently introduced edits about Sir Thomas Wyatt and Henry VIII. I appreciate you were after references but as things stood, the two statements were deeply contradictory with one saying that Wyatt introduced the Italian style of composition and the other saying that it wasn't introduced until after Henry's death (and therefore some years after Wyatt's death). Until such time as meaningful references link Wyatt to the Romanesca (which, I have no doubt, do not exist), I think it's best to stick with the facts we have. Hope that's OK. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall have to look at your edit to confirm my suspicion, but it sounds like you may have thrown the baby out with the bath. There was a reliable source verifying that the Italian musical style (of the Romanesco/Passamezzo antico) was unknown in England in Henry's lifetime. In fact, the evidence indicates it does not appear even in Italy until the 1550s. On the other hand, all of the sources offered (by an editor who reverted my removal of the claim that Thomas Wyatt certainly brought the Romanesca to from Italy England twenty years before the Italians themselves knew about it) refer solely, if at all, to Wyatt's bringing the poetic form of the Petrarcan sonnet to England, and that he and Henry VIII were close. I have no problem myself with this claim, but it has no bearing at all on the subject, since the various words to Greensleeves are none of them in the form of a Petrarcan sonnet, nor can they be because of the shape of the music. There is a potential confusion here between the words and the music. Could Henry have written one or another of the lyrics now associated with the tune of Greensleeves? Yes, it is possible. Is there any evidence for this? No, none at all. Even the inference of Wyatt's influence on Henry's literary style evaporates when all that can be verified is that he brought the Petrarcan sonnet to England. Could Henry have written the tune of Greensleeves? The evidence here is against this hypothesis. What is more, the tune itself is known as an instrumental from before the earliest surviving words. There probably were words associated with the tune before those earliest surviving examples, but we have no clue what they might have been. This is part of the mystery of the meaning of the title. The words that we know may have been crafted as an explanation for the intriguing title of the melody.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: My fears have proved groundless. The baby remains unharmed, the bathwater discarded safely. Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


As always, for your care in respect of music and dance articles.Redheylin (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It is very kind of you to say so. I was afraid we might have been having a difference of opinion. I hope it is clear that my edits were meant only to maintain conformity of citation formats. Your content edits have been much appreciated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke[edit]

Hello, Jerome -- I don't know if you devote any time to reviewing articles being considered for FA, but if you do, and have time, perhaps you could comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Laucke/archive1. A lot of work has gone into this article by many editors, particularly Natalie.Desautels and Checkingfax. See reviewer Sainsf's most recent comment, here.  – Corinne (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I have not done much reviewing of articles, either for GA or FA, though I have participated on a few occasions. I will take a look at this one, though, and if I have any comments to make, I will certainly do so. Of course, I have made a very few small edits to that article myself, so I shall check the rules, but I don't think they prohibit me from making suggestions for further improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sinfonía india[edit]

Hello there, please feel free to clarify/re-name/re-number the themes here as you wish. It is the weekend, so I don't have access to the library to look at the references, which seem to state that there are three themes. Actually, I read (the English translation of) the Orbón analysis at the library this week, but don’t remember the contents well enough, and can’t read it entirely on Google Books. The Dictionary by Barlow & Morgenstern lists 6 “themes” in this piece: 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (at rehearsal mark 88). (Here is an archive for the online analog.) I have instead labeled them 1A, 1C, 2, 3, and 4 (but haven’t added 5 yet) as I wanted to include the trumpet motif (my 1B) at rehearsal mark 2. The full score is available here. It would be great if we can get the section text and the score snippets to match up. By the way, do you know if it is considered okay (in terms of copyright) to add score snippets to articles, as I have done? Hftf (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hftf. I was not aware that the Orbón had been translated into English. I don't know the Barlow & Morgenstern source at all (thank you for bringing it to my attention), but of course the way themes are "listed" will depend on the interpretation of the analyst. Orbón says there are three principal themes, and several subordinate ones. If my memory does not betray me, the one you have labled "theme 3" is the Yaqui theme (E-flat clarinet), which would appear to be Orbón's theme 2. García Morillo has a nice little table, showing all the thematic material and how Chávez regarded it as relating to traditional symphonic layout. Unfortunately, my copies of García Morillo and Orbón are currently in storage after a recent house move, and I cannot readily access them. Slonimsky is on the table in front of me, but unfortunately he does not go into such great detail. I also own a copy of ther Schirmer study score, but that, too, is in storage. Thank goodness for the availability of Leonard Bernstein's marked-up copy on the New York Philharmonic website!
I think there may be a strong difference of opinion about the legality of score excerpts like these. I have recently seen a spate of such examples added to a number of articles (particularly the symphonies of Ralph Vaughan Williams) and, so far, none have been challenged. Copyright law of course varies by country, which makes things complicated for Wikipedia. In the US (where Wikipedia is headquartered) I believe these little snippets would be covered by the doctrine of Fair use, but whether the fair dealing provisions of laws in many other countries would treat them in the same way, I do not know for certain. I think the worst that could happen is that they might be removed by an editor claiming a restrictive interpretation of copyright, but I don't have a crystal ball. In the meantime, thank you for your efforts. I think the examples enhance the readability of the article and make the thumbnail analysis clearer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind response. The Barlow Dictionary I mentioned is a handy little resource of about 10,000 musical themes alphabetized by composer. The second half is a sorted index of the themes transposed into C – very useful for figuring out what’s stuck in your head. The themes were all transcribed into MIDI on “The Multimedia Library,” although that site is now down. (I downloaded those MIDIs and shuffle them as a way to quiz myself!)
I believe that Orbón English translation appears (along with a few prefatory pages) as a chapter in the middle of Carlos Chávez and His World (2015) by Leonora Saavedra. I was very glad to stumble upon this brand new book at the library last week. It has a lot of other material, and here you can download the table of contents and introduction for examination. Some fraction of the pages are even viewable on Google Books, though it seems I have already used up my quota.
As for the excerpts, maybe we should label the three “primary” themes as Huichol/Yaqui/Seri, numbered separately from the secondary themes? I would be happy for you to add that information if you are willing, or else wait until either of us retrieves the sources.
I am also a fan of including a few score excerpts in articles (under fair use), as it makes it easy to cross-reference the actual music with the written descriptions. However, I worry that the excerpts take up too much space – maybe it’s better to use a collapsible box. Let me know if you have any more thoughts before I go adding such excerpts without restraint. I also still need to learn how to properly cite the scores. Hftf (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Citing the scores is probably the easiest question to answer: Simply reference the score (with either a page or a bar number, e.g.: {{harv|Chávez|1950|loc=[page number, bar number, or rehearsal number (plus or minus bars), specifying which you mean]}}. FWIW, transposing the themes "into C" may be very useful in certain frames of reference, but not for themes stuck in my head, which tend to remain in their original keys (if any). I think the problem of numbering the themes has more to do with which source is regarded as the primary reference than with anything else. If the text refers to Orbón or García Morillo, then the examples ought to follow suit. I am grateful to you for bringing my attention to Saavedra's new book. I relish becoming familiar with it. As for the space taken up by the score excerpts, I do not think this should be a problem for the reader. After all, there are not so many of them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for getting your hopes up. It looks like the chapter I mentioned isn’t a complete translation of the Orbón liner notes: “These notes were followed by a detailed analysis of each of the symphonies, which we do not include” (p. 63). I’ll have to look for the complete liner notes in Spanish, or a different source that discusses the Chávez symphonies in detail. Hftf (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
My copy of Saavedra's book just arrived in the post today, and I discovered the same thing (I have already corrected the entries at each of the six symphony articles). In any case, Orbón's larger article does not constitute liner notes, but rather was serialized in three parts in the journal Pauta. I was a little suspicious when I learned that the new publication is approximately the same length (including Saavedra's introduction) as part 1 alone of the Pauta article. I am fairly certain that the relevant issues are in my institution's library, so I do not have to rely on finding my own copies which are in storage.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

your uboxen[edit]

Hello, at least with my monitor resolution etc., the descriptive text on your user page is bunched up to the left in a narrow column beside the uboxen. And argumentum ad populum is perfectly legit in linguistics, since it's the dividing line between descriptive and prescriptive viewpoints. [However, I suppose you do have to draw the line somewhere]. Cheers.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I can possibly see what you mean. If I pull the right side of the window to the left, the uboxen and text of course remain the same size, so that the text re-wraps until it is in just a narrow column. On the other hand, if I pull the right side of the window out to the right, the opposite occurs until eventually the text dominates completely. I have to say I am not entirely satisfied with this display. Do you have a suggestion for how I can improve it? (I presume your reference to the argumentum ad populum is in reference to the ubox reading "even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake." Of course I agree with you about linguistics, but only to the extent that in that case it is not a question of making a mistake, but in a mistaken definition of what a mistake is.) Cheers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I just now put {{clear}} there; revert if you dislike. I asked a question about an example you gave on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Laucke/archive1. BTW, good job on the review. You have a good eye. Such details often escape me (and other editors as well).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look. I believe that there are ways of enclosing uboxes in some sort of wrapper that will make them line up in more appropriate ways, but I have never taken the trouble to learn about them. I see now your question about the example, and it is a good one. I had always taken the rule on logical quotes to mean "if the quotation ends a complete sentence", but you are right: as defined in the MoS, the quotation must itself comprise a complete sentence. The traditional "all in" or "all out" approaches are so much simpler to apply, it is no wonder that they have become the preferred mistakes of the majority of writers and editors ;-) Thank you for your kind words. I do have a good eye for this sort of thing (years of practice, rather than any native talent), but only when I am examining texts by other authors. When looking at my own writing, I am too familiar with what I meant to say, so that even the most egregious errors become invisible to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It's very good to have an excellent copy editor/reviewer around. We need more and more editors with a good eye such as yours... Everyone copies their userpages from User:Antandrus, but the code there is confusing. (I got a good start on copying it for you here but alas the bottom border is missing and I have to go now... real life calls...). If you look at "what links here" for Antandrus' page, and limit the search to only user pages, you can find many examples of people who stole the code. Their examples may be less complicated. Cheers!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Ha-ha! I suppose it is a tribute to Antandrus that so many people have chosen his user page to steal things from. It is possible that I have lifted some templates from that source myself, I do not recall, but I can assure you my thieving has been highly eclectic!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

() You should take Stravinsky to FAC some day. Anyhow, talk to ya later!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That article was, of course, once an FA but was defrocked. That was some while ago, and I would want to investigate the circumstances. I do know that a lot of editing has been done to the article in the meantime, but at the same time I am also aware that a lot of problems remain. Certainly the subject merits any effort.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Apparently back then it was seriously under-referenced, and included some questionable prose.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
So I see. Referencing is no longer such a serious problem, though the narrative remains a bit bumpy in places. The main problem is the size of the subject, of course. I can foresee an FA review going on for some time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe yes. Probably yes. But that's no problem. :-) BTW, I totally forgot about my bio page at User:Ling.Nut/bio (my username used to be Ling.Nut). If you want, you can copy/paste it to your sandbox then change the text and userboxes into your own. That might work. Cheers  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. It is certain that my abilities to format Wikipedia pages need improving, and this may just be the kind of practice I need.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


You should be ringed by the reply template on the talk page, and I left a short explanation there. I feel a bit foolish. It seems that the referencing is not only existent, but rather stellar. And prolific for an article that size. Like I said, I'm a bit at a loss for what happened, except that it had something to do with the many extensions, or a conflict between them. I hope there was no insult per my faux pas. And thank you for bringing that to my attention, or I likely would have be disruptively commenting and Twinkle templating myself to my first block. Heh. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

May I only suggest that deleting the statement to which an objection has been raised, while leaving the objection in place, is not a good idea. My own practice in such cases (which have, unfortunately, been numerous) has been simply to apologise or, in some circumstances, to strike out my own erroneous claim, though leaving the text otherwise in place. As it stands, you have left me looking rather foolish, objecting to a now absent statement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and agreed. Hence why I broke my own cardinal rule of never removing the text of another user, no matter the circumstances (even for incivility or disruption, which is something that many people apparently have no problem with). I've never had occasion to strike one of a my comments, so in all honesty, I don't know the markup to do so. But even if I had, it would still leave the appearance of a confused clusterfuck of a conversation, as it were.
Hence why I simply refactored my comment without that erroneous exposition I started with, and left the actual question that was still relevant. Had I left your replies, or even struck them out, I felt it would still be confusing (especially to any others who might happen by). It would have the same effect of you "looking foolish". I sincerely hope you don't mind.
Like I said, this was an extraordinary circumstance on my part. I would have simply retained the majority and struck it out, had I known how, and then started a new section. I don't mind looking the fool, but I thought I would save us both the embarrassment and the definitely possibility of confusing someone else.
I hope that was alright. Thanks for beign civil, by the way. Most would not be so kind, even if it was just a technical error. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this "refactoring" is fine with me. I think you are aware that at one stage, you had removed your initial question without also removing my reply to it, but this was why I invited you to simply delete the whole business and start over again. I think I have made enough mistakes myself by now to understand that not every edit goes the way it was intended. There is of course also Wikipedia:Civility, a pillar of the code of conduct all too often overlooked, in my experience. I try to abide by it, and hope that editors will increasingly do so in the future. It makes working on Wikipedia much more satisfying.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"Process music" article improvement[edit]

Hi Jerome!

A couple of things about the Process music article:

1. I see you have reverted my edit to a citation (Sabbe 1977), giving these reasons in the edit summary: "The title is self-evidently in Dutch, and that translation does not do any favours to the reader unable to read the language". Let me respond:

  • Firstly, for English-speakers unfamiliar with Dutch, it's not at all evident what the language is. I believe it's helpful to at least identify the language the source is in; they might then know whom to approach (e.g. a Dutch person of their acquaintance) for clarification of anything – or everything – they find there.
  • Secondly, by giving an (admittedly rough) English translation of the title, it does the reader the favour (I like your spelling!) of identifying the subject-matter likely to be discussed in – and perhaps even the position likely to be taken by – the source, and thereby facilitates deciding whether they care to seek a translation of the entire source work.

So, as you can see, I disagree with your reasons for reverting. I felt that it was a useful addition, and thus an improvement, to the article. Nothing you wrote there has yet changed my mind, but please do feel free to try!

2. By the way, it seems to me that the incomprehensibility of the title of a reference is the very least of the problems with this article, even tho' it was one I could address quite quickly. Much more importantly, the history section seems to stop with Reich or possibly late Cage, probably giving the casual reader the impression that Process Music has come and gone, perhaps like Art Nouveau. It needs so much more to bring it up to date, including, for example, some examples of recent works by newer and current practitioners to illustrate trends in creating process music. Ironically, the only nod in this direction is in the sole external link to Jim Bumgardner's implementation of the Whitney Music Box, even tho' the article doesn't mention Whitney's work, nor the connection of Process Music to Visual Music. I note from the talk page that you and User:Hyacinth have worked on the article in the past. What do you think the most important areas are to address next?

yoyo (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You may have a point, though I believe it is usual to give translations of book titles only for languages more distant from English than Dutch (e.g., Russian, Hungarian, or Japanese). The German titles in that same list, for example, do not have translations, and German is not as close to English as Dutch is (in my experience). Still, I might have just improved your (presumably machine-generated) translation, and probably should do so. The material from Sabbe was added by myself, so I am responsible for making it as comprehensible as possible to English readers. As for the lang-icon template, I believe it is intended for external links, where any reader may instantly link to a text that may turn out to be in an unfamiliar language.
The most persistent problem with the article, which I have been unable satisfactorily to rectify for some years now, is to define properly what "process music" is. I know myself that it has at least two distinct though related senses, one more general (as applied to the music of Elliott Carter, for example) and the other more specific (the Steve Reich "minimalist" sense), but finding reliable sources to verify these definitions is problematic. Like so many terms in music, this phrase gets thrown around frequently by people who seem to assume "everyone knows" what it is, while no-one ever bothers to set down a decent definition. Updating is another factor, and it sounds like you are in a better position to deal with this than I am (I cannot say I have ever heard of Jim Bumgardner or the Whitney Music Box, for example). Please feel free to bring the article into the last decade of the twentieth century, or further. If in the process you manage to find even a single source that plainly explains what process music in the widest sense actually means, I would be grateful to have it added to the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll certainly try to do that – get a reliable source defining Process Music in the widest sense. Tho' certainly none spring to mind … Do you know whether Stockhausen ever explained what he meant by calling those early-60s works "process compositions"? i.e. in what sense "process" was more salient or important – during composition or during performance – than was normal in prior art? From the references, you've clearly studied and written lots about his work. Which leads to another question – do the ideas of intuitive music help to explicate Process Music? e.g. this quote from the intuitive music article:

for Stockhausen intuition must become a controllable ability, and therefore is an instrument of the project of modernity: "the investigation and instrumentalization of the world by controlled procedures" (Kutschke 1999)

You're aware, I guess, of the phenomenon known as Systems music, which I've only recently tripped over. I'm wondering whether there's a unanalysed gestalt here connecting these various names for styles which all have roots largely in the modern period between World Wars and flourished in the experimental zeitgeist post-WWII …  ? I find that last phrase of Kutschke's – "the instrumentalization of the world by controlled procedures" – very relevant to the increasing pervasiveness of industrial and computational process. So I wonder who, if anybody, has written taking a similar tack. I do know that some people found Stockhausen's approach to music hard to stomach, but did anybody (e.g. philosophers of music, aestheticians etc.) articulate clear objections to justify their gut response? So much speculation may be useless, but not if it turns up the definitions we're looking for in places we'd rather not look, such as negative criticism; so now I have a plan!
Apparently Frisian is the closest Germanic language to English, which fits with a very broad usage of the term "dialect continuum" that would include earlier versions of English, Frisian, Flemish (perhaps), Dutch, German (even in its most Continental versions, e.g. SchwitzerDeutsch in Switzerland) as variants of one language. It's typical for "languages" to include dialects of gradually diminishing mutual intelligibility, so that extreme dialects are extremely foreign. You doubtless know that the distinction between language and dialect is usually political rather than purely linguistic. Reason I didn't think to translate German titles first is probably because I speak it a little, so the words are more familiar (I had three German-speaking great-grandparents), and also because I thought Dutch was less widely known than German. (Fellow-Australians of my generation would have learnt French as their first foreign language, German as their second, with classical Latin and Greek in distant third and fourth places; other modern languages simply weren't available at school. Now kids are more likely to learn Mandarin Chinese, Japanese or Indonesian; and even - at long last! - some Australian Aboriginal languages are being taught in schools here.) Forgive my rambling … but language issues are very important to me!
You wrote that "The material from Sabbe was added by myself, so I am responsible for making it as comprehensible as possible to English readers" - please allow me to politely differ on this: as Wikipedians, we've both assumed the responsibility to make the articles as good as they can be. Thank you for improving my machine-assisted attempt at translating his 1977 title! (Tho' I did enjoy the resonances of "series-honoring principle", or perhaps "series-respecting principle", of course the phrase "serial principle" does have currency in English.) I haven't used the {{lang-icon}} template for a long time, if ever, and am unsure why you mention it; do you think we could use profitably use it with foreign-language sources such as Sabbe? yoyo (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Phew! That's a lot to respond to! First of all, I think that several of the issues you raise have to do with the relatively recent emergence of this concept. "Systems music", "process music", "minimal music" are all ideas in flux, which means that all too often they become Humpty-Dumptyisms: meaning whatever the speaker wants them to mean, and without prior clarification. There are certainly worse cases ("postmodern music" comes to mind). What we are waiting for, really, is for the dust to settle sufficiently so that some lexicographer can write an article for the New Grove or an entry for the OED that will tell us (with the usual supreme degree of inaccuracy) just what these words are meant to describe.
The sense you cite from Kutschke is one of the better examples. At least she clearly sets out just what it is she means, and the "machine-driven" idea is certainly at least one aspect of the subject (I think the term "systems music" is more or less coincident with this conception), though it could not be further from what Stockhausen and Carter mean by "process" (and they undoubtedly mean two different things, as well). I could attempt that more inclusive definition (and I did so once, in a paper that unfortunately remains unpublished), but unfortunately that would be Original Research. In any case, I believe that there are writers besides Kutschke who have followed up the idea of "automated systems", and certainly a lot of composers who have at least tinkered with the idea. Ligeti did both these things, in his early article on Boulez's Structures 1a, and in his pattern-meccanico compositions, respectively. I'm not so sure about people who have found Stockhausen's approach to music hard to stomach. In fact, I think most of the attempts to reject his music from a rigorous critical perspective (and there have not been many) founder on the fact that they fail to take into account what that "approach" actually was. As a target, Stockhausen is not alone in this respect, of course. Aesthetics is a slippery business.
I am aware of the claims for Frisian and English, having taught music lessons for a time to a retired clergyman who was Frisian. Your point, however, is that German is more likely to fall within the experience of English-speaking readers than Dutch (or Frisian!), and this is perfectly true. I thought you had used the {{lang-icon}} template to mark the language of Sabbe's book. My mistake: you did that manually. I don't thing there is much point in calling attention to the language of foreign-language sources in a bibliography, especially if a helpful translation is offered in cases where there may be some difficulty. The place of publication is often enough to tell the reader what that unfamiliar language must be, and the reader interested in consulting such sources will be required to go to a library or book store (or, in some cases, to GoogleBooks or similar resources), in the full knowledge that what they are seeking is not in English. My understanding of the "lang" tags (per the documentation at Template:En icon and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Non-English-language_sites) is that they are meant for external links where such clues are often totally absent, and an explanatory tag in English may mislead a reader to suppose clicking on the link will go to a site in that language.
It is very kind of you to differ with me on the point of responsibility for clarity. Of course it is true that all editors on Wikipedia share a responsibility to make the articles as good as possible, but it is also true that editors with a particular skill or knowledge base may be in a better position to clarify technical points than others. Dutch is decidedly a foreign language for me, but I can at least read it with a little comprehension, and the subject matter of that book is in my area of special expertise. Since I had the temerity to inflict such a source on this article, I think I am obliged to take on a greater share of the responsibility for its presentation than other editors are, while remaining grateful for any (hopefully more expert) assistance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Translating Dutch -- Sabbe[edit]

Jerome Kohl (and yoyo), although I don't know much about process music, I happen to be reasonably fluent in Dutch. Don't hesitate to ask me in case of need − I am all the more at ease to say so that cases of need will not be that frequent ;−)).

Sabbe writes in a somewhat intricate Dutch. The best way to get a translation of his title certainly would be to ask him. I don't think I have his email, but one should be able to contact him through Mark Leman (see [1]). In the meanwhile, here are my five cents:

  • Het muzikale serialisme als techniek en als denkmethode: Een onderzoek naar de logische en historische samenhang van de onderscheiden toepassingen van het seriërend beginsel in de muziek van de periode 1950–1975.

The main problem is translating samenhang, which strictly means "connection", "link". I'd therefore propose:

  • Musical serialism as Technique and as Method of Thinking: A Study of the Logical and Historical Interconnections Between the Different Applications of the Serial Principle in Music from the Period 1950-1975.

I think that what Sabbe wanted to study in this (which was his PhD thesis) were the links, logical and historical, between different applications of serialism. This is more precise than merely the context of serialism in the third quarter of the century: it does concern the fact that although the applications were many and different, they did maintain logical and historical links between themselves − it is in this sense also that serialism could be considered a way of thinking.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Hucbald. I like "interconnections", which makes good sense in this context. I shall try to remember that alternative the next time I need to translate German Zusammenhang into English! Sabbe's focus is a bit narrower even than what you suggest, I think, but his purpose was to gain some sort of overview of what "serialism" meant for three Belgian composers: Pousseur, Goeyvaerts, and Goethals. I find his approach admirable, because he started from analyses of many individual works, and then attempted to find the commonalities, in contrast to the method adopted all too frequently, which is to make assumptions about what serialism is (seldom based on more than a single model—usually Boulez's Structures 1a), and then try to analyze multiple compositions to demonstrate that the hypothesis is true.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice! :) Besides samenhang, one other term I hesitated over was denkmethode, wondering whether, perhaps, the Dutch compound already carries connotations of a discipline of thought? What say you, Hucbald? yoyo (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, yoyo, only Hermann Sabbe himself could tell us what he preciserly had in mind. It is true that the Dutch methode has these two connotations, meaning both a "way of" (doing something) and possibly the discipline of this way of doing (as it could be taught in a textbook, a "method"). It seems to me that, since the English "method" has the same connotations, it remains the best translation, preserving the original ambiguïty. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Common noun or title[edit]

Greetings JK! With reference to this edit on Pelle Gudmundsen-Holmgreen, the title of the work in question is "Concerto Grosso", so maybe capitals are appropriate, though it is I suppose also a common noun. "Vivaldi on safari" is I think a comment PGH made about the work, but not the title of either the original 1990 version or the 2006 revision. --Deskford (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was unsure about this, Danish not being one of my strong suits. Thanks for your opinion, which I am happy to accept. Let us change it, if you have not already done so.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for creating Piano Concerto (Chávez) – my all-time favourite in the genre :) Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. It has long been a favorite of mine, also, but surpisingly challenging to find suitable reliable sources upon which to build an article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a true pity it's so poorly known and infrequently recorded. Cobblet (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, four recordings isn't so bad, even spread over fifty years. Chávez's Violin Concerto has only had two, neither of which is complete, though I have to admit I do not find it anywhere near as compelling as the Piano Concerto. The Sixth Symphony, which I regard almost as highly as the Piano Concerto, also has had only two recordings.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2016[edit]

Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
In the Seattle area? You are invited to the Seattle Wiknic 2016 on Saturday, July 16, 2016, noon to 3pm at the Washington Park Arboretum, in the meadow area to the south of the Graham Visitors Center, approximately at 47°38′15″N 122°17′38″W / 47.637435°N 122.293986°W / 47.637435; -122.293986. Click here for more details!
Wiknic logo.svg

Jacques-Martin Hotteterre[edit]

I have added information about the Hotteterre recorders made by this family and Jacques-Martin in particular. I hope this addresses your concern about the article not supporting his being a recorder maker.


Theodulf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf (talkcontribs) 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take a look and let you know if I have any concerns.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but neither of the sources actually suggest that Jacques-Martin was the maker of any recorder from those workshops. Perhaps another source can be found? J-M was of course a famous makers of musettes, and almost certainly made transverse flutes (though whether any of his instruments actually survive has been called into question, most notably by Ardal Powell). But recorders? That is by no means so universally accepted, I think.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Based on the limited research material I have available, I'm unable to come up with a more thorough defense. I see that you have better access to such resources than I do, so I will defer to you at this time. However, I wonder if a better solution is to have an article on the Hotteterre family, so the impact of the surviving instruments can be documented. (For the recorder community, the surviving instruments have had a notable impact.) And if you ever attend any of the EMG concerts in Seattle, I look forward to meeting you. Theodulf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf (talkcontribs) 02:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Alas, my research on this topic is somewhat out of date. It is entirely possible that new information has surfaced in the last ten years or so, but the last time I checked there was no serious reason to suppose that J-M Hotteterre (unlike several of his family members) ever made a recorder. I think the most recent information I have dates back to David Lasocki's impressive update of J-M's biography, and of course Ardal Powell's article on the alleged Hotteterre flutes (which doe not discuss recorders at all). I genuinely hope that you will find some evidence that changes this situation—it would be sensational news to me. I do not attend as many EMG concerts as I used to, but I was the founding president of the organization, back in 1978.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
So you know Peter Seibert and remember Randy McCarty? Theodulf
Of course. Both of them were members of the founding committee of the EMG, though I had known both of them for some years by then. Peter is still with us, at 80, but of course Randy passed away some years ago now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sour Cream[edit]

I have placed evidence about why 1972 was their founding date and that their intention was to focus on avant garde material in the Talk page for that article. Theodulf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf (talkcontribs) 03:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. The citations actually should be placed in the article, and the one erroneously claiming 1969 removed. I don't see anything supporting the claim of intent to focus on avant-garde material, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Eagle-bone whistle[edit]

You may or may not enjoy looking at eagle-bone whistle, keeping in mind that other users define the whistle and its use as outside of music, as not being music(al), as well as that the talk page discusses a few issues, all of which involve my editing. Hyacinth (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you had added that article to the flute template. I did wonder if it might excite some controversy. Of course the fundamental question is whether a flute must be a musical instrument, or if there are flutes (disregarding champagne glasses and hollow grooves cut in classical columns) that fall outside that category. I'll take a look, thanks for notifying me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It depends on one's definition of music (and flutes: most American's don't think of a recorder as a flute). A whistle doesn't always serve as entertainment, and so has, so far, been accepted in the article.
When I was first contacted about this article, I literally assumed the user was going to ask me to transfer some money to Africa. The conversations have gone better than that, but not great.
It seems to me that if users are going to claim that they are obviously experts or Indians, or both, and thus know what is true, and, more importantly, what may not be said, but are not able to say it (because it may not be said) and why it may not be said, that an effort should be made to deal with the sacred, the holy, and the confidential.
It also seems that if one values traditional cultures around the world, Wikipedia policy should cover "oral culture" or a similar term ("pre-literate" should be avoided; "oral culture" would hopefully be revised), and cultural appropriation.
Unrelated, you might take a look the new Bigwala.
Hyacinth (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, that too. It is always possible to define out of existence whatever one wishes, but carrying this to extremes will eventually isolate the definer in a little cocoon all by himself. The Hornbostel-Sachs definition of "flute" says nothing at all about its function, only its construction, and the same is true of gourd trumpets. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article Definition of music has been paralyzed for a long time now, both by opposing factions and poor reasoning.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be able to give a better answer at User talk:Hyacinth#Brass instrument with quarter tone lowering than I did. Hyacinth (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ooh! Maybe not. In theory, you are correct, but brass instruments have got some cranky tuning problems in different parts of their range, and this is really the kind of question that sould be addressed by a brass player. What ultimately matters is what the player can coax the instrument into producing. No trumpet or flügelhorn automatically produces in-tune notes at the touch of a button. Tuning requires skill.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranges of page numbers shouldn't be abbreviated[edit]

In this change to Buccina, you changed a range of pages from "711-712" to "711–12" (using an n-dash), citing MOS:NUM. As far as I can tell, the MOS rule only applies to date ranges. @PBS: and I have long been using full page numbers (with ASCII hyphens) in this context. Did you think these numbers were dates, or is there a new convention? David Brooks (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I must say you have brought me up short: I was so certain that numeric ranges generally were covered in MOS:NUM, but I see that you are correct, insofar as only date ranges are specifically addressed. However, I do not find any rule—whether at MOS:NUM, MOS:CITE, or in the documentation for various citation templates—that specifies one way or another about non-date numeric ranges. The Chicago Manual of Style used to be quite specific about this (all numeric ranges involving three or more digits should be abbreviated to the last two digits unless the third digit also changes, eg., 397–401), but starting with the 14th edition, this became only the preferred method, with other variants permitted, so long as they are followed consistently (e.g., 4131–34 is preferred, but 4131–4, 4131–134, or 4131–4134 may be chosen alternatively). There is a Q&A discussion of this here. My copy of the New Oxford Style Manual is not handy, but I am certain that it, too, recommends truncation to two digits. What flummoxes me is that there seems to be no guidance at all on this point in the WP Manual of Style. Surely it should at least be mentioned (perhaps it used to be, and was removed at some point). By all means feel free to revert my edit, if it pleases you, and there are no conflicting formats in that same article. I have been working on a different assumption for over ten years now on Wikipedia, and you are the first editor to question this. I think some sort of congratulations are in order!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to the CMOS: I'm really surprised at its recommendation because the truncation of page numbers just looks wrong to my eyes. I'm sure I've recorded hundreds of full-digit ranges in {{EB1911}} and {{Cite EB1911}} template parameters, so if the MOS gets aligned with the CMOS there would be a lot of remedial work. Also, we use ASCII hyphens rather than n-dash because it's easier to type (this is a template parameter after all); ISTR there was another reason for choosing hyphen but not sure. PBS, any insights? I'll revert that change for consistency with all the other instances. David Brooks (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on what you are used to seeing. I have been editing (professionally) to the CMOS standard since 1984 (and to Hart's Rules since about 1996), and the full-range page numbers look completely wrong to me. I think the use of hyphens within templates is simply a mechanical issue: the template will display en-dashes anyway, and it is probably best to use the hyphen as a default since so many editors will use it anyway. MOS:DASH and MOS:NUM make it very clear which is correct, but not everyone knows their keyboard shortcuts for en- and em-dashes, so the old typewriter substitutions live on in the post-typewriter age. I am personally very skeptical about those templates. On the one hand, I can see the virtue of overcoming by main force the bad typing habits of generations of writers; on the other hand, there is not a single mandated citation format on Wikipedia, which means that those templates are either unable to cope with all the variations, or become hopelessly complicated in trying to do so. I was personally unaware until this moment about the hyphen–to–en-dash feature in the "pages" parameter, but am happy to learn it is there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for the heads up. In fact I have long considered reverting the changes in the MOS back to what it used to be, which was full dates years. MOS:DOB used to contain little advise on the number of digests to use in a year, because it was by convention the full year as all years used to be linked like this: 2016. There was a editor war over whether to link dates which ended with an RfC in favour of removing the links. After that there was a gradual move to using two digest for the range, but there has never been general agreement on this (and there is wriggle room with the use of usually). I have just created an section on my notes page on this issue User:PBS/Notes#MOS:Dates and numbers. In that I point out the reason why older physical guidelines suggest the use of these abbreviation you note appear in the CMOS, and that these no not apply in the digital world. Coincidentally this very issue is currently being addressed on the British Government website for Latin abbreviations see:

There is a difference between how dash and mdashndash are used on Wikipedia and Wikisource. On Wikipedia mdashndash is used in titles which involve dates. So for example is a page on Wikiepdia needs to be disambiguated by (DOB-DOD) then mdashndash is used, but on Wikisource dash is used. So for the title parameter because it is a link to an article on Wikisource dash should be used. For the pages parameter the template it does not matter what is used. I use mdashndash between page numbers with the full page number eg 201–211 not 201–11. The real world is interrupting my typing so I will come back to this topic later today or tomorrow (depending on your time zone) with a title example. -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I also have real life today (45th wedding anniversary :-) ) but... I was asking solely about page ranges, not date ranges. Since the citation template converts hyphen to ndash, I'm comfortable using hyphen for input and I take the template's behavior as implicit validation of ndash (not mdash) as the correct separator. In any case, I wonder how many wikipedians can even see the difference or know how to render an ndash; I have no data of course, but I guess the kind of people who populate citation templates are more likely to be the kind of people who worry about these things. Personally I can never remember all the keyboard long-cuts, and as I do much of my editing on a keyboard without numpad anyway, I get non-ASCII characters by tapping the onscreen keyboards and using tap-hold-slide.
But back to date ranges: I always thought that was ndash, not mdash. I always use ndash in a range of full dates (birth/death in a bio), but is there a different rule for something like 1939-45? David Brooks (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Congratulation David. I typed the last paragraph quickly I meant ndash not mdash -- I have now corrected it --Sorry for any confusion! If the page number ranges are now being checked for ndash to replace dash it is because the LULA module (under {{cite encyclopedia}} of which {{cite EB1911}} is a wrapper) checks the pages parameter.
I had a look through the Wikisource EB1911 article names under A and most of B and not one disambiguation uses dates, so maybe EB1911 articles on Wikisouce has no need of them, but there are thousands of them on Wikisource DNB see for example the first volume of s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Vol 1 Abbadie - Anne for example and thanks to a policy of removing unwanted redirects on Wikisource any redirects that are created using ndash are likely to be removed. For that reason it is best to stick to titles as they are on Wikisource whatever the MOS suggests is correct. -- PBS (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
References to encyclopedia and dictionary entries do not conventionally use page numbers, since their alphabetical arrangement within the source makes them easier to find by article title, and such articles are rarely long enough to make it difficult to locate a specific statement within the article. I am occasionally surprised on Wikipedia by demands for page numbers in such cases, so this this obviously not a universally known thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
In the EB1911 many articles are pages long. See for example almost any country/state entry. If one is looking up a citation in an EB1911 volume it is generally easier to binary chop to the right page than it is to look up the an article alphabetically (as the length of articles varies). We can not assume that everyone will be looking these things up through online links to the specific articles. If the page number is available why not include them for either or both of those reasons? -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason not to include both, just as issue numbers are often (redundantly) included for journals that are paginated by volume. I also find that exceptionally long encyclopedia articles (such as Harold Powers's New Grove article "Mode", which runs to something like 40 pages) are usefully referenced by section, especially when pointing to online editions like Grove Online which do not have page numbers at all! I am merely saying that alphabetical articles do not usually require page numbers. I could say conversely that supplying only a page number in a reference to an encyclopedia is not usually sufficient, since "p. 1024" (for example) gives no idea whatever about the context of the reference.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we're all in violent agreement. Including the page number(s) seems more ... scholarly... somehow, and the article name is useful context, especially as it's often not the same as the WP article title. I know that almost exactly nobody will be thumbing through a paper copy of EB1911 to check a reference, but that isn't a reason not to do the right thing. Also, as PBS pointed out to me a while back, when you are researching the reference you usually have the page number right in front of you (either in an version or a transcluded WS version), so the cost is small. Currently I'm taking a break from verification, and using AWB to find references I created in the past without page numbers, and adding them. David Brooks (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think there is any need to resort to fisticuffs. The situation I had in mind concerning page-numbers-only references to a dictionary/encyclopedia is one that I have encountered occasionally, where a single dictionary is cited on three or more widely separated pages. It is frustrating under these circiumstances not to know which if any of the cited articles are about the topic of the Wikipedia article, and tracking them down in online editions may be difficult or even impossible, if that edition does not bear page numbers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think that David, and I certainly would not, include a link to an EB1911 article without including the EB1911 article title. One practical reason for this is that EB1911 on Wikisource is accessed by article name. However as I said before, we would tend to include page numbers as well. There is a section in the EB1911 Manual of Stile that gives advise on how to create links within EB1911 articles on Wikisource (see: s:Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual#Linking within an article) but it does not suggest adding anchors for sections, and while I include {{anchor}} points to section in EB1911 articles where they exist, many do not have them. For example the Wikisource article to which I linked above "Austria-Hungary" does not yet have section links.

There is also a practical reason for including page numbers in inline citations if one is using the {{harv}} family of templates as those are usually done using page numbers eg {{sfn|Phillips|p=5}} In which case it would be usual to include the page numbers in the references section:

  • {{EB1911|last=Phillips |first=W.A. |wstitle=Austria-Hungary |volume=3 |pages=2–39}}

While one can include sections into the templates using the parameter loc= — and this is how I did it in the Wikipedia article "First English Civil War" — this is unusual.

At the moment in Wikipedia articles there is a legacy of 5,338 Wikisource references without an artilce parameter. Usually the template {{EB1911}} in those 5k+ articles have no parameters. Someone who is going to fix one of those empty templates has several options. If the artilce exists on Wikisource then job done with a link to the artilce. If I do this, I also include volume, and if readily available page numbers, because it helps people with citing the EB1911 sources and it also meets the requirements of WP:CITE. However often the article has yet to be added to Wikisource as a proof read EB1911 article, so one is then faced with a problem for which there are four choices:

  1. Walk away and leave it for someone else to fix in the future.
  2. Proof read and incorporate the article in Wikisource EB1911. This is the best long term option, and is relatively easy to do if the article is a short one. However with articles like "Austria-Hungary" that include many pages and/or unusual formatting like tables, this is a far from trivial exercise, so an alternative may be the only option for an editor with limited time to make such changes.
  3. Link to another site which has the article. The problem with that is that one does not know if the version is accurate. Project Gutenberg yields low hanging fruit (so those articles have often been ported to Wikisource). If they have not then including the page numbers helps Wikisource editors find the article via the page[s] in the scan index of a volume to help with the creation of a transluded page easily checked against the original source.
  4. Link to the volumes at Internet Archive ( as can be found in the table at EB1911#External links. If this option is used while one can link to the page including the page number is helpful for any editor who wants to check the source, and like the previous option helps editors find the source in the scan index for porting to Wikisource.

In summary while I agree that the article name should be included, I think that including the page numbers as well is helpful and is incorporated as guideline advise in WP:CITE. -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, complete agreement, and I would never not include article title. But as it happens, I have almost zero experience with the very long articles; that's your specialty!
Also... "5,338... without an article parameter". Well, that was 9,109 on Apr 7 2014, and crossed the 6,000 mark early last April, so we're getting there. David Brooks (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I am pleased to learn that the EB1911 template requires the article title. The examples I had in mind were citations to the Harvard Dictionary of Music and the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which, as far as I know, do not have specialized templates of their own (unless you count the badly formed template for Grove Online, which still outputs "Ed. L. Macy" even though she was replaced by Deane Root in 2009). Since I edit mainly on topics from the second half of the twentieth century, I do not often gave the opportunity to cite EB1911, but it is good to know the template is well looked after. BTW, the "page" and "loc" parameters of the HARV templates are not obligatory, and should be omitted when the cited source has but a single page or is cited by article title instead of page number (as with dictionary entries).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The hidden notice[edit]

In the Holst discussion, you spoke of the many times you saw an editor whining about an added infobox reverted: kindly give me one example of such a thing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "whining" is a tainted term to attach to any particular instance, but certainly the editor at Talk:Maurice_Ravel#Infobox_was_reverted seemed indignant at not having been warned. There are similar, less extreme cases at Talk:Gustav_Mahler#Infobox and Talk:Aaron_Copland#Infobox.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Jerome, I am sorry for not including the citations earlier. Will you let me know kindly if this works better. Dyadyavasya (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It works better, yes, but you should know that the letter S does not fall between P and Q in the Latin alphabet. I have moved the entry to its correct alphabetic position. I still find that the biographical article does not support very well the position that this obviously very successful commercial musician qualifies as "experimental", save for that one quotation (which, in the biography, is not properly cited).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest[edit]

Hello Jerome Kohl. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting request (and perfectly reasonable, in my opinion). Thank you for calling my attention to it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation template[edit]

You replaced {{Citation}} with {{Cite magazine}} here. I have assumed this is unnecessary since {{Citation}} documentation says, "The Citation template generates a citation for a book, periodical, contribution in a collective work, patent, or a web page. It determines the citation type by examining which parameters are used." Please let me know if I need to stop being lazy about this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I have never been able to figure out how to make the {{Citation}} template render an entry properly formatted for a journal, magazine, or newspaper article. No matter what I do, it always seems to italicize the article title. I'm sure it is just laziness on my part, but my patience with the obscure inner workings of templates is not great. If you know how to do this correctly using {{Citation}}, I certainly have got no objection to your making the substitution. If I recall correctly, I was following a slightly earlier edit my someone else when I used {{Cite magazine}}, since it is not actually a template I have come across before ({{Cite journal}} is what I am used to).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like {{Citation}} makes false promises. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Symphony 5, Beethoven[edit] no, the time isn't evident in such a case. An article etc. can make use of research by other persons. (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Nevertheless, do you agree with my solution?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was a good Alexandrian solution. I would have preferred both year and researcher, but I can't see it's overwhelmingly important here. (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Without actually consulting the cited source, I can only assume that a publication in the Beethoven Journal would be the primary source of the research, and Stefan Romano therefore the researcher. On the other hand, the remark may have been inserted five years ago, at which point 2009 would be much more "recent" than it now is. As you say, it is not actually important whether either 2009 or the research is recent or not. Describing it as such has a distinct quality of breathless journalistic hype.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. That's another reason why I don't like the word "recent". And I can assume the same; I just prefer to be sure (but I won't go to the library tomorrow to check it). And I can't help but feel some interest in the fact that such a similarity to a work by such a relatively well-known composer has gone unnoticed for so long. Not that I say it's remarkable, but nevertheless. Oh well… (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in scientific research, "recent" means "not yet published", whereas in geology, in can mean "no more than ten thousand years ago". In music, the scale is not quite that broad, but still the word "recent" is not meaningful without some sort of reference point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Baroque music: Difference between revisions[edit]

Sorry about Sebastián Durón and Antonio Soler. Maybe they don't gather enought merits to qualify among the best musicians. Although, in my humble opinion, José de Nebra and Antonio de Literes are two of the best Baroque composers, Gaspar Sanz was the best guitar composer and Juan Cabanilles was the very best of Spanish organist tradition. Regards. I leave here an small summary about these musicians. (Google translator).

-José de Nebra (1702-1768). He had a great career in the world of music. When the fire Royal Alcazar of Madrid happened in 1734, which disappeared completely the Royal Chapel's collection of sacred music in, Antonio de Literes was commisioned to make his recontruccion with new works. He became vice master of the Royal Chapel in 1751. Currently of the more than 170 works are preserved, though research continues to discover files in different scores. Among his most outstanding works include "Iphigenia en Tracia" (1747), "Donde hay violencia no hay culpa"(1744) y "Viento es la dicha de amor"(1744). I invite you to listen to any of them.

-Antonio de Literes (1673-1747). He composed for the royal chapel from 1690. In 1734 after a disastrous fire in the royal palace that destroyed the music file, is charged with José Nebra and choirmaster José de Torres to reconstruct the collection and compose new music to replace it he had lost. Had great success during the first half of the eighteenth century, among his works: "Todo lo vence el amor" 1707, "Acis y Galatea" 1708 y “Los elementos”. They were discovered in 2003 in the Cathedral of Guatemala several of his hitherto unpublished works.

-Juan Cabanilles (1644-1712). Study in Valencia and succeeded in becoming the principal organist of the Cathedral of Valencia with 21 years. This charge is held until his death in 1712. Cabanilles's work is, almost entirely, organ and within this embodiment shown special interest in the tientos and verses. They have been preserved abundant organ works: more than 200 tientos, 160 verses, 2 battles 5 Galliards 5 Pasacalles, 6 tocatas, etc. Maulstick is a very musical way of Hispanic music is essentially composed for solo instruments as the key, harp or organ (late seventeenth century only make up for keyboard instruments such as organ). Organ music of Juan Cabanilles represents the culmination of the Spanish-Portuguese organist music of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. His works include: "Mortales que amais" y ”Gloria Patri et Filio”

-Gaspar Sanz (1640-1710) He was a composer, guitarist and organist of the Spanish Baroque. He studied music, theology and philosophy at the University of Salamanca, where he later became professor of music. He wrote three books of pedagogy and works for baroque guitar that form an important part of current repertoire of classical guitar. It is considered the greatest Baroque composer guietarra.

-Sebastián Durón (1660-1716). He was a famous Spanish composer and organist. In 1691 he was appointed organist of the Royal Chapel of King Charles II in Madrid. After his death and the ascent to the Spanish throne of the new monarch Bourbon, Felipe V, in 1701 he was appointed master of the Royal Chapel. Maintain this position until 1706, when he was suspended because of the express support of the musician Archduke Charles of Austria during the War of Spanish Succession, which ended with the victory of the Bourbon candidate, King Philip V. Duron was exiled to France that same year . From 1715 he worked in Bayonne of chaplain exiled Queen Mariana of Neuburg, the widow of Charles II. He died in Cambo-les-Bains in 1716, sick with tuberculosis. His works include: "Salir el amor del mundo" (1696) y "La Guerra de los gigantes" (1702).

-Antonio soler (1729-1783). It was a Spanish composer and harpsichordist, representative of the Spanish school of keyboard music of the eighteenth century. He was choirmaster at the Cathedral of the Seo d'Urgell (Lleida). He served as organist and choirmaster of the Monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial (Madrid), where he would spend the rest of his life. He studied with Domenico Scarlatti. He composed numerous instrumental and religious works among which ten masses, 50 psalms nine magnificats, 16 motets and cantatas and carols about 130. He also authored a treatise on the theory: “Llave de la modulación y antigüedades de la música” (1762).

Historia Española (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble of supplying all of this information. I am familiar with Cabanilles. Sanz, and Soler (for just that one composition, of course), but have never before heard of the others, which does not speak well for designating them as "key" composers of the Baroque. Keep in mind that your personal admiration for a composer is not the same thing as a general agreement by historians about their importance. However, the real problem is that the list is already too long, and includes some names (e.g., Zelenka and Pachelbel) that probably should be removed. If you believe that, for example, Cabanilles should be added (even though the organ composer Buxtehude is not included), then please remove one of the lesser names in order that the list should not increase in size.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. You're absolutely right when you say that the list is already long enough, so I'm going to replace Zelenka and Pachelbel, since I agree your statement, for Cabanilles and Nebra unless you have any objections. By the way, I am surprised that you know Cabanilles, Sanz and Soler but have not heard about Nebra, if you are interested, you can hear many of his works here. Thank you very much for the time you've spent on this matter. Historia Española (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historia Española (talkcontribs) 22:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 
I will leave your edits alone, but it will be interesting to see what other editors think about the "key" status of your nominations. I cannot say why I have never encountered Nebra before, except that he must not have been in the texts when I took the usual undergraduate music-history survey courses, nor did he come up in the graduate seminars I subsequently took in Baroque music history. I did not take any specialised courses in Spanish baroque music, but Cabanilles is certainly important enough to have come to my attention alongside Buxtehude and Pachelbel. Sanz is bound to be familiar to anyone with an interest in guitar music, though his compositions did not have much impact outside of that rather closely circumscribed repertory. I am a little surprised you did not nominate Denis Gaultier for elimination, since it might be said that his position relative to the lute is similar to Sanz and the guitar. However, the 17th-century French luthists had an enormous influence on the clavecinists of the later 17th and early 18th centuries, who in turn shaped the keyboard style of J. S. Bach, amongst many others. Soler is known to me solely for the infamous Fandango, which puts him very much in the same category as Pachelbel—a composer extremely well-known for just a single composition (though both were of course important in their day for other works now largely ignored by performers and therefore unknown to the general public). From what you have written about Nebra, I would suppose he is mainly known for his zarzuelas, and this is not an area with which I have much familiarity. I suspect this may be the case generally for non-Spanish-speaking listeners. Who knows? I think it will be interesting to see how your nominations stand up to scrutiny.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

5-limit approximations[edit]

You deleted them because the intervals had no exact value. I was approximating the 12-EDO intervals, and finding good approximations. Here is the result:
I just inserted them into lower interval pages. 2A01:119F:2E9:2F00:5D8:E31B:9181:988B (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The trouble is that you seem to be assuming 12-equal tuning, whereas the articles make no such assumption. In fact, most of them are biased toward just intonation, so the "5-limit approximations" are in all cases not approximations at all, but exact fits, as already described in other places in the articles. Therefore, to claim they are only "approximations" contradicts the content of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Flute bolding[edit]

Not sure why you reverted my bolding in the lead of Flute while citing MOS:BOLD. My bolding was in accordance with MS BOLD:

The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section, as well as terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections. This is done for the majority of articles, but is not a requirement.

As I said in my edit summary, these terms were redirected here. Loraof (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I owe you an apology, then. I did not realize that redirects should also be bolded, and it still seems awkward given that the terms in question are not actually synonyms for the article title. Still, the Law is the Law. May I suggest that, for consistency, redirects should also be created for the remaining two (rare) alternative names in that list?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem! I'll create the additional redirects. Loraof (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I see you already did it. Thanks! Loraof (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I only created one of those two redirects. The one for fluter already existed, but for some reason did not connect directly, but instead first took the reader to the redirect page itself, requiring a second click to reach the "Flute" page. I see that has now been fixed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page ranges redux[edit]

Also addressing PBS: I was thinking again about the lack of guidance on page ranges in citation templates (123-124 versus 123-4), when I found the question is indeed addressed, if only by example. See Help:Citation Style 1#Pages, where the examples use full-style, not minimal-style. I only wish there were a more specific guidance, either to use full-style or editor-choice. The idea of searching the talk archive for any discussion just exhausts me.

And there I was, thinking that maybe CMOS is right, and about automating a reversion. After all, .NET RE's are powerful enough: ({{[^}]*EB1911[^}]*\| *)pages? *= *(?<lead>\d+)(\d+)[-–]\k<lead>(\d+) replaced by $1pages=${lead}$2-$3. But I now feel more comfortable leaving well alone (and changing to CMOS would anyway be classified as something to be done only after every other inconsistency in WP is fixed, some time in the 23rd century). David Brooks (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think things are going to move on that quickly, then? ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Pierrot Lunaire[edit]

I don't appreciate your passive-aggressive nonsense here, but if you looked at what you reverted, you claimed I was removing content because I didn't think a conductor was notable. As a matter of fact, I was removing links to store pages per WP:COM and a listing of an NN recording with no conductor whatsoever. Neither of those conductors you cited were removed, only the store links to buy the CDs. Therefore, your attitude and your reversion were both entirely unwarranted. MSJapan (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe I owe you an apology (except for the rude and unwarranted accusation of passive-aggressive behaviour—please see WP:AGF). I read the edit code rather than checking the actual article display, and from that it appeared you had deleted the two recordings in question. For this error, I apologize unreservedly. I detest as much as you do advertising masquerading as sources. If you have not yourself already reverted my edit, then I shall do so myself forthwith. I leave it to you to decide what to do about calling me names.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Timeline at Classical music[edit]

Hello, Jerome. I know the surname is spelled Granados. I reverted the IP because the spelling correction for some bizarre reason breaks the template and produces this mess, i.e., the version you restored. Best. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on Talk:Classical music and fortunately Imaginatorium figured out how to fix the overall problem and fixed the spelling. But as he points out, the Timeline is still less than optimal. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Good grief! Another triumph of technology over common sense. Well, thanks are owed to Imaginatorium, and I apologise for not realising what was really going on. This should teach me always to check the article after I make an edit!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to apologise for my drunken comments about musical theory some days ago. Thank you for clearing away my incoherent rants. Sorry. MinorProphet (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I need your help on article Synthesizer[edit]

Hi, Jerome Kohl. Please forgive my sudden message. I need your help on article Synthesizer.

As already you know, on article Synthesizer, several anonymous users tend to create the false history of synthesizer without any source for unknown reason, and at least one login user have continuously supported them.

Recently I had corrected one sentence on that article, and also added one citation supporting both before and after modification. However, above login user immediately revert it including citation with a reason "poorly written addition", and even he warn me on my talk page.

It seems unsound spin of issue (ignoratio elenchi), and possibly a kind of Wikipedia:Harassment, in my eyes. I'm glad if you commented on above talk pages.(1, 2) --Clusternote (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Clusternote. I see from the edit history and from comments posted on your Talk page that the issue seems to involve problems with idiomatic writing of English, more than matters of fact. Perhaps the best way I can help is to act as intermediary, by editing your prose before you try adding anything further. It may also help if you explain to me just what you think is incorrect about the article, and why. Let us try to work things out here on my talk page, and see if that solves the problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you call...[edit]

A Czech-American who's kept the caron in his surname? A "hat Czech" Face-smile.svg. Sorry. Here's one, btw. At least I think he is, cause a "hat Pole" just wouldn't work. Basemetal 15:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ironic, I suppose, that a circumflex is sometimes called a "hat", and yet it is an upside-down caron. Remeš is a fairly common Czech name, yes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Given all the grief they must have endured with keyboards I wonder if they didn't encourage junior to take up the organ just so there'll always be five keyboards he'll never have trouble with. Anyway, it was very brave of them to keep the diacritic, as someone told me many in the English speaking world think "diacritics" is a disease. PS: Maybe I shoulda written an "inverted hat Czech" but that would also have meant the reverse of... I can sense some mathematical beauty here though I can't quite... Basemetal 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Two of my uncles (on my mother's side) got fed up enough with the haček in the family name (and the confusion about pronunciation caused either by the diacritic or by its absence) that they changed it to a similar, familiar English name. What with extended-Latin keyboard mapping on computers, it is becoming less of a problem to retain diacritics from almost any language, and of course there are many annoying examples of names (especially product names) that insert annoying "special characters" in an effort to çřèäté diśŧiñċţıvĕ ềƒƒəćťş.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Notifying all named accounts who have edited this article this year. There is a discussion of whether this article should contain foreign language palindromes. If you would like to comment the thread is Talk:Palindrome#Non-English_palindromes_2 Meters (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

List of musical works in unusual time signatures[edit]

Hello. You asked whether "Karn Evil 9" is in "irregular 15/8, or compound-quintuple time?". I'm not a music theory expert, but I think it's irregular, since it's the beats are not divided into three equal parts. see Jellynote sheet music. Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is certainly not compound quintuple time, but it looks like a MIDI transcription of a rhythmically flexible human performance with the grid turned off. I notice that the second bar of "15/8" has only got eight eighth-notes in it. If the apparent errors in the first bar add up to as much as one eighth note, then it is actually two bars of 4/4 rather than one bar of 15/8. Still, if the cited source in the list states it is in 15/8, and this source can be cited to show it is not compound-quintuple time, then that is all that is necessary. "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sumer is Icumen In ref style[edit]

Hi, gosh, that's a bit drastic. There were (at least) two different ref styles in use in the article before I began, so there wasn't any evident "established reference style". If I broke something tidying things up, then we can readily fix it, it can't be anything very major. Or are you planning to turn all the blue numbers into parentheticals with Harvard citations? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, not sure if you intended this, but you've also destroyed several recently added refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you will find that there has been an established referencing style for that article since this edit on 25 July 2004. A few very recent edits (starting with this one on 11 June 2016) have introduced a conflicting format, which I am in the process of correcting. If I have "destroyed" any recent references, it certainly was not my intention, and I would appreciate your pointing them out so that I can restore them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Tape loop[edit]

No one is likely to search a song titled "Tape Loop" under the title of "Tape loop" despite "Tape Loop" redirects there (on the search box)? © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. I misread the hatnote, since it did not mention a song called "Tape Loop". I shall restore your edit, if you have not already done so.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Diatonic function, harmonic function, tonal function[edit]

I'd like your opinion about Diatonic function, harmonic function, tonal function. Thanks — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Paschal de l'Estocart and Musica Reservata?[edit]

Have you ever seen (any of) the music of Paschal (or Pascal) de l'Estocart (most plausibly his collection called Octonaires de la vanité du monde) mentioned in the context of Musica Reservata, for example at Grove's Musica Reservata article? Basemetal 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't say that I have ever heard of this composer, though I am vaguely familiar with Claude Le Jeune's setting of (presumably) the same text. If I recall correctly, it is of epic proportions. A quick Google search suggests that I really should investigate l'Estocart, who seems well represented in the world outside of my own little bubble. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Chávez Toccata[edit]

First of all, I wish to thank you for all the contributions you have made on Wikipedia. You are one of the people who make the classical music articles on Wikipedia a more reliable source of information.

I would like to follow up with a few things about the Chávez Toccata. First of all, Thank you for correcting the embarrassing mistake of misspelling the composer's name. I hope I fixed the dead link [2] to the Kennedy Center website. For some reason, any Google search or search within the Center's website brings me only the mobile link. I wonder if there is anything said in the MoS about mobile links like this one.

As for the passage you marked as needing a reference, I made the meaning a little clearer. I meant that Chávez tried to illuminate the timbres and tones of normally atonal, (i.e.: percussion instruments that generally support the rhythm rather than the pitches in most traditional classical compositions). The LA Phil reference [3] states that the piece "makes for an enduring example of melodic, thematic writing for a seemingly non-pitched instrumental family." I understand why that passage might be unclear though. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make it still clearer?

I hope you had a great weekend. Let me know if there is anything I could do to make anything on this section of Wikipedia better. Damibaru (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and for your kind words about my work on Wikipedia. Thank you also for initiating the article on the Toccata. I have not yet checked to see whether the dead-link problem has been corrected, but I am mystified by the term "mobile link". I have never come across this term before. Perhaps all will become clear in time. I think I see that you may have confused "non-pitched" with "atonal", which are two quite different things. Now that I understand what you were trying to say, I believe we should be able to resolve the differences in our points of view.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


If you're unhappy with my contribution, then re-format the goddam thing yourself instead of complaining.16:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasNotabene (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your kind input. I have already reformatted the entry.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Stockhausen: Licht[edit]

Hi Jerome. I thought this would be commented on (at least) even before I added it. I was at the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival in 1996 when Stockhausen was in attendance. After the concert of the 22 November at the Lawrence Batley Theatre for which Stockhausen had been doing the electronic and sound projection work he stayed behind to sign autographs and chat to people. As I was waiting to get an autograph somebody asked him about Licht and whether it was his intention to have it performed over an entire week, each opera being performed on its named day. In reply he said that he didn't intend that but rather that all of the operas should be performed at the same time and in one place and that the audience should to be free to move around the different operas as they wished. I think this is hugely important. I've tried finding something somewhere on the internet where this has been put in writing but haven't had any success. I'm stumped about where to go next. I think it's worth investigating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marosc9 (talkcontribs) 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The place to start would be Stockhausen's Texte, starting from volume 5. The story as you tell it has the ring of truth, and the idea of continuous, simultaneous performance is described even in volume 1 of the Texte, though of course not with specific reference to Licht, which at that time was still some twenty years in the future. It is the way he wanted the Klang cycle to be performed, and it has been done more or less this way twice now. I myself spoke with him about the performance of the whole Licht cycle on several occasions, but I cannot recall him describing such a simultaneous situation, except for the last two scenes of Sonntag, of course, and of the unrealised Luziferium. He did emphatically state that the cycle could not possibly be performed consecutively in a single week, and on one occasion (I think it was in May 2000) mentioned his discouragment about an earlier idea of having works (not necessarily Licht, though we were discussing Mittwoch at the time) or parts of one work performed simultaneously in widely separated parts of the planet, with some sort of communications linkup, perhaps via satellite. By that time, he had had enough experience of the time-delays involved in live news broadcasts to realise the impracticality of such a plan. Good luck finding any of this in print or online in reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

China National Center for the Performing Arts Orchestra[edit]

Hello, Jerome -- I have pretty much finished a copy-edit of China National Center for the Performing Arts Orchestra in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. The editor who made the request, XinqiaoCheng, indicated that this was his/her first article on Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you what you think about the layout of the list of players, at China National Center for the Performing Arts Orchestra#Musicians, and whether you have any suggestions for improving it. I noticed that a space was missing after the player's name and before the position, such as "Principal" and "Associate Principal". I thought before I go ahead and add the missing spaces, I would ask you about the layout in general.  – Corinne (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the missing spaces, which at least are consistent! I notice that the word "clarinet" is typoed "carinet", and it is more usual to list personnel in orchestral-score order, rather than beginning with the strings. That is: Flutes, Oboes, Clarinets, Bassoons, Horns, Trumpets, Trombones, Tuba, Timpani, Percussion, Harp, Piano, First Violins, Second Violins, Violas, Cellos, Double-basses.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh. That's interesting. XinqiaoCheng Do you want to add the missing spaces and re-arrange the list as suggested by Jerome Kohl?  – Corinne (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you, Jerome.  – Corinne (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both Corinne and Jerome Kohl! I have added the missing spaces and re-arranged the Musicians list. Thanks to your copy editing and recommendations that the article looks much wiki-friendly than before. There were just a few things that I am confused about. I noticed that Corinne deleted some works in the Orchestra's repertoire I mentioned in the article, and I think they can help readers have a better knowledge of what kind of works they played. Maybe it is not appropriate to list them in the lead section, but I am wondering if it could be demonstrated in any non-lead section. Also, there were several sentences regarding their dedication to education and other non-profit act, which makes the Orchestra different from others. I am wondering why it can not be included since it helps readers to have a comprehensive understanding of the organization. Last, the Season section was deleted as well. As a unique plan they carried out every year, it also didn't make sense to me that the seasons have to be deleted. As a newcomer to Wiki community, I have a lot to learn. So please help me if any of my content come across any policies. Thank you both again for your help! --XinqiaoCheng (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
XinqiaoCheng Jerome Kohl is in a better position than I am to comment regarding the content of the article. I would just like to point out that I did not remove the content you spoke of. You will see in this edit that it was DRafe who removed some content.  – Corinne (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no further comments on the article content. I see that DJRafe has started a discussion on the article's Talk page, in which he explains his reasoning for the removed content.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am so sorry for the confusion, Corinne and Jerome Kohl! I will have further discussion with DJRafe about the content. Thank you both a million! —XinqiaoCheng (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


21st-century classical music Do my edits help? Or do we need these statements? Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In a word, no, it still made absolutely no sense at all. I have therefore altered it. If you have got a source somewhere that says 20th-century classical music is a style period equivalent to "Baroque music" or "Romantic music" (and, in that sense, different from, say, "15th-century music"), then by all means bring it forward. Assuming that you can do so, it will require a wholesale rewriting of the article 20th-century classical music, starting with its opening sentence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough! That other article needs work, too, anyway. But that's for another time... I've always thought of "20th-century" as a style period as many older text books simply lumped it all together after "Romantic" for want of a better term. We now tend to use Modernism and Post-Modernism so 20th century is covered by them. BTW, the conflict with Contemporary classical music is still as issue. Or is it? Thanks for your cleanup, too. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I don't think the style-periodization problem for the 20th century has entirely shaken out yet. For that matter, since about 1980 there has been quite a lot of revisionism regarding the boundaries of the Romantic period (some wanting to push its end back to about 1850, others holding that it should be thought of as continuing at least as far as the 1930s). "20th century" is at least a neutral term, and objective at least until we start bringing up an idea like the "long century", which of course is an effort to create a style era instead of the arbitrary time period. Despite the fact that older textbooks (presumably you mean the very ones I was taught from) can give the impression that "20th century" is entirely equivalent and subsequent to "Romantic era", my teachers were always careful to emphasize that this notion is wrong-headed: the 20th century has/had no unifying style (even as far as it had progressed in those days), and the post-modernismisationalists since about 1970 have of course been emphatic that modernism in music (whatever that might have included) had become a thing of the dim and distant past. I have long felt uncomfortable with certain musical-style labels, especially "medieval" (which covers a very long span of time, with many quite distinct styles), and so prefer to refer to years, decades, or centuries, even if this has got its problems, too. That way, I do not have to decide whether Dufay (for example) was a medieval or a renaissance composer. (Perhaps the recent decision to split his name into two pieces for Wikipedian purposes is an unconscious recognition of this problem.)
The only real problem with "contemporary classical music" is that it is a movable feast. When I was in college, it certainly did not refer to any music after 1975, because that year was still in the future. Now, it seems rather silly to include composers like Bartók, Schoenberg, Webern, and Stravinsky, who were the central figures of "contemporary music" back then. I have no doubt that, in twenty-five-years' time "contemporary music" will exclude anything written before 15 March 2001 (the first day of the 21st century).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's always been my problem with "contemporary". Perhaps we can review it once the present article has reached a stage we're all happy with (more or less...) Checking Dufay now... Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Or Du Fay then... Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh-heh. It might be interesting to add some references to the "contemporary music" article, dating from, say, the 1890s. It is of course a comment on the notion of "modernity" that we would be unlikely to find any such sources from before the Napoleanic era.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

What is "Modern"? Talk to a geologist and everything after the dinosaurs, perhaps. A cosmologist...? Anyway, enough silliness. That's me for the day. Just modded my keyboard to include en and em dashes so I should get it right from now on... Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think enough work has been done on 21st-century classical music to remove the Multiple Issues banner? I think my OR has gone and I have begun to address the UK-centric issue. We need more References for sure so that can stay. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the OR tag, since that appears to have been addressed, but the UK bias is still there (even if somewhat ameliorated). It appears that your efforts to deal with this have mainly been the addition of Americans. I still see no real discussion of composers from Germany (e.g., Wolfgang Rihm, Hanspeter Kyburz), Finland (Magnus Lindberg, Kaija Saariaho, etc.), Belgium (Andre Laporte, Boudewijn Buckinx, etc.), not to mention non-European areas (there are exactly two names in the "also-ran" list from Latin America, for example, one from Ecuador and one from Mexico, both of whom have made their reputations largely in Europe—are there really no composers active in the "ABC" countries of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile?). Nothing at all yet on Australia, mostly just also-ran names from Japan, Korea, and China. That also-ran list is a danger, too, since it easily will attract hundreds of additions, some of doubtful importance, and with still-living, active composers it will be more difficult to assess levels of notability than is the case with past ages. No, I think there are still at least two major issues with that article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll continue to edit as and when I can to address the bias. I hadn't noticed most of my non-UK textual additions were from the US. The also-ran list will be used to expand the article. The original lists are on the talk page so any adds should be easy enough to check and use/dismiss as necessary. Of course, your input is always welcome. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops! I had forgotten the Talk page had a lot of names on it. I have already begun adding names from some of the neglected areas of the world, and have now alphabetised the list and broken it into three columns.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking good. I'll battle on with the research and get back to it tommorrow, probably. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[edit]

Hi there,

I've added a section to the Talk Page:

Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Place of citizenship.

InternetMeme (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Good. I have no interest one way or another in this matter, but it has generated an incredible amount of smoke (and very little light) on several occasions in the recent past. That is why the editorial note reads as it does. Best of luck!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jerome Kohl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Tango music to an earlier version[edit]

I am sorry, but I will be reverting Tango music to an earlier version before your edits. An IP editor removed [[{{{1}}}]] () links & a reference without explanation. Please be patient & I will restore your edits. Meanwhile, please check with the [ ] to see if they have any of the dead URLs archived. Peaceray (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It appears there are a lot of invalid links there, not to mention a lot of sources of dubious reliability. I shall await the outcome of your efforts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. Yes, please check to ensure that I restored your edits (done manually). Please check [ ] for archived links. Archived links can be used with the {{cite web}} templates with the archiveurl, archivedate, & |deadurl=yes parameters. Peaceray (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I am a little impatient with template parameters, but I am aware of the internet archive. When I find a nest of dead links like this, I tend to mark them all first before looking for archives. Sometimes the ArchiveBot gets there ahead of me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on an opera/music/science initiative[edit]

I wonder if you would consider Global Science Opera Group notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? I'm involved as from yesterday and a friend from university has been involved from the start, more or less, so I should stay away from edits involving it per WP:COI. Thoughts? Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to determine from the project's home page alone whether or not it is notable. Anyone at all with the confidence to create such a page is going to claim (and doubtless sincerely believe in) notability. It does look like the sort of thing that might attract interest in certain circles, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I shall be keeping my eye out for reviews and such. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait and see... Fair enough. Thanks. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Blank Banshee[edit]

Hey there I'm reaching out to you because of your interest in music. I've been attempting to create an article for the artist Blank Banshee Draft:Blank Banshee for quite some time now. As far as references go his (unpublished) article is now more comprehensive than several of his contemporaries' published articles ( see Vektroid see Saint Pepsi ) which is bizarre. I feel I have submitted my draft an excessive amount of times yet also strongly feel that it satisfies the notability guidelines for musicians (I have made myself familiar with WP:MUS, WP:BIO ). I do not anticipate any admins or editors would take issue with Draft:Blank Banshee being moved to the article space at this point yet there has been much scrutiny surrounding it. Michael lone2004 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am flattered that you would think to ask for my help. I have reviewed your draft article, the comments in the rejections of it, and the two other articles you offer as comparables. On the face of things, I'm afraid I must agree with the reviewers' opinions, though I have no knowledge of or interest in the kind of music any of these bands/artists perform. In this sense, I am completely neutral on the issue you raise.
The basic problem with your proposed article is not the quantity of references, but their quality. In one way you are shooting yourself in the foot by frantically documenting every trivial detail in the opening sentence (the lead paragraph should not require any footnotes at all, since it merely summarizes the article content). Seven consecutive footnotes documenting things like the artist's name and the fact that Vancouver BC is a city in Canada has the appearance of desperation, trying to blind the reader with a blaze of footnotes.
The main issue raised by the reviewers is that of notability. Here I am less confident that I can make a judgment, since I see several cited sources in your proposed article that are also found in the Vektroid and Saint Pepsi articles, such as The Fader and Bandcamp Daily. I have never heard of either of these, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable. However, the Bandcamp Daily links are giving me error messages (possibly because of the antique software I am using at the moment), and this does raise a warning flag. I do notice that the Vektroid Wikipedia article seems to cite some actual print newspapers, even if they are local rather than national papers. Something more along these lines would help the credibility of your proposed article. I would suggest you take a hard look at the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and ask yourself whether the sources you are citing really meet the criteria, and whether there are better sources out there to support your case. Best of luck, and if you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. The article does certainly contain an excess of references, I will continue to edit it but I see your point, it may have to be overtaken by another editor in the future as I believe I have done all I can. I am a fan of the genre Blank banshee represents but it may be wise for me to let this draft lie dormant and unpublished until better references are added.Michael lone2004 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello, Jerome -- I was just looking at the latest edit to Fado. If this is correct, then what do you think about posting a welcome template on the editor's talk page? I would only do this, though, if it is unlikely s/he is the same IP editor who has made some less valuable edits to the article recently.  – Corinne (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Do IP editors have talk pages? I believe that welcome messages are automatically placed on talk pages at the time of registration and, as you say, there is no way to tell whether this editor is the same as one or more responsible for earlier IP edits. I think I would give it a miss.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
There are several Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates that one can place on the talk page of an IP editor. It becomes the first section of the new talk page. The messages encourage the IP editor the create an account, and either thanks the editor for constructive editing or discourages them from making poor edits and points them to helpful pages. I post a welcome template occasionally when it is clear that a new editor knew what s/he was doing in making a constructive edit. But if in doubt, I don't use the template.  – Corinne (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
(Talk Page Stalker) Just to cut in here... I use Twinkle which has a range of tools and templates to do this. If an editor is a clear vandal, I can place a warning of an appropriate level on the talk page. If they appear constructive, I can place a range different welcome templates there. And no: an IP is not welcomed automatically. Their talk page remains blank until an editor (or a bot) adds something, anything...! Socks are another issue entirely: I tend to seek advice on these. Do what you think right but as both you and Jerome say it is better to error on the side of caution Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
My mind boggles. I had no idea all these things were possible, but they sound like good ideas, if used with appropriate caution. Blessings on the gods of Wikipedia, may their names not be used in vain!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle (TW in edit summaries) can be enabled from your preferences, if you want to try it. It adds an enormous number tabs to your interface (and renames some) so it may take some getting used to. The documentation is floating around somewhere (accessible from preferences, too, if I recall). It also adds various rollback features to history to revert all latest edits of the editor (in that article) you have taken issue with and opens their talk page to add a standard message re vandalism/welcome/copyvio/coi/whatever-the-issue-is. You can change the suggested message at will and add your own edit summary(s) before saving, IIRC. Very powerful and you don't actually need to be a Rollbacker to use it. Enjoy... Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! I guess I really am still a beginner, after ten years and 71,000 edits! I have seen notices of Twinkle being used, but haven't been sufficiently motivated to find out what all the fuss is about. Thanks for the pointer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Figured bass notation[edit]

It's far too broad to say that figured bass notation is above the bass line whereas analytical notation is below. It's easy to find examples of figured bass below the bass line. Figured bass example.gif

Although most manuscripts from the time put the figures above, most printed editions, whether old or modern, seem to put them below, and they're still not analytical. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to clarify what the previous editor seemed to intend, which is that figures are not always (or even usually) placed below the bass line. In my experience, most printed editions from the 17th and 18th centuries put the numerals above the bass line, but this experience is limited, mainly to chamber music. In the example you offer, from William Boyce, the reason for placing the figures below the line is clear: It is a vocal score, with text between the staves, which would get in the way of bass figures. Modern printed editions are a different matter. They usually offer an editorial realization of the figures, and placing the numerals between the two staves of the keyboard part is regarded as at least distracting. Still, you are correct and the statement in the figured-bass article needs to be emended—but not put back to the original, incorrect and misleading statement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits deleted[edit]


I would like to contribute to the Stravinsky's page and clarify his origin according to the sources I have access in Ukrainian.

Here are the official sources I came across: (Stravinsky's house in Ustyluh, Ukraine).'s virtual tour).

This also is supported by the Ukrainian version of Wikipedia on Stravinsky:

The English version needs to be updated with this early Ukrainian period of Stravinsky's work. It is important for people to know where Igor was working on his compositions before 1914 in the summer time. Remarkably, he called Ustyluh "my heavenly place", that is where he met his first wife, and where he personally designed and built his own house. The other important facts that points out Stravinsky's Ukrainian roots, missing in English version is that his mother was from Kiev, Ukraine, and his father was singing at the Kiev Opera house for three years before he was offered to move to St. Petersburg to sing for the Mariinsky.

Please help me to restore/edit this portion of the page.

Thank you,

About myself: I am a US University professor, tri-lingual speaker (Ukrainian, Russian, and English). If you need help with any other Russian/Ukrainian articles, please let me know. I will be happy to help.Slavuta33 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to bring this up on the article Talk page, where the subject was raised, discussed, and dismissed five years ago. In that discussion, it was pointed out that no sources had been offered for the claim of Ukranian ancestry. If you now have some to bring forward, please present them there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

more inaccuracies[edit]


Also, the statement "After Russia annexed this part of Poland, the Soulima was dropped, and during the reign of Catherine the Great the family moved to Russia.[6] " This is very inaccurate as Stravinsky's father moved to sing in the Russian opera theater after singing in the Kiev Opera house for three years 1873-1876. Catherine the great died in 1796. Please respond so we can correct this paragraph. There more corrections is needed on Soulima as well. Slavuta33 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I must direct you to the article Talk page. I have not yet checked the cited source, but do please keep in mind that on Wikipedia what matters is verifiability, not truth. If you have reason to doubt the reliability of the cited source, or if the source does not actually support the claim, then there are ways of dealing with this. If on the other hand you have a reliable source that contradicts another reliable source cited in the article, then this can be dealt with, as well, though it will mean eplaining that authorities are in disagreement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Mind you the editor makes a good point... Catherine the great died 85 years before Stravinsky was born! There's something odd going on here. Alexander III of Russia would likely be the the monarch meant. Has the article been silently vandalised? — Iadmctalk  02:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC) And the source appears to be Craft-Stravinsky which is unlikely to mke such a blunder. I have it somewhere. I'll check in the morning — Iadmctalk  02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm far from well-versed in the political history of Eastern Europe. Are you saying that "this part" of Poland was annexed after the reign of Catherine the Great? By all means let us know what you find in the Craft-Stravinsky book. My copy is in a box in deep storage somewhere.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The challenge of the editing of Slavic composer's biographies in English version is that it is limited to the English-written sources, which are not very accurate or reliable. In this case, cross-linguistic checking is vital to make sure the information is verifiable in the language of the composer's origin, or those countries he/she lived. In case of Stravinsky it is undeniable fact that he lived in Ukraine and Russia before 1914. So the reference check of the facts needs to be consistent with the historical sources in Ukrainian and Russian. When it comes to the history of Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, we need to keep in mind the fact that Russia occupied these countries for centuries. the maps of Ukraine (and Poland as well) from the beginning of the 17 ct. till the end of the 18 ct. were rewritten many times due to a constant political/military conflicts with Russia, Prussia, and Austria. The quotation on Catherine will be impossible to verify, so I would suggest to drop it. I navigate in the Ukrainian history pretty well, and am a Ukrainian/Russian native speaker too. On the name: A lot of Ukrainians were changing their names to sound more "polish" to receive certain privileges from the polish monarch (around 17 ct.). Also a lot of Ukrainian Cossacks were in status of "registered", which were funded/used by Polish king. That's how "Strava" (eng. meal, food) could become "Stravinsky" very easily. I tried to verify strava or strawa as river's name and I can't find it. Since the reference was made to Soulima, there is a possibility that Stravinsky was related to a well-known hetman Ivan Soulima, who actually was fighting polish army quite successfully back in 1630's. Anyway, I am surprised not seeing any information on Ukrainian connection of Igor Stravinsky. There is nothing on his house he built (which is today the only museum of the composer), Ustyluh town in Ukraine he visited since he was 14, and where he stayed for about 20 years in the summertime. There is nothing on his Ukrainian cousin (who was his mother's sister's daughter) he married. etc.Slavuta33 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not had a chance to look at this yet. After new year, probably. I'll review what Slavuta33 has written above too while I'm at it — Iadmctalk  20:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Stravinsky's Polish ancestry, I have read and understand Jerome Kohl's point about the "challenge of the editing of Slavic composers' biographies in English...which are not very accurate or reliable." However, Stephen Walsh in his entry on Stravinsky in New Grove writes the following:

Stravinsky was in Russian terms a nobleman; his parents were ‘dvoryanine’ or, as we might say, gentry. His mother, Anna Kholodovskaya, was one of four daughters of a high-ranking official in the Ministry of Estates in Kiev, a respectable if dull man who educated his daughters in the correct, somewhat prim manner of the provincial 19th century. Anna grew up a good domestic singer and fluent pianist, a well-organized if strait-laced wife and mother. Her husband, fyodor ignat′yevich Stravinsky, whom she married in Kiev (against her widowed mother's wishes) in 1874 when she was still only 19 and he 30, descended from a long line of Polish grandees, senators and landowners. But since the partition of Poland in the 1790s the Stravinskys had come down in the world, lost their lands and gradually migrated southwards into a remote region of what is now south-eastern Belarus′.

Dr. Kohl, are you aware of this quote? Submitted respectfully, -WMH1978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmh1978 (talkcontribs) 21:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly aware, and also aware of the material in the Craft/Stravinsky conversation books on which Walsh largely relies for this information. I think you have already read the discussion on the Stravinsky Talk Page, which is where any further discussion belongs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm[edit]

Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: The address of the physical meeting is: University of Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA 47°39′25″N 122°18′19″W / 47.6570676°N 122.3054000°W / 47.6570676; -122.3054000 (Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA)

Please go to the door on the north-northwest side. 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 and bringing the membership registration form and $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2017 at the meeting as well.

Also, we are pleased to announce that the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is now 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.

20:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Expressionist music / Reference to Todd Williamson[edit]

Hello, the entry was not of any promotional intention. As Todd Williamsons art tries to hit the bridge from painting to music I think that the entry makes really sense here. Maybe not within the mentioned chapter. Any other idea? Regards, NORPpA (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, "Expressionism" in music (as the article on that subject makes fairly clear) refers to music by a certain group of composers active prior to about 1930. I don't think Mr. Williamson qualifies for this historical designation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Perhaps "he writes music in the style of the expressionists" or similar? — Iadmctalk  20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that his article says he is an abstract-expressionist painter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Shruti (music)[edit]

I noticed that you recently edited an article on the topic of Indian classical music, Raga. I have found impenetrable the recent wave of additions (over 30 KB) to the related article on Shruti (music), but was unsure whose attention to bring them to. Would you be interested in reviewing this article, or do you know someone else who would? Thanks again for your efforts. Hftf (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look, though I have to confess I am far from being an expert on the subject. The word "impenetrable" makes it sound like it is not so much a matter of the substance, but the way in which it is presented. That much, at least, I may be able to deal with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Term origin[edit]

The French fr:Nicolas Slonimsky article claims that the term "Mother chord" comes from Berg's article "What is Atonality?", but I find no mention of the all-interval twelve tone row in Berg's interview. You may be better at French than I am, and more able to deal with the issue. Hyacinth (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "Mother chord" comes from an article by Fritz Heinrich Klein-Linz in Die Musik 17/4 (1924), pp. 281-286. Klein writes on p. 283:
"We know that there exists only one primal twelve-tone chord (Urzwölfklang), but that millions of its derivations can be represented. If we present the primal twelve-tone chord in a wide disposition on 612 octaves and if we dispose its twelve different notes in such a way that they also show twelve different intervals, we obtain a chord that illustrates the limits of the possibilities of the presentation of chords and, from a quantitative point of view, one cannot imagine a larger chord with richer content. In order to avoid the lengthy denomination "chord with twelve different notes and twelve different intervals" (zwölfverschiedentöniger und zugleich zwölfverschiedenintervalliger Akkord) and considering that it unites in itself so to say all other chords, I named it for short Mutterakkord." [My translation.]
Berg's "Was ist atonal?" does not include the term Mutterakkord and Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns does not refer to Berg. The French Wikipedia page appears mistaken on this point. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Do any of us know anyone who speaks French? Hyacinth (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I can think of at least one of us who speaks French like a native. Why do you ask?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't speak French like a native, French is my mother language (and the one I usually speak). Needless to add, I know many around me who also speak French. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

electronic music reversion[edit]

i don't know if this is the way i'm supposed to communicate with you but you reverted an edit of mine about John Chowning in the Electronic Music Article. You commented that it was covered later in the article, but in fact the information in my edit was not covered later. Maybe you're an expert that goes around undoing other people's work, but this does not encourage me to participate and make the articles better if my edits are undone. Conscientia (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall this edit. Would you be so kind as to point it out to me?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Dear Jerome,

I have a question to the all-interval-tetrachord. I know, it isn't your work to help me to understand things, but I would like it if you would help me.

The AIT in set theory notation in prime form are

  1. [0,1,4,6]
  2. [0,1,3,7]

in inversions

  1. [0,2,5,6] (to 1.)
  2. [0,4,6,7] (to 2.)

see All-interval_tetrachord

So in note names about "e": prime form:

  1. E, F, G#, A#
  2. E, F, G, B


  1. E, F#, A, A#
  2. E, G#, A#, B

My question: Why are the inversions inversions? If I have an inversion I get after four "inversion" the same chord, right? Or in this case I [E,F,G#,A#] become to [E,F#,A,A#]. But it doesn't happen...

Okay, what if I write the set class so that I have as first the minor second:

prime form:

  1. [0,1,4,6]
  2. [0,1,3,7]


  1. [0,1,7,9] (to 1.)
  2. [0,1,6,t] (to 2.)

now you see, they are definitely no inversions, or is it? Can you then explain it for me, please?
Or for everybody who reads the page about AIT and ask: "Why are they inversion?"
Maybe it is enough if you can quote Michiel Schuijer, so I can understand why he is the opinion that [0,2,7,9] and [0,1,6,t] are inversion.

Thank you very much for your help,

Tubajoeseph (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your confusion, and perhaps I can help. The problem has to do with two incompatible uses of the word "inversion". In everyday musical terminology, this word refers to the positions of chord members; in musical set theory, however, it refers to directed interval classes (also called, somewhat confusingly, pitch-interval class within a set. This is clearly shown by the integer notation, where you can simply count the numerical differences from left to right (in the prime forms) and see that the results are the same as counting from right to left in the "inversions". In 1960, Howard Hanson published a book on this subject in which he distinguished between these two concepts by inventing the term "introversion". This term (and several other potentially useful ones found in Hanson's book) unfortunately did not catch on. There is also a conflict in this area between the use of terms in musical set theory and in mathematics, which is discussed at the heading Mathematical set theory versus musical set theory within the Set theory (music) article. If you have not yet read that article, I think it may answer most of your questions. This is admittedly a rather arcane subject, so if you do not find that article entirely satisfactory, please do not hesitate to ask me any further questions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your helpful explanation. Now I understand what "inversion" means. But is inversion meaning that [0,1,4,6] and [0,2,5,6] are different chords and which meaning has it in the analysis of chords?
For me it is still a bit strange. If I "inverse" a major triad [0,4,7] I get a minor triad [0,3,7]. For me that are two different chords.
So if I build the "inversion" (mathematical) can I say I get a complementary chord and if I build the inversion (musicical) through "octavation" (is that english?) can I say I get an inversion (root position, 1st, 2nd inversion and so on)?
Joseph 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Your example of major and minor triads has often been cited as an argument against treating pitch-class sets as equivalent under inversion. Nevertheless, that is what Allen Forte decided to do, and this limitation of the theory must always be kept in mind. The traditional idea of "chord" is not entirely compatible with the concept of pitch class, so that it is not possible to speak of "root", "third", "fifth" (and so on) of pitch-class sets. The idea of "normal form" is a convention to simplify discussion of set types. Because one pitch class cannot be said to be "higher" or "lower" than another one (consider the notes B and F, for example: which one is higher?), most traditional chord-theory concepts are not valid in pitch class space. While this may at first seem a disadvantage of pitch-class theory, it actually frees up theory from many limitations imposed by traditional approaches. Perhaps the most immediately obvious example is the contrasting treatment in "classical" and "jazz" theory of things like "first-inversion triads" vs. "sixth chords", or the issue of whether there can be such a thing as a dominant eleventh chord in fifth inversion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for my last answer. Now I think I understand it. I didn't saw the pitch class related to the term "set". If I have 5 different colored balls in an urn each ball has its own weight. The combination of colors is important. So it doesn't matter which ball I take first. In "traditional" theories the order of colors is more important
Joseph 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not a bad analogy, though of course in traditional theory there are two ways of ordering the "colored balls": horizontally, in time (melody) and vertically, in "pitch space" (chords). Pitch-class theory allows consideration of the relationship between the "colored balls" of a group while disregarding both horizontal and vertical dimensions. One analogy often made is to the numerals on a clock dial. The set properties, however, still are more closely related to harmony than to melody.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing as Activism: Black WikiHistory Month Workshop and Edit-a-thon at UW Bothell[edit]

Event poster for the Black History Month Editing as Activism Workshop and Edit-a-thon at University of Washington-Bothell Feb. 22-23, 2017.
Editing as Activism: Black WikiHistory Month Workshop and Edit-a-thon
Social Justice Organizers at University of Washington-Bothell are hosting a two-day editing event for Black WikiHistory Month on Feb. 22 and Feb. 23, 2017.
Learn to Purposefully Edit Wikipedia
  • February 22, 2017 ~3-5:30pm
  • Location: UW Bothell Activities & Recreation Center (ARC) Overlook (Sports and Recreation Complex on the campus map), Second floor, room 202. Address: 18220 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011; vehicle parking in North parking garage $3 for 3 hours or $6/all day rate cash or card
  • This workshop gives you the critical tools you need to log on with purpose and make edits that make a difference.
  • Led by Monika Sengul-Jones
Black History Month Edit-a-thon
  • February 23, 2017 3-6pm
  • Location: UW Bothell Common Grounds Cafe in the Commons Hall (UW2), main floor. Address: 18115 Campus Way NE Bothell, WA 98011; vehicle parking in South parking garage $3 for 3 hours or $6/all day rate cash or card
  • Put your editing skills to work in a group editing session. Edit and/or create pages that improve Wikipedia's coverage of Black history and culture. All welcome. Novice editors encouraged to attend the Learn to Purposefully Edit session on Feb. 22. Bring your laptops, power cords, and books/articles to edit with.
  • All are welcome; this event is specifically geared towards the University of Washington student and faculty community. Light refreshments will be served.
  • Affiliated Sponsor: Cascadia Wikimedians User Group
To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Cascadia Wikimedians

Precious five years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

in Freundschaft. Kontakte - I was in a stage workshop of Originale, premiered in 2015, [4], quite literally so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic! What an experience it must have been! Thank you for telling me!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Quite fascinating! Many videos, did you see. Let's look at the article. Originale doesn't mean real people, but special (unique, often a bit strange) people. I see many reference errors. Traveling, more later. Yesterday's program had Fearful Symmetries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how (for example) a newspaper vendor selling newspapers is "special", "unique", or "strange"—except of course when transposed onto a stage in front of an audience. I think Mary Bauermeister is fairly clear about this, though I think we may both want to double-check the cited source. Do please tell me of my errors of references. I thought I was very careful.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a bit more time now. In German, the first meaning of "Original" for a person (not a piece of art) is someone unusual and a bit weird. I knew one, Harry von de Gass (de), see also Original (person) (de) The Weihnachtsmann (Christmas Man or Santa) is certainly not real ;) - Stockhausen may have used it in irony, of course, referring rather to art in a double meaning. In Berlin, it was not at all "in front of an audience", - the audience sat on the edge of a stage surrounded by a broad aisle, and most of the action was on the aisle, some also on a higher smaller central stage with stairs leading to it, some on a gallery surrounding the "Werkstatt" hall, + one actor sat on a swing aboe it all. The pianist was in one corner, the percussionist in another, the elecronic music came from the center (below the stair), lighting was in a third corner, we also had projections on two walls, mirrors on one other wall, and towards the end the next room was included were art was made by people from the audience, such as myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of the senses of the German word Original, and agree that the expression "real people" isn't quite right. The problem is that there is no single English word that acurately translates the senses of the German, without adding unintended nuances. Perhaps you can help me out here. The citation from Mary Bauermeister also supplies a context that may be important. It runs:

Im Sommer 1961 zeigten wir unsere künstlerische Zusammenarbeit zum ersten Mal öffentlich. Stockhausen und ich bekamen vom Direktor des Theaters am Dom, Hubertus Durek, und seinem Regisseur Carlheinz Caspari einen Auftrag für ein Stück, in dem Schauspieler, Maler, andere Künstler oder eben einfach »originale« Menschen frei in spontanen Aktionen auftreten sollten. Mit Caspari war abgesprochen, dass jede der zwölf geplanten Aufführungen etwas Neues bieten solle, es waren also zwölf »Uraufführungen« angedacht.

The phrase "oder eben einfach »originale« Menschen" is the key problem. In English, we have any number of words to describe "special, often a bit strange" people. We may say, "characters", but the context must make it clear that we do not mean characters in a play or a novel, so this word always requires a qualification, as in "she is a real character" or "he is a genuine character". On the other hand, when used alone, "real character" could be misunderstood to mean a "realistic portrayal" of a protagonist in a book or film. We may also use words like "eccentric", "oddball", "goofball", or even "kook", but can be construed to imply mental disorder, unless once again the content makes clear that it is intended affectionately. I do not have sufficient fluency in German to know exactly how or if the word Original could be misconstrued in this way and, if it can, whether or not Durek/Caspari's usage, as related by Bauermeister, strongly implies or discourages such an interpretation. Certainly the casting of the original Cologne and the subsequent New York productions did not insist on such an understanding, though of course Nam June Paik's presence would fully encourage it. One of the key problems, it seems to me, are the "actors", who are cast as actors—not in roles such as kings, queens, thieves, racing drivers, bank tellers, politicians, or newspaper sellers, which they are meant to portay as realistically as possible. Your thoughts on this problem would be much appreciated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for enlightening! I think we need to differentiate the title of the piece Originale and its translation, Originals (not "Real People"), from explanations about what it may mean which could happen in a footnote or in the text. I think the above quote should be in the article, and its translation. I think this again different meaning of "originale" (adjective) as not an actor playing the role of a lighting director but a lighting director acting before the audience (but an actor being Santa, and a grown-up taking the part of Kind, at a time in Berlin with a paper on her forehead spelling KIND) needs some explanation. Will you do it, and I watch? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. This sounds like a good way of dealing with the problem in the article. I will see to it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I like what you did, thank you! - Mozart: how about you and me leaving the topic to others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I am still a little uneasy with the result, though it is an improvement. Having done a little research now, I discover that these various English terms are all very recent coinages, and I suspect the same may be true for this sense of the German word. The German, however, has less chance of being misunderstood I think. I will continue to think about it. As for Mozart, I agree that both of us should stay well clear of any further discussion of the infobox issue. (I assume this is what you mean.) I think you will agree, however, that my edit was justified, given the long and contentious history on that page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There was a long history on the page, which I summarized in the last discussion (2015). Now, in 2017, I'd really like to know if anybody is still in the mood to fight that silly battle. I liked the his piano concerto on the Main page, and no protest came from the 25k readers that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, that one editor appears to have been unaware of the discussion and the consensus (or lack of consensus, as the case may be) and, under those circumstances, it is fairly clear that unilateral action is to be discouraged in favour of raising the point for (yet another pointless) discussion on the Talk page. Your summary is a good one, and useful to have right there in plain sight, since the discussions themselves are hidden in the archive. As for composition articles, you will have noticed I do not oppose infoboxes there, since the data tends to be simple and non-contentious (I have not, for example, seen any attempts to qualify Mozart's piano concertos as German, Austrian, or Salzburguensian). You may even have noticed that I, myself, have added infoboxes to articles such as Chôros No. 2.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You are right, that one editor was unaware, saw missing what they are used to see in other articles, and thought they helped ;) - Thanks for the compositions. You may have noticed that there is no attempt to call Mozart Salzburguensian in the proposed little thing. A piece by Boulez will be mentioned in my DYK #800, did you know? - I am going to create NDR Chor (a redirect now), - I think even English-speaking readers will understand that name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to the upcoming new article on the NDR Chor, which figures in several articles I keep watch over. We shall see whether the German title of the organization provokes any objections. The English Wikipedia is very divided on the matter of translating institutional names, as you must be aware.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I am aware, always use Frankfurt Opera (although it's not our article name), but I think that in this case (chorus? choir? who defines the difference?), the German will be understood. What I really dislike is when German organizations translate their own name - and we have to use the result. Often a "castle" is no castle, and the EKD is not evangelical. - Thank you for restoring, - the silly character: I must have touched the keyboard inadvertently. Was a funny reason to revert. I was ready to ask eventually if it is assumed that our readers know who Tallis was, - not having to think about a polite way helps! - In the below: I commented out the harvids, leaving them ready to be used when needed. They are all construed normally, - I think just "ref=harv" should do, - but calling the ref, it will be needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to simplify reference formatting for beginners!" I had no idea that leaving "harvid" tags in Further reading items would generate "unused reference" errors! It looks like I need to make a few thousand more edits, since I have been formatting "Further reading" entries this way for some time now. Of course the problem with the EKD is that the usual sense of "evangelical" in English does not correspond to that of "evangelisch" in German: a case of a false cognate!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The reason to revert was the infobox, not the silly character or the links. It is not a question of whether readers will have heard of Tallis, since he, along with Byrd and Palestrina, has been linked in the Influences section since the first version of the article. I have no objection to their also being linked in the lede. But I wasn't going to waste time sorting out the infobox versus what else.
Jerome, you will of course remember that I created that article and that you and I collaborated to take it to GA. You may remember that, during that collaboration, I deferred to your preferences on the formatting of citations, although they differ very substantially from my preferences. So I am disappointed, now, that you have ridden roughshod over my views on the infobox, which you have not only restored, but started to load up with such trivia as 33.3rpm 12" for the first recording. I expected no better from Gerda, who has never contributed to that article before today, and did so now only to try to exert her preference in this matter over those of other editors, as she has been doing for years when ArbCom hasn't been controlling it. But I did expect better from you.
It's not worth the candle to edit war with you two, and I won't. The article is coming off my watch list right now, and permanently. But I want you both to know how contemptible I consider your behaviour today. --Stfg (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Since the subject under discussion here is first the article on Originale and secondly the biographical article on Mozart, I think a little emceeing might be in order. You must be speaking of the article on Stravinsky's Threni, the editing of which I do recall. I do not recall that the question of an infobox was considered at that time, or subsequently up until now. As it happens, I agree with Gerda on this one: the article not only looks better with an infobox, but it provides a convenient place to put such trivia as the date and place of the first recording, which does not always (as it happens to do in the case of the Threni article) find a comfortable place elsewhere in the article, even in a "Discography" section. I have often added infoboxes myself to composition articles, such as the example I mentioned above. Beyond this, there are ways of removing infoboxes (and stray unintentional characters) that do not involve at the same time reverting useful and constructive edits, such as links to composer names that may not be familiar to all readers. Further, I do not now recall any details of our discussion about referencing-format style (though I do not doubt that we did discuss this), but the article emphatically does not use my own preferred style of parenthetical referencing, probably because the current full-footnote style was already established when I first discovered it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Threni. I wrote in this section because Gerda referred to it in this section (post at 17:51). For the record, our discussion on references is at User talk:Jerome_Kohl/Archive 9#Threni (Stravinsky). It concerned the templates, and in particular the formats they generated. --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I now recall that discussion. Very strange, because I had just earlier today (in this same thread) made reference to how complicated those templates (which appear to be aimed at helping beginners) make life for editors who already know how to format references. That experience taught me a lot, and I now hesitate less to undo well-meaning additions of templates that impose new (and by no means necessarily better) referencing styles, contrary to WP:CITEVAR.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't come here to discuss citation templates; I merely wanted to remind you that I had deferred to you on that issue. But since you make that point, let me make mine: there is nothing sacrosanct about academic citation styles, which are not completely uniform anyway, nor about the CMS. Wikipedia is entitled to its owns standards. I don't object to your preference, but it is merely that: a preference.
The purpose of CITEVAR and other guidelines is to protect peaceful and humble-mannered editors who want to develop content, from more assertive folk who would love to impose their view of how things should be done on everyone else. That was also the purpose of the restrictions regarding infoboxes that ArbCom imposed on Gerda and others in the past, which I wish had been retained and even imposed on the rest of us in the form of an INFOBOXVAR guideline.
You, Jerome, may not know, but Gerda certainly does know, that I have been active in infobox debates in the past, on the side of AGNOSTICISM. I simply don't have a position on them. Had I been asked before it was done, I'd simply have said "Yeah, go ahead, no problem", and that would have been that. What I do have a very strong position on is the need for consultation, and for respect for the opinions of those who have created significant pieces of content on the part of those who haven't contributed at all to those pieces of content. Especially when it to comes to presentation. Just trying it on without discussion and waiting to see if it sticks is, to my mind, arrogant and disrespectful.
Presentation isn't content. Content is subject to certain requirements, but what constitutes good presentation is only a matter of personal opinion. That remark includes citation formats, the use or non-use of templates, infoboxes, as well as a host of other things. Those who think that their opinion on matters of presentation is better than anyone else's opinion about presentation are simply snobs; and those who try to impose those opinions on the work of others are arrogant snobs. I have never regarded you as either, Jerome. I hope your comment about CITEVAR doesn't mean I'm going to have to change my opinion.
I want you to know that this incident isn't the only reason why I'm retiring from Wikipedia today. There have been a small number of other cases done to me and a much larger number I've seen done to others. But it is one of the reasons, and I think you both need to know that.
Good luck. --Stfg (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with just about everything you have just said, especially about presentation vs content. I do wonder, though, what you think might be a more appropriate way to float the idea of an infobox on an article. We have seen a lot of friction on this issue on biographical infoboxes for so-called "classical" composers (where I am firmly in the OPPOSED camp), and now the subject has to do with a "classical composition" article (where my judgement is very different). I find it interesting that you say you would not have found any problem with an infobox for the article on Stravinsky's Threni, if only you had been asked. Well, I didn't find any problem, either, even though I had not been asked in advance and, as far as I can tell, we are the two editors most involved with that article. Should there be some sort of protocol (is this what you mean, for example, about an INFOBOXVAR guideline) for suggesting such a change before actually implementing it? I know that infobox advocates such as Gerda are impatient with such ideas (which they regard as a waste of time) but, as an AGNOSTIC on the subject, how do you think this could be better addressed?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. Yes, that's what I meant. IIRC, if someone wants to change the citation method of an article, or the date format, or the EngVar, or do a merge or a split, etc, etc, then they are expected to propose it on the talk page and abide by consensus. That should be the case for anything potentially controversial. Also, if someone does jump the gun and is reverted, the right procedure is not to counter-revert, but to follow BRD. --Stfg (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, your rebuke is perfectly justified: I should have followed BRD. I will try to remember this in future.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Jerome. Bye now. --Stfg (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism March 2017 at UW Seattle[edit]

AF Logo.jpg


Cascadia Wikimedians
Art+Feminism Learn to Edit Pre-session
  • When: Friday, March 3rd, 2017, from 12-2pm PT
  • Where: Research Commons, Allen Library South, Ground floor. University of Washington. Seattle, WA 98195
Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon
  • When: Saturday, March 4th, 2017, 9am-1pm PT
  • Where: Research Commons, Allen Library South, Ground floor. University of Washington. Seattle, WA 98195

The University of Washington Research Commons, Cascadia Wikimedians, iArts, & iQueeries will jointly host an Art+Feminism event in March at the Research Commons.

Join us for a communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to art and feminism! Our focus is on improving Wikipedia's representation of North American Indigenous art, Indigenous womxn artists, and Indigenous feminism.

We will provide tutorials for beginner Wikipedians, childcare, refreshments, and live streaming for those unable to attend.

Cost is free! Anyone and everyone who wishes to attend this event is welcome. Bring your own laptops and power cords (guest access to UW WiFi will be available).

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Vague statement on Soprano recorder[edit]

Hi there,

I would like your help in clarifying the statement you marked as vague in the article "Soprano recorder". Before you added that, I had edited an earlier version (which was also marked as vague) to try and make it clearer. You left a comment, "What is simpler than the Baroque fingering?" I am not sure if this is a genuine question or a rhetorical one, by which you mean that the sentence should answer this question. I thought it did!

The meaning of the sentence is that, to play an F, the Baroque fingering requires cross-fingering (the fifth hole is open, but those below it are closed). The German fingering does not, and so it is "simpler". Unfortunately I don't think there's a particular term for "not cross-fingering" that could be used instead of calling it "simpler".

-- Perey (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem: In what way is T1234 "simpler" than T12346? There is a long history of woodwind fingering involved here, particularly on the transverse flute, but also concerning the oboe, clarinet, and bassoon. It requires a great deal more than the glib invocation of the word "simple" to explain this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I would have thought that T1234 was objectively simpler than T12346, merely by virtue of needing fewer fingers. Also that it follows a "simple" progression of "one more hole" for each note (in C major) from B down to C. This is not to say that the Baroque is particularly hard (I would call the contrast "simple versus less-simple", not "simple versus complex"), although this is not the only article to suggest that cross-fingerings are complex (or at least undesirable)—Fingering (music)#Cross-fingering itself does so!
But if a proper appreciation of the nuance of woodwind fingering is necessary to explain this more clearly, then I'm not the right person to write it anyway, as I never went further with woodwinds than the recorder itself. :-) -- Perey (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you are bang on target with the observation that "a proper appreciation of the nuance of woodwind fingering is necessary to explain this more clearly". If it makes any difference, I have played all of the basic woodwinds (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, saxophone) at one time or another, including "historical" models of some of them. Think for a moment about the implications of what you said, that T1234 is "'objectively' simpler than T12346, merely by virtue of needing fewer fingers". By this logic, the low C on a soprano recorder is the most complicated of all. I agree that you are saying has some merit, and the word "simpler" is sometimes invoked in this context, but not usually with a full appreciation of what is meant. All that is needed, really, is a reliable source that (incautiously) uses this word.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Stockhausen on the corner...[edit]

As the resident Stockhausen expert your input would be useful here if you have time.Thanks. Acousmana (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Le marteau sans maître[edit]

The last comment on Talk:Le marteau sans maître was yours ;) - in 2012. I had a look at the piece because it will be mentioned for a DYK, and found several messages about unused references, beginning with the score, #2. What would you suggest, - use them, or place them in "further reading", or for some this, for others that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think those items ought to be moved to "Further reading", even the score itself, as long as it is never referenced in the article. They can always be moved back again, in case any should be cited in the future.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. Proud and sad today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry about getting you in conflict with Stfg, and for what? - More than 500 views on Threni yesterday, and the marteau. - My simple belief is that we should not go by the authors' preferences, but the readers'. We don't need "infoboxvar", because while date format should be one and only one in a given article, an infobox is an additional service which does not exclude a lead, and a reader who doesn't want to see it can opt it out, without taking it away from other readers who may have a different approach and different needs, - thinking of vision-impaired, those not great in English, or in need of a particular fact fast. Arbcom has been mentioned, - well, the arbs changed since the last case (and they are not eager for a new one), and now one of them said things like this "On the other hand, it would really help if people who make "editorial choices" not to use infoboxes would do some more thinking about how they are going to serve their less prose-oriented readers - people who are just skimming, who aren't sure this article is the one they're looking for, who don't read English well, who are reading on their phones, who are trying to reuse our content, etc." (from User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 14. So I hope, Stfg, you'll think it over and return to the good work you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, you are as much an author as I am, and you represent readers' needs no more than I do. You are of course entitled to your opinion about infoboxes, and as I said to Jerome, we could have discussed it constructively if you had proposed it. What I object to is the hubris of one editor imposing their views without consultation; that's the arrogance I referred to above the other day, compounded by deleting my message on your talk page without replying to it. No, I won't be returning. I find I'm much happier now retired. Oh, and please remove me from your list of "Precious". Logging out again now, and for the last time. --Stfg (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I am happy that you replied, Stfg, but - forgive me - less happy about its content. I didn't "impose" anything, I said "try", you reverted, and that was ok with me, - I would have done nothing. I confess that your message on my talk annoyed me a bit. I regularly revert bot messages and other things that concern nobody but me and are not going to get archived. I responded to it, not on my talk, but on yours, "playing" Mozart's piano concerto in C minor, with 25k+ views on its day on the Main page (24 March), and nobody argued about the infobox. Article and box are not by me, - I feel that it's now (2017) the normal standard of GA and FA articles on classical compositions. Of 100 infoboxes that I add, about 3 % get reverted. To ask before adding every time seems a waste of time, or, as Voceditenore said a year ago: "But otherwise no, it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia. It's no different to adding or removing any other content or formatting to an article. If someone adds an infobox and another editor thinks it's inappropriate they can revert and discuss. " (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 125). No "arrogance" was intended. - Also please see my talk about a recent loss of a dear family member, putting all little boxes in perspective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, (1) I am very sorry for your bereavement, but you cannot expect other Wikipedians to put their concerns aside because of it. I haven't tried to burden you with what this is doing to me under my current circumstances, and you shouldn't try to burden me. What you do on Wikipedia and how it affects others in these days is as much your responsibility now as at any other time. (2) The Mozart concerto you posted a link to on my page has nothing to do with Threni, so at best that's other-stuff-exists. You normally reply on your talk page, so deleting without reply and posting something irrelevant to the issue on my talk page wasn't a reply, it was snarky. (3) I have the greatest respect for Voceditenore, but the fact that you and he agree about something doesn't oblige me to agree with it too. That's an appeal to authority. (4) This isn't about infoboxes; I've already said I'm neutral about those. This is about collaboration. I'd have thought that the past ArbCom restrictions might have alerted you to the provocative nature of what you do with infoboxes, and suggested to you to be more careful. If you think that consulting is "bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time", then we must agree to disagree.
I've had enough of this, and probably so has everyone else reading this page. I won't be replying again. --Stfg (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We disagree that infoboxes about compositions are "provocative", but I understand that the one I added provoked you, and am sorry. I should have looked up the article history, as I usually do, avoiding disagreement with several editors I know don't support infoboxes, but was in a rush for Threni. - Just imagine how many misunderstandings we could have avoided if I had looked and known that you are in that group, - I didn't. Enjoy music. I still think that you are precious, so won't remove the entry with a history of four years, but I will not remind you this year, just think of you fondly on 14 April. - Voceditenore is a she, btw, the spirit behind project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Gerda. I do appreciate that reply. Apologies to Voceditnore for overlooking (or forgetting) that. I genuinely will be moving on now, so: goodbye, and very best wishes to you, and again to Jerome. --Stfg (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I should have added that if you come to any of my other creations, feel free. My watchlist is empty now anyway, and I won't be back. There are a couple of minor Stravinsky works (maybe only one, I can't remember) and the translation from German of Beethoven op109, which had such a dismal article on enwiki before. Other creations are about tree-of-life topics you may not be interested in. They will already have taxoboxes where they need them. Good luck. --Stfg (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel free ;) - Look. I am less interested in Stravinsky's other pieces than this one which was presented on the Main page, and still is for Opera. Stravinsky's operas all have at-a-glance information, take Oedipus rex (opera) for example. I won't touch Pelléas et Mélisande (opera), but can tell you that I find Les Troyens simply more attractive, mentioned today with Claudia Mahnke. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Horns and pitch and ... and ... the whole thing.[edit]

Dear Jerome, I was going to get all high-horsey with you about this as I read it initially as perhaps a bit snarky and diggy and I think of you as very much not those things, and was a bit upset.

I then, however, reread my own previous ES here and realized - aaargh! - that there was a bit of Matthew 7:1-5 going on, with possibly even a tiny dash of John 8:7 thrown in, and actually I had perhaps better get off the high horse and think about it all.

So, I'm sorry about the silly edit summary, and I would like to start again on this topic. After a suitable time for contemplation I will take it to the article's Talk page and try to explain politely what I am on about, and hope that we can move on - or indeed agree not to do so - from there. I must be honest and say that I remain quite deeply unhappy about that particular place in the article, but maybe I can set my stall out and there will be something to discuss. (Please don't hold your breath for this though as I am juggling 47 things, ineptly, during a brief period of holiday.) I hope this is OK.

Thanks and all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note. It helps to create a little context for what otherwise could lead to some misunderstanding. I shall have to look at the edits in question (at first, I thought this might have been about the Post horn article instead), in order to understand just what the problem is, but I shall do so in the spirit of "let's start again".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Work on classical music[edit]

Thank you for your efforts. This article really is a bit of a mess overall, and I wonder if it would be productive to start a discussion on the music project page... but sometimes I think quiet improvement might be more likely of success. Some comments:

  • Much of the very OR-looking stuff about "Modernist/High modern/Postmodern" was added by a single editor who has since been banned. I think much of this could be removed.
  • You recently wikilinked "discourse": I can't really understand what this means in the context, but reading the article discourse is so painful, that one ends up understanding even less. If we can't understand what something is trying to say, it is surely better to move it to the talk page until someone can explain it.
  • I will try to finish tidying up the timeline -- change all to surname only. Do you think this is worth it? Is it "Weber" and "de Falla"... (?)
  • Somewhere among the pomo babble, I learnt that it "embraces contradiction". Not sure it belongs on WP in that case.

Imaginatorium (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful note. I didn't know about the banned editor, but the writing style did suggest that all of the sludge was coming from a single sluice. Let us start by removing this opinionated junk. I share your ambivalence about starting a discussion, either on the project page, or on the Talk page of the article itself. I assumed that "discourse" was a misuse of the term, and probably something more like "over the course of" was meant but, given the lack of references, it was hard to tell just what was meant. The word "discourse" has a specialised sense in philosophy (as you have found out the hard way), as well as a somewhat antiquated general use in English. In such cases, I tend to leave a "citation needed" tag and wait for a few weeks before removing the garbled claim. It is unusual to get a response this swiftly! I agree that surname-only is a more suitable style (with exceptions in the case of names like Strauss). FWIW, it should be "Falla, Manuel de", not "de Falla, Manuel". Any similar name issues can be checked at the individual biographical articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Jerome, I can't recall contributing to that article, but I watchlist it. Your recent edit removed a referenced proposition I find pretty credible and useful: "In an alternative definition used by most modern metric theorists (Schachter 1976, Lerdahl & Jackendoff 1983, Hasty 1987, London 2012), hypermeter is meter where downbeats act as beats. For example, the four-bar hypermeasure is the prototypical structure for country music, in and against which country songs work (Neal 2000, 115)."

And reinstated an unverified proposition that I think London and others would find simplistic: "In some styles, two- and four-bar hypermetres are common."

Thoughts? Tony (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, to start with, the so-called "alternative definition" is, as far as I can see, identical with the original one. I didn't notice I was reinstating an unverified proposition, but I did notice that I was reinstating two perfectly reasonable statements about simple and compound meter that had been removed without any stated reason.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff.

  • "If the beat is divided into two the metre is simple, if divided into three it is compound. – It's a comma splice (see the subsequent sentence for correct usage).
  • "In an alternative definition used by most modern metric theorists (Schachter 1976, Lerdahl & Jackendoff 1983, Hasty 1987, London 2012), hypermeter is meter where downbeats act as beats." – I agree that it's too similar to the previous statement (although not the same). It's a pity to favour a tertiary source over those experts. I'm not sure Schachter would agree with that simplistic definition nowadays: see his The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory (2015), p. 210, in which he discusses the single-bar downbeat hypermeasure.
  • "For example, the four-bar hypermeasure is the prototypical structure for country music, in and against which country songs work (Neal 2000, 115). In some styles, two- and four-bar hypermetres are common." – This pre-existing text comes straight after that edit. I don't get the logic of "for example", nor the meaning of "in and against". The final sentence ("In some styles,") does not logically flow from this. I do not intend to edit the article myself. Tony (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, these are the differences I noticed. I might observe as well that Schachter 1976, Lerdahl & Jackendoff 1983, and Hasty 1987 are all "dummy" entries, since there are no corresponding sources in the list of references (they also lack page citations). This makes it impossible to verify if they say what they are claimed to have said, never mind that the difference in phraseology is meaningful. I don't understand what you mean by "comma splice", but if it creates a incorrect usage then of course it should be changed. I'll take a closer look at the country music reference (which is obscure enough to warrant investigation), and I agree that what follows it doesn't, er, follow, though there could be some sort of connection. A reliable source would be nice, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Eminescu, neo-romantic or not[edit]

I'll give you that Romanians have not had a typical European Romantic period (late 18th century - middle 19th century) in literature; so it would be absurd to call a Romanian artist a neo-Romantic, domestically. However on the European continent, the Romantic period, in literature, was firmly ended just as Eminescu was born (1850s). So it would be relativistic to keep Eminescu classified as a Romantic while many others around the continent, including eastern Europe, were already transitioning to Modernism in literature. Music on the other hand, which seems to be your expertise, had its Modernist period delayed further down the line beyond the late 19th, early 20th century period, with a more continuous Romantic period. In European literature, as you can see in the Romanticism article, 1850s is the latest possible exentions of Romantism. It's all whether you want to extend a European common theme in literature to Romania or not. I'm fine with it either way. Dzdzds (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I could not possibly agree with you more (except on the question of music history, which is not the point here). My sole reason for reverting the addition of Eminescu's name from that list is that his article describes him as a "Romantic" poet, not a "Neoromantic" or "Post-romantic" one. Although it might seem reasonable that he could be both (or all three), say, at different points in his career, or that he might be classified differently by different commentators, speculation of this sort on the part of editors is firmly in the realm of Original Research. Do please try to find sources that discuss Eminescu's poetry in the light of the considerations you mention, and make the appropriate adjustments to his biographical article. Once that is done, then of course he had be added into the list of Neoromantics. It is a simple matter of being consistent across articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I'm still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia editing policy but I do remember reading what you said about Original Research rules on articles, and I do agree there needs to be consistency. I'll see if I can find some time to look at the different neo-Romantic/Romantic sides concerning Eminescu's work, but until then I won't include him in Neo-Romanticism article. Dzdzds (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Saturday, May 6, at Jacob Lawrence Gallery, UW Seattle[edit]

AF Logo.jpg

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon

Despite its wide reach, content on Wikipedia suffers from the bias of its editors: white, technically inclined, English-speaking men that live in developed, majority-Christian countries. This represents an alarming absence of voices in an increasingly important repository of shared knowledge.

In an effort to change this, the Jake is organizing a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Saturday, May 6th, 1 - 5 pm. Our mission is to bring together diverse communities to participate in Wikipedia editing, and improve its coverage of queer people and women of color in the arts.

We will provide childcare, snacks, and tutorials for the beginner editor.

Bring your laptop, power-cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. No previous Wikipedia experience required!

RSVP at and stay tuned to our Facebook page for updates.

What: Improving Wikipedia's coverage on queer and women artists of color
When: Saturday, May 6, 1-5pm
Where: Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Art Building #132, 1915 NE Chelan Ln, Seattle, WA 98105
Who: People of all gender identities and expressions are invited to participate.
What to bring: A laptop and power cord. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affliated participants.

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.
-MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Lower cases in composers' works[edit]

I haven't the faintest idea why Samuel Adams, Emily Hall and others have chosen to use lower case letters for their works, in apparent defiance of standard grammar practices. It's best to ask them rather than me. Michael Cooper wrote a recent article in the New York Times on this recent trend. Whether I personally care for it or not, it is necessary to respect the composer's wishes for how they wish to present the titles of their works. Thus I have (re-)reverted the titles again, to the composers' preferred format. DJRafe (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

With respect, there is absolutely no reason at all to respect the composers' wishes (or their publishers' title-page design quirks). It has nothing at all to do with grammar (except perhaps in the case of German titles, where all nouns must be capitalized). It has to do with style guides, which will vary from one publisher to another. Wikipedia uses one of the most common styles, and there is absolutely no reason (well, very nearly absolutely none) it should not be followed. We should probably seek a third opinion on this matter, since there is not point in getting into an edit war over it. If you like, we can continue to discuss, if you think there is any point, but your reversion before such discussion has now already put us over the threshold of WP:BRD. Let me know how you would like to proceed. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about what evidence there is that these typographical designs are the preferences of all these composers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
In response to your first and last statements (at which my jaw hit the floor in disbelief):
(a) On the first, with respect, there is every reason to respect the composers' wishes, for precisely that reason. They are the creative artists who have chosen to title the works the way that they wish. It is not for you, me or anyone else on Wikipedia, or any Wikipedia guidelines, to override their wishes, or superimpose its guidelines, in terms of title presentation. It is their work, and they have made their choices, and we must respect their prerogatives as creative artists.
(b) The evidence for the composers' choice of case is in each respective link that I provided, in particular to the Samuel Adams and Matthias Pintscher compositions. When you click on each link, to either the programmes for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Adams) or Boston Symphony Orchestra (Pintscher), you will see the presentations of many words of love and un despertar in the external links with the lower case presentations, clearly exactly as the respective composers intended. Even further, in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra pdf of the programme, you will see Samuel Adams' own essay on his work, where he presents the title as many words of love. What other evidence is necessary, when it is given directly by the composer? The proof is self-evident right there, accessible by simple click-throughs to the external sites. DJRafe (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, your jaw is not alone, down there on the floor. Since I have already explained Wikipedia's position on point (a), I will not bother repeating it. I will only ay that composers are creative artists in sound; most are only amateur typographers, if their interest even extends that far.
I am more interested in your response to point (b), which is new. I notice that the headline of the article on Adams capitalizes the title in the normal way, even though the title appears in lowercase in the the of the article. I fail to see that this proves anything about the composer's intentions, any more than the fact that E. E. Cummings's publisher's decision to lowercase his name on the covers of some books proves it was Cummings's preference that his name not be capitalised (it was not). If we were to follow your suggestion, then there is one well-known composer whose work should always be presented in FULL CAPS on Wikipedia. This is sometimes called SHOUTING, though of course it is often used in newspaper headlines, book chapters, and magazine-article titles. It does make that particular composer's works jump off of the page (which is the whole idea), but I do not think many editors would want to follow that pattern. Still, if you seriously want to follow this notion up, I suggest we take your proposal for a change to the guideline to the appropriate Talk page, where more editors can weigh in with their arguments. Perhaps it would be best taken first to the Classical Music Project talk page, rather than going directly to discussion of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Capital_letters guideline. What do you think? Either way, you might care to have a look at a related discussion from a couple of years ago, at Talk:A_Boy_Was_Born#.22A_Boy_was_Born.22_vs_.22A_Boy_Was_Born.22_in_the_text.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In A Boy was Born, is was how the composer had one word styled (which highlights the BB of his initials), not the whole title, and if Wikipedia can present it his way. The answer was no, even the image showing the printed styling was removed from the article, because House style rulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I suppose there's a little wriggle room; but I lean strongly toward what User:Jerome Kohl says. Tony (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Major Sixth[edit]

Hi Jerome Kohl, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Major sixth page. I am pretty sure no ratios from Pythagorean tuning are considered "just intonation" except for fourths and fifths. Should we at least remove the Pythagorean ratios from the article? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the article Just intonation, any system using small number ratios is regarded as JI. My reversal of your edit was primarily aimed at the septimal major sixth of 12:7, which you deleted in spite of the fact that it carried a verifying reference. I am inclined to agree with you that the Pythagorean 27:16 is pushing the boundaries for "small numbers", though it is specified in the body of the article as "another just major sixth", with a citation to p. 124 in John Fonville's article on Ben Johnston's extended just intonation. This source does not baldly state that the Pythagorean 27:16 ratio is considered a just interval, but does include it in a chart of the "structure ... based on the 2, 3, 5, 7, and 11 limit" Johnston employs in his Sixth String Quartet (at the end of the otonal series, together with its utonal counterpart, the 32:27 minor third). It would be useful to discover a reliable source saying just where this Rubicon is on the map. I am inclined to let the 27:16 stand until a reliable source rejecting such a ratio is found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


I mentioned Momente in a DYK hook about the Kölner Rundfunkchor, - would be a good time to improve both articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

... and, to create some missing pieces, and polish the others: "Other premieres included Hans Werner Henze Laudes [5], Karlheinz Stockhausen's Momente, Luigi Nono's Il canto sospeso, Pierre Boulez' Le Visage nuptial, Bernd Alois Zimmermann's Requiem für einen jungen Dichter, Penderecki's St Luke Passion, Iannis Xenakis' Nuits [6], Luciano Berio's Coro [7], York Höller's Der ewige Tag [8], Péter Eötvös' IMA [9] and Toshio Hosokawa's Die Lotosblume. [10]" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for improvement to the Momente article? As for the others, I will have a look and see what I can come up with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Nothing but the error messages, I fixed the ones in red, - still several greenish, about unused refs. What did we do recently? Was it putting them in a different section, Further reading? - The lead is a bit tough for people who don't know anything about music ;) - How about an infobox? Do you happen to know when the Kölner Rundfunkchor styled itself WDR Rundfunkchor Köln, - from looking at recordings? I thought when WDR was founded but no, not yet in 1962, possibly not until much later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, unused sources should probably be moved to a "Further reading" section. I didn't make this distinction when I created that reflist. I don't see any error messages. Do I need to switch something on to see them? I don't know about changes to the name of the WDR choir. It is possible they were not always consistent about what they called themselves. Musicians can sometimes be less scrupulous about these things than librarians and encyclopedia editors!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Just the last: Kölner Rundfunkchor means just radio choir from Cologne, - at some point the WDR probably wanted their name in there as well, and that time may have been recently, while the name NDR Chor has a tradition dating back to the 1950s. Radio announcers would just have said "Chor und Orchester des Westdeutschen Rundfunks". - For the messages: copy the one line from User:Gerda Arendt/common.js --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Latsos[edit]

Hello Jerome

I have started new article, not sure if I am doing OK, but I would certainly appreciate all your suggestions and some help to improve my artcile: Cheers Asuas (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

dorian mode[edit]

What would you think would be an appropriate way of citing the chord progression for each song? I didn't want to use "chords and lyrics" sites. See also this video including all the songs I included in my edit (which are by no means all those using the i-III-VII-IV progression). --balabiot 20:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC) ps: some Wikipedia pages for the songs do mention the progression or Dorian mode, for example here or here.

I don't think a complete inventory of chord progressions is necessary (though without one it might be better not to include the chord progressions). Certainly watching a video is insufficient, unless there are subtitles indicating each chord. All that is really needed is a reliable source verifying the Dorian mode for each song. Wikipedia pages, of course, are not reliable sources. Neither, for that matter, are most "chords and lyrics" sites, which amount to no more than self-published blogs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. bala. on the "complete inventory" issue, it would make sense to focus on progressions that are regarded in the literature as models for variation. Tony (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Role of Christianity in civilization edit of inadequately identified sources[edit]

Thanks for your edit of Role of Christianity in civilization calling attention to two inadequately identified sources. I have dug back and found where Xandar lifted those two pieces of text back on 11 April 2010. One was from the Catholic Church article of the time, and the other from the History of the Catholic Church article. Without your edit, I might not have been motivated to dig that deep. Thanks again. --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I found those two citations exported to the article Musical notation without proper identification in the reflist there, and was surprised to discover the lack of information at "Role of Christianity". Now perhaps the same repair can be made at that notation article. Thanks for finding those sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The perfect edit summary in a brass article[edit]

Love it. Thank you for a good laugh ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I only wish I had done that on purpose!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't disillusion me! ... Come to think of it, I might start referring regularly to my flugel as a "null pipe". Even if no-one gets it, I will continue to enjoy it ... DBaK (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought you were already Disillusioned 8-0. Nevertheless, please feel free to use the expression. I have no wish to claim copyright!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)