User talk:Jerome Kohl

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


I wonder if you'd have time to look at this terrible article Trombetto and work your musical wikimagic on it? Tayste (edits) 00:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. The problem with that article is the question of notability. If every "one of a kind" musical instrument had its own article on Wikipedia, there would be no room left for articles on major motion pictures or rock legends (what used to be called "movies" and "singers"). Now, I expect that at one time every instrument must have been "one of a kind", until it caught on and became "mainstream". Assuming that such things are all worthy of inclusion, perhaps we should have articles on all sorts of failed historical instruments, from the pig-o-phone to the marching slide kazoo. Or perhaps not. I will try to be fair and take that article seriously, but it ain't gonna be easy.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. To be honest, perhaps it should be nominated for deletion? Tayste (edits)
To be honest, my feelings are exactly the same. There are of course several ways in which notability could be established. The most important one is to demonstrate that anybody except the creator of the oddity has shown any interest in it at all. This has already been questioned, of course, and I seriously doubt that a satisfactory answer will ensue. A nomination for deletion might help speed the parting guest.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just read it. Aargh. It's just not the kind of thing we need an article for. DBaK (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trombetto started. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

German Horn[edit]

Dear Mr. Kohl,

Your page on the so called "German horn" has caused much consternation among horn players around the world.

Before we act to have this questionable page removed I would like to ask you which sources you are using to support your designation of the instrument most professionals call the horn and others call the French horn as the "German horn". It appears to many that this is a product of your own imagination devoid of any serious scholarly support or common usage that might justify such an entry on Wikipedia.

Looking forward to your answer,

Edward Deskur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stowarzyszenie Rodziny Deskurów (talkcontribs) 16:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I always think it's a good idea to introduce oneself politely and make one's point in a reasonable manner rather than go straight for pomposity and near-threats. Your mileage obviously varies. Ah well. DBaK (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. When Mr Deskur/Deskurów recovers his composure, he may care to look in the article itself, where he and the two or three other horn players from around the world who are so discombobulated will discover the sources he is asking about. In fact, the article cites eighteen sources, not all of which (admittedly) directly address the question of the name, which I must suppose is the point of Mr Deskur's consternation. These sources are placed as inline citations using short-footnote format, each linked to the alphabetical list of references near the end of the article (in case there is any difficulty locating them). If he really believes that the rotary-valve, large-bore double horn is not the predominant type of horn in use around the world, then of course he is free to edit the article and add his own reliable sources to contest the views of Jeremy Montagu, Anthony Baines, Walter Piston, Norman Del Mar, and other authorities cited in the article. Generally speaking, I find that reliable sources are preferred to pomposity and near-threats on Wikipedia, and I believe that the German-horn article is actually better referenced than its sister articles on the Vienna horn, the Natural horn, and the French horn.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You might enjoy this (re: The Bill theme)[edit]

Hi Jerome - thought you might enjoy watching this :) Grutness...wha? 08:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks for that (even if Bill Bailey did fail to upgrade the Coronation Street theme to an odd metre).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
BTW, another example of septuple time used for the theme song of a police show was the version used for the pilot episode of Softly, Softly: Task Force. Perhaps Bill Bailey's explanation for the change in The Bill theme applies here as well, and the reason the tune was changed to a square 4/4 after that pilot episode is that the rhythm was thought too subversive for the forces of law and order. On the other hand, I don't know what the theme for the original Softly, Softly was like, since I have never seen any episodes of it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I only remember it from its later series when it was 4/4. Perhaps the use of odd time signatures is a deliberate attempt to make them feel 'edgier', in the same was as the 5/4 of the original "Mission Impossible" theme. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. So-called "odd meters" were very common in the 1960s and 70s (and very trendy in jazz generally at that time), and the whole idea was, as you say, to be "edgy". Other examples of TV themes that occur to me "off the top of my head" include the theme for the first series of The Plane Makers and the Shoestring theme (the latter with phrases in a slower 11/4). Casualty is a slightly later example, though the "edgy" rythms there are superimposed on a very ordinary 4/4 accompaniment, not to mention the fact that it is not a police or detective series.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Song and album title formatting[edit]

I'm copyediting Carola Häggkvist. I read at WP:Manual of Style/Titles that album titles should be in italics but song titles should be in quotation marks. There are a lot of both types in this article, so I was going along changing italics at song titles to quotation marks. However, a lot of the titles are in Swedish. I knew that foreign language words are usually in italics, but I haven't often seen the combination of italics and quotation marks, so I looked again at WP:Manual of Style/Titles and found a section WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Translations. It shows only a few examples. Can you tell me how to format song titles in Swedish: italics only, quotation marks only, or italics and quotation marks?

I also see in that section of the MOS that the English translation of a foreign language title that appears in parentheses after the title should be neither in italics nor in quotation marks. Since whoever wrote this article put all of those title translations in quotation marks, I guess I need to go back to the beginning and remove all those quotation marks (from the translations). CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Don't make any edits to the article right now or I'll lose all the work I've been doing. I'm trying to wait until I receive your reply before I save my edits. CorinneSD (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another question: several times in the article I have seen sentences like this:

  • The album was reported to have sold in 90,000 copies.

I thought the word "in" sounded odd, so I've been removing it so that the sentence reads:

  • The album was reported to have sold 90,000 copies.

Then I thought, well, the album doesn't actually sell anything (transitive verb). So now I don't know what's correct. I suppose passive voice could be used:

  • 90,000 copies of the album have been sold.

What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will not touch that article with a ten-foot Pole (or even an eleven-foot Swede ;-). First off, italics for foreign terms are only used to set them off as foreign terms when they are embedded in English prose. (Also, this is only done for words that have not become naturalized in English, but that is not important here.) Consequently, the formatting rules are the same whether the album or song titles are in Swedish, English, or any other language. Parenthesized translation following a foreign title should not be either italicized not enclosed in quotation marks, as you have read in the Manual of Style. People do get confused about this, so you will see this rule violated frequently. I agree that "in 90,000 copies" is simply incorrect (probably an artifact of translation, or an editor with imperfect command of English), though it is common to say "reported to have sold 90,000 copies", even if the passive voice sounds a bit better. Hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I have my work cut out for me now. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


I did some work on lesiba. It would be great, if you like, if you could take a look at the article. Hyacinth (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Some" work? I'd say quite a lot of work, to judge from the edit history! It is a fascinating article, on an instrument I had never heard of before. Consequently, I am not in any position to offer improvements to the article's substance. I tweaked a couple of minor punctuation problems, and found a somewhat stilted use of the pronoun "one" (apparently to avoid the usual he/she pronoun problem). I hope you find these to be improvement, however small. It looks quite good, I think.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle[edit]

Official Seal of Seattle.jpg
In the Seattle area? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help. Come to our first Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle on July 27, 2015, 6pm to 9pm, at Café Allegro
Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
Yours, Peaceray
To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


What do you think of this edit?--Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The apparent vandalism, or the response to it? If the former, it is certainly very clumsy; if the latter, then the question is well taken, but repair should have been made at the same time. If the first edit was really sincerely made, the "unsourced" complaint must refer to the claim that he was named "Francesco" in honour of France. This sounds like an awfully silly claim to me but, if there is a reliable source for it, then it must be true verifiable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. I removed the clain in honor of France. My books tall me he was called Francesco, because he was delighted by French things. French people - he was simply a francofil. Not the father, the son; Francesco was a francofil. Hafspajen (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You may run into trouble with that edit, though not from me. There were (as I recall) two sources, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, with somewhat different explanations of the French connection. Neither of them, I think, claimed it was because St Francis himself was a francophile.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on "Quintuple meter"[edit]

Hi. This is regarding this edit of yours [1]. I just created *value*. And you could have *added value* by finding proper sources for what I added. Or you could just have listened to the track and realized that what I added was true. Instead, you've done the work an amoeba with a policing itch could have done, and have *destroyed value*. I hope, at the end of the day, when you're considering "have I done good today" that you've not left humanity better than it was before. Bonomont (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You clearly are unaware of at least three things. (1) It is the responsibility of the editor who adds content to support it with a reliable source, not to just add stuff in the hopes that someone else will or can find such sources. (2) There is a long history on the quintuple and septuple meter articles, going back to before the time they were split off from the List of musical works in unusual time signatures involving attempts to add literally hundreds of songs without properly sourcing them. There is in fact a backlog of about 500 titles waiting for sources, which you can find at Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Unsourced. (3) Although I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what meter a song is in, I am not a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. Furthermore, other musicians may sincerely disagree about metric interpretations of songs (for example, there is an opinion that "Overkill" is in 7/4 time, but I hear it as an alternation of 6/8 and 4/4). There is a very, very long discussion of this problem in the archives of Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures, which ended with consensus that no unsourced claims be allowed to accumulate on that list (and, by extension, to the lists appended to the two articles spun on from it). So, the bottom line is, yes, I felt "I have done well yesterday" when I removed what, after all, is just a possible drop in the ocean of quintuple meter songs. Your characterisation of your addition as "value" is at least debatable. We do not need either doubtful or trivial material on Wikipedia. If it were up to me, I would remove that entire appended list, since quintuple and septuple meters have both become commonplace since about 1920 (and commonplace even in popular music since about 1960). However, there are those who delight in compiling such lists, and they are numerous enough to have their way. Perhaps soon we will also have lists of all songs in 3/4 and 4/4 time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you've got a list of 500 titles that want to be in these articles, then I obviously don't insist that you add mine. As a general feedback, the examples that I see currently listed are not well known, with the measuring stick being have they entered major top 10 charts (with the exemption of "Theme from Mission: Impossible" and "All you need is love"). So you might want to add a few more songs that people can actually relate to. I currently see a lot of pieces that are experiments that a musician did, and that ended up on an album, but apart from die-hard fans, nobody probably knows them. And the only reason why they are listed here is because somebody took the time to find some sources. Well I think that's a bad criteria for inclusion. You should find examples that people know, ideally across several styles, and then go out and find sources. If you are just playing the robotic hangman that mindlessly kills anything without a proper source, then the quality of the examples will stay at the current low quality level. Bonomont (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
To start with, I didn't create the list of "certified" examples in that article; it accumulated over the years, with contributions from many editors who, like yourself, found an example they thought worthy and added it. The ones with valid references stayed, the others went into that holding pen on the Talk page for the "List of musical works in unusual time signatures". I have not evaluated that list, nor am I qualified to do so; none of the song titles in it mean anyhting to me at all, and that is true also for "Innuendo". I have (only just) heard of the band Queen, but have not to my knowledge ever heard a note they played. No doubt there are plenty of die-hard glam rock fans out there who have quite a different point of view. The Mission: Impossible theme is another matter entirely, but I think Lalo Shifrin made a mistake when he finally wrote it down for publication: it is obviously in 10/8 (3 + 3 + 2 + 2), as a bunch of us music students unanimously agreed back in the 1960s when we first heard it, and only fits 5/4 with some awkward syncopations. Whatever. It seems to me that any song familiar enough to make a good illustration belongs in the main text of the article (along with the Mission: Impossible theme, Take Five, Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony, Rachmaninov's Isle of the Dead, and Ravel's Daphnis et Chloé), and not in the "list of other songs", which I regard as a limbo section amounting to "songs you never even knew existed and probably will never hear"—in other words, pretty much what you describe. Of course, it is all the more important to have a reliable source to reassure the innocent reader that he is not being made the victim of some prank, or being misled by some eager music fan who simply cannot count.
While I have got your attention, I revisited that edit I made, and see that the reason I gave for reverting it was not that it lacked a citation, but that you had placed a false refeence on it, which was obviously copied from a source verifying a completely different song. An attempted subterfuge like this is not a good way to impress other editors with your good intentions, and I suggest that in future you refrain from such devious ploys.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Well first of all, let me rebut your attack on my character. I didn't add these references to to trick anybody, I just wanted the edit to have the same format as the edits next to it; I wanted the edit to fit in. You shouldn't be that mistrusting to people. Ever heard of "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"? Exactly this applies here. You know what? You come accross like a slightly loose cannon with a nervous trigger finger. Such character traits are equally not a good way to impress other editors with your good behaviour, and I suggest that in the future, you refrain from such lapses.
And by the way, if you can't take this critique on your character, maybe you shouldn't denounce others.
Now, on to the actual issue at hand. I agree that the best examples should be in the main section. Just don't forget that some people skim an article, and a list is something that draws the eye more than a lot of text, so for many people, that list will actually be more prominent than the text. Of your examples, I'm familiar with Take Five, but none of the classical music examples. I feel like I'm a regular guy with a regular taste, and just as a feedback, currently there are very few examples that I actually recognize. You or some other editor might want to work on that. And being on a record chart is actually a good way to estimate whether a piece of music is actually well known. Plus it's very data-driven thing, there are sources for it with numbers - you should like it! Bonomont (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I accept your revised characterization of yourself. I presume you are new to Wikipedia, and there is a principle sometime difficult to remember: "Don't bite the newcomers". I apologise for having lapsed on this point. That said, you must realize that your tactic of "borrowing" a reference "for the sake of form"has the result of making it appear that you have in fact supported your claim with a reliable source (since you did not label it with an explaination that it was there only to show how the format should work). It is very easy on Wikipedia to be misunderstood, and important therefore that you consider your edits very carefully. It did look to me as if your intention was to trick people into believing you had a source for your claim.
FWIW, I, too, feel like I'm a regular guy with regular taste (I imagine that most people feel that way), and as I said, I didn't recognize your example, any more than you recognize Tchaikovsky's famous 5/4 waltz. Being on a record chart may be a good way of recognizing whether a piece of music is well-known, but only over a brief span of time. This is one feature of "classical" music: it lasts, be definition. Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, and Ravel are just as well-known today as they were when their quintuple-time pieces were first written—probably even better known. Glam rock, by contrast, has already faded into obscurity, at least for those under the age of 30. Our Wikipedia articles of course must change with time, but it is also well to keep an eye on things that may not have to be rewritten every few years because of changing fashions.
What you say about lists catching casual readers' eyes may be true, but of course this can also be turned into an argument against them: they are what is called an "attractive nuisance", and so they will divert many readers from the substance of the article. Examples should be selected with a view to reaching as many different people as possible (I don't think we have any disagreement there). From this point of view, tightly stuffing a familiar example in amongst many unfamiliar ones only serves to diminish its usefulness (once again, I don't think we have any argument about this). One reason for organizing an article in the way that Quintuple meter has been, is so that the reader can scan through the various headings to find areas with which he is familiar, or the opposite—depending on the level of familiarity and interest in the subject. This is where miscellaneous lists really fall down flat, and is the reason I worked very hard to pull as many examples out into the prose text, wherethey can be given a context and explained in a way that makes them useful. The result has been that the "also ran" list now consists almost exclusively of popular songs, and this is mainly because people keep coming along with their favorite tunes—people from many different ages and backgrounds, and with different tastes—and popular music is usually what they are most familiar with, even if they are not familiar with other peoples' popular music. The other side of the coin (as I think the article already makes clear) is that so-called "classical" music has been using quintuple, septuple, and other "odd" meters so routinely for so long now, that it is scarcely worth mentioning any longer, whereas they only became fashionable in popular music stating in the early 1960s, and even there they have never become as familiar as 4/4 or even 3/4 time. The problem of citations, however, becomes more critical with popular-music examples for two reasons. First, in contrast to "classical" music, little of it is available in written-down form. Second, a comparatively small percentage of listeners are sufficiently skilled in music to be able to tell what meter a song is in, and so will be all too ready to believe Jeeves (Stephen Fry) when he tells Bertie Wooster (Hugh Laurie) that "Puttin' On the Ritz" is in a "syncopated 5/4 time, with the accents on 'If', 'blue', 'you', 'know', 'to', 'to', 'don't' and 'go'". It works for Bertie, of course,but when you crunch the data,it doesn't really add up, does it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
All fair points. I think pop music is much much more popular than classical music, though, and the record sales numbers support my theory. I think I'll have to detach myself from the discussion now, because i don't have enough time. So I guess this is another example where wikipedia is written by those with lots of time. Good luck with all your future edits! Bonomont (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, I think there may be a reason for the name "popular music", just as there is a reason for the name "classical music". Your point is also well-taken, and the dynamic nature of Wikipedia is of course well-suited to constant reworkings of the text to adapt to fluctuating expectations of the readership, but another perplexing issue has to do with demographics. I was just speaking with a friend of my own age the other day about this "song familiarity" issue, and she said she could remember thousands of popular songs from the 1950s and 1960s but practically nothing from after then. Surprise, surprise, guess her age. A person twenty years younger will know all the popular songs from the 1970s and 1980s, and a person twenty years younger still will go blank on everything before 1990 and after 2010. All of these people, though, are potential Wikipedia readers, so it would be nice to be able not only to include something they are likely to be familiar with, but also to put those examples into their historical context (e.g., "Take Five" had a huge impact on the popular-music business in the 1960s, but was it still so important an impetus in the 1980s?). This cannot be done with the trivia-list format, but it requires quite a lot of time and effort to incorporate into a prose context, especially when every claim must be supported with a reliable source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a good approach. Have a nice one! Bonomont (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I take it this website is not a reliable source? Too bad then. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think it is not a reliable source?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Added it. Good job, Florian Blaschke! :-) Bonomont (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Pleyel et Cie[edit]

Is Pleyel et Cie still in business? See [2]. I read the article, and though it says the company ceased production of pianos in France in 2013, it does not say the company ceased production altogether. Corinne (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are very quick on the draw! I just this very moment saw that edit changing "is" to "was", and wondered the same thing. The Pleyel website clearly indicates that the showroom is open, though of course that does not mean they are still manufacturing. On the other hand, the cited source merely says they announced they would cease manufacture in 2013; it does not confirm that they actually did close up shop. I am still searching for sources that either confirm cessation of manufacture, or that they changed their mind.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, besides just saying they announced they were ceasing manufacture in 2013, it says in France. They could continue to manufacture in another country. Corinne (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times article given in the "External links" sections seems fairly conclusive. They are still in business, but only to sell off their remaining stock, not to manufacture new instruments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
O.K. That's too bad. Do you think electronic keyboards have put a dent into piano sales? Corinne (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That is quite probable, but there have been other dents as well. The piano is no longer as popular an instrument as it was a century ago. Recordings are one factor (compare how many people you see going about the streets with headphones now, to how many there were fifty years ago ;-), the increasing popularity of the guitar is another. The New York Times article mentions economic pressures caused by competition from Asian makers being able to make pianos at much lower cost, and that is probably the biggest dent of all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jacques Gershkovitch[edit]

In response to a request for a copyedit at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have been reading and copyediting the article on Jacques Gershkovitch. I have come across a sentence that I have to ask you about. It's in the first paragraph of the section Jacques Gershkovitch#Relocation to Portland, Oregon. Here is the sentence:

  • Following three months of touring, Gershkovitch settled in Tokyo to undertake the newly organized Tokyo Symphony Orchestra under the patronage of Baron Okura, a wealthy nobleman and relative of the Mikado.

I thought perhaps a word was needed after "to undertake". Does one "undertake an orchestra"? I thought perhaps:

  • to undertake the conductorship of the Toyko Symphony Orchestra
  • to undertake the leadership of the Tokyo Symphony Orchestra

I'll defer to whatever you suggest. Corinne (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a word is missing there. The choice of "conductorship" of "leadership" or something else depends on the precise nature of the job he accepted: conductor would be described by "conductorship", music director would probably mean "leadership", though that could also refer to an administrative position or (in British English), the first-violin position (what is called outside of the UK the "concertmaster").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Can I hope that you might find some information in the sources as to what position he accepted? Corinne (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Those two sources are both comparatively obscure. I do not expect to find online access to either of them, though my local university library may hold copies. I shall see what I can do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Nursery rhymes[edit]

If you would like and have time, would you please take a look at Template:Nursery rhymes and tell me what you think, or comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 25#Template:Nursery rhymes. While music related, this is not music theory related. Hyacinth (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Although my interests in music are not restricted to theory (!), I really have no opinion on this particular template. Thanks for valuing my opinion sufficently to call my attention to it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Circular rounds[edit]


Would you know how to solve File:Stuber-Musique.jpg? It appears to be a round, notated in a circle, for four parts (viols), with each part entering three bars later (3,6,9). Only a few measures use "correct" notation, the rest having notes with the dot on the wrong side or with the stem on the wrong side. Hyacinth (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting! I don't think having dots or stems on "the wrong side" is necessarily decisive, but the main problem is to decide which way is "up". Perhaps two of the parts are inverted with respect to the others. As for the instruments, "viol." is almost certainly an abbreviation for "violon" (i.e., the French for violin). This fits better with the treble-clef notation, since by the late-18th century even the bass viol was exceedingly rare, and the treble viol was long gone. I shall have to ponder this awhile.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Which way is "up" (the inside or outside) is the same as deciding whether the notation proceeds clockwise or counterclockwise.
Take the bottom two measures directly around the spade and arrow bar line.
  1. If the measure to the left is taken as running clockwise, then the notation is incorrect, the dot on a quarter note being on the wrong side and the flag on the eighth note's stem being on the wrong side. An atypical rhythm, eighth note-dotted quarter note., is also created in the first half note. So presumably it runs counterclockwise.
  2. If the measure to the right of the arrow barline runs clockwise than the atypical rhythm is created. If it proceeds counterclockwise then the eighth note flags are on the wrong side.
Hyacinth (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)-08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Similar: File:John bull sphera mundi.gif. Hyacinth (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Bull example looks a little more straightforward, because the clefs are placed on the staves, therefore indicating both the direction (clockwise) and which way is "up". The apparent offbeat parallel octaves at the beginning are puzzling, and there are several misleading "solutions" that lead to parallel dissonances and so must be red herrings. The Stuber is actually more interesting, for exactly the reasons you mention. By placing his clef, meter, and key signature on a separate bit of staff in the centre, he enables a number of different readings. Is it possible that it is actually to be read in four different ways, including right-to-left (that is, backwards) order of the notes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Like all canons of this type, this one originates from a contrapuntal draft (Entwurf, as Albrechtsberger describes it in his Gründliche Anweisung zur Komposition). The phrase given counts twelve bars, and each of the four violins enters after three bars. That is to say that they will play all together in bars 10-12. Reading the notation counterclockwise gives the result hereby for these three bars, where arrows indicate where to follow after the repeat bar. The trick, starting from this, is to write each part in turn, in one line, instead of the four parts on top of each other. One may try reading the score hereby from right to left, which would correspond to reading the circular notation clockwise: the result is less satisfying because the leading notes (F#) do not resolve normally. I did not try reading upside down but I think that it would be even less satisfying. One easily recognizes that the three bars correspond to three chords, V–I–II in G major. The canon could be repeated without end, but one will note that at the turn of bars 1-2 of the notation hereby, the second violin is lowest and plays D–G, which makes a nice full cadence in root position, and the highest violin (violin 3, hereby) plays B–A–G, a nice ^3–^2–^1 line: this would be a convenient place where to stop. Needless to say, which of the violins will play these treble and bass lines at the time of stopping depends on how many repeats have been played. (I was too fast: the figure 2 in the center of Stuber's circle probably indicates that the time signature should be cut time instead of Commontime inline.png. I am too lazy to correct that.) — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It is all very simple, isn't it? Thank you, Hucbald, although you have spoiled the fun in working it out for myself! Just one thing: shouldn't the time signature be exactly the one Stuber wrote (2), rather than translating it into an Italianate equivalent? ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Jerome, to have spoiled your fun. There remain a few questions for you, however: could you say in a few words – so far as possible without actually writing out possible solutions, but merely by an abstract consideration of the problem – why neither (a) reading from the inside of the circle, nor (b) mixing voice(s) read from outside with other(s) read from inside will provide a satisfactory solution? And what about reading clockwise? And once you'll have done all that, you may want to consider this other circular canon, by Haydn, [[3]], often discussed and which offers several solutions. (There was a talk on this by L. Beduschi in EuroMAC 2014, see [[4]].)
As to the time signature, yes, you probably are right. Problem is that Finale (that I know) does not propose it. In any case, my purpose wasn't to produce a fully scholarly result. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ancient music[edit]

I just saw Ancient music on a list of articles needing improvement at Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. I thought you would be the best person to improve this article, if you feel like it. Corinne (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I plan to read this article at some point; I'm just a bit too tired now, but my eye happened to fall on three types of music in ancient Rome, at the end of the article. I was surprised that "mundana" is translated as "universe" instead of "world" or "everyday" (closer to "mundane"). I thought "mundana" meant "world". Is "world" the same as "universe"? Corinne (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I have that article on my watchlist, and have made many half-hearted attempts to improve it over the years. "Musica mundana" was one of them and, indeed, the Latin word "mundus" means "world", but its usual sense is "all of creation". As a result, "universe" in the modern sense is a more accurate rendering than "world", which tends to be understood as meaning "the planet earth" ("terra" is the more precise word in Latin). The word "universum" does of course exist in Latin, but is usually understood as meaning "everything", "all", or—wait for it—"world". In the culture of antiquity, today's separate concepts of the planet on which we live and "the larger part of creation" did not exist. It does require some context to know which sense of "mundus" is intended, but Boethius and his later commentators lay it out fairly clearly. The source cited in the Wikipedia article isn't ideal, and at the moment isn't responding, so it may be a victim of linkrot. It would be easy enough to find some better citations, and that seems like a modest enough goal for me to tackle for now. Thanks for the suggestion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the interesting information. I was trying to click on the "Thank" button when my screen jumped and it went to "rollback", so I immediately undid that edit. Sorry about that. Corinne (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I had wondered what your motivation might have been! Well, that has happened to me, too, on more than one occasion, so I can easily imagine your consternation! Wikipedia moves in a mysterious way, our blunders to perform (for us)!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Vittorio Giannini[edit]

I was not "persistently reverting" your edits, sir. On the contrary, you were the one "persistently reverting" mine. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it is more important to you to keep your citation style than it is for someone to improve the content of the article after it has been languishing for five years. I was merely starting to add some data to the article. I couldn't even get to first base before you immediately commenced to revert my changes. Good day. NicholasNotabene (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you will check the edit history, I think you will discover that I was in the process of adding a series of inline citations in support of several of the points marked as needing them. Each time I did so, you would jump in to change the citation formats, in the mistaken belief that you were "adding inline citations". In fact, it was I who was adding them, and you who were merely changing the citation style. If you think you have some citations to add, please feel free to add them. I will be happy to fix the formats later, though it is much more difficult that way than keeping them right in the first place.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Concert band score[edit]

I just checked some scores online and most followed what I put as the score order. Saxophilist (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That was more or less what I did, only I came up with a variety of different orderings. I also came up with a few reference sources, containing equally contradictory information. No one but a complete idiot would trust this source, and this one may be criticised as being out-of-date, but here is a source that seems fairly reliable and contradicts "your" score order in favour of "mine". This source also seems to follow the usual orchestral order, but is describing British military-band scores. Perhaps there are some regional differences? This one and this one seem to confirm your arrangement, and are from a US high-school band's website and Dartmouth College, respectively. This one, on the contrary, uses almost the orchestral order, except for the placement of the saxophones, and is from a Canadian site. Tell me what you think.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that more modern scores use the order that I listed, though scores do vary. Check out this 2014 symphony by John Mackey; it uses the order I listed. It also seems to make more sense keeping the double reeds together (oboe and bassoon) and the single reeds together (clarinet and saxophone) in the score. Saxophilist (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, "making sense" is one thing, but "standard practice" may be quite another. I have no doubt that you could find dozens of scores with the same layout as the Mackey, but there may well be an equal number with the bassoons under the clarinets, or even under the saxophones (as several of those sources would have us believe). Compiling a list, one score at a time, is no way to establish what is even "normal", let alone "standard". We could be at that task for years, and how on earth would we cite the findings in a Wikipedia article? The only full score of a band piece that I happen to own has a completely different order from any of the ones listed here so far, though this is for reasons of an eccentric seating-order required for the piece in question. As a conductor, I would not relish the thought of having to "change gears" mentally with each score I come to in a concert, so it stands to reason that there should be some sort of standard order, at least within (say) the American collegiate-band community. The Dartmouth website is the closest I could come to finding such a source, even for American college-band preferences, and it looks to me very much as if Canadian and British bands may have a very different notion of what is "sensible" or "standard". And heaven help us if we take that 1921 source into account. I am not really a "band person" myself, so I don't have any axe to grind. I would just like to see some authority with a little more weight behind it than what we have come up with so far between the two of us.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Saxophone Quartet (SATB or SATBar)[edit]

Hi Jerome, I noticed you recently changed all the SATB in the saxophone quartet page to SATBar to avoid confusion with soprano, alto, tenor, bass configuration. While SATB invariable translates to that in a choral context it's the standard shorthand for sop/alto/tenor/bari in saxophone quartets (a messy system I know). I have been trying to find a reference that clarifies that but other than common usage (try googling saxophone quartet satb) there's not much that talks about the actual usage. the closest I could get was the Richard Ingham book p 73 where it talks about arrangements. What would you say to adding an explanation on the page that SATB in this context is sop/alto/tenor/bari as per the saxophone usage not the choral one and then using the common SATB rather than SATBar throughout the article? Storeye (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That would be one way of dealing with the problem, if indeed saxophonists are accustomed to using B for "baritone". What abbreviation do they use for an unusual scoring using a bass saxophone instead of, or in addition to a bari? (As it happens, as I was making that edit I was listening to a recording of a larger saxophone ensemble—twelve instruments in SSSAAAATTBarBarB scoring—so it was on my mind.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
For large saxophone ensembles with a bass sax I've seen Bs for bass sax (and sno for sopranino). So the ensemble you're talking about would be SSSAAAATTBBBs. In my experience, SSSAAATTTBBB (baritones) is standard sax orchestra scoring with optional sopranino instead of soprano 1 and optional bass instead of baritone 3 abbreviated to SnoSSAAATTTBBBs. I have never heard of a soprano/alto/tenor/bass quartet but I would assume SATBs would be the abbreviation. On a side note, can I ask what recording you were listening to? I am interested in these things. Storeye (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Changing the saxophone quartet article to conform with this practice is fine with me, so long as a warning note is placed concerning the different understanding of the abbreviations. As I am sure you have already noticed, I added another "exceptional" scoring of a four-bass-saxophone quartet. If nothing else, it should provide an extra warning to the uninitiated reader (like myself) that the simple B does not mean "bass" in this context. The recording I was listening to was this recent release by Ensemble Konsax, Wien, of the Left-Eye Dance from Lucifer's Dance by Stockhausen, which they performed recently in Paris. I find it very good indeed, on first acquaintance (though I have known the larger piece from which it is drawn since its premiere in 1984). Since you mention a "standard saxophone orchestra", which seems to correspond closely to the scoring of this arrangement (originally created for Claude Delangle's conservatory group some years ago), do you think a Wikipedia article should be created on the subject?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Music Theory article[edit]

Hi, Jerome. I just opened a subpage of my main page, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Music_theory, to comment on the Music theory article. This migh eventually lead to a rewriting of the whole. If you (or anyone else) are interested in participating, you are welcome. At this point, I only commented the lead, but the rest will follow. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That dreadful article is going to require a lot of work. Thank you for starting this process with such a detailed commentary for the lead. I shall try to participate to the best of my abilities. The lead, of course, is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, so in one sense it is putting the cart before the horse to work on the lead first. Nevertheless, it makes a good place to start thinking about what belongs in the article, and what does not. Your comments put a lot of these things in focus, and I hope that others will join in the discussion, perhaps encouraged by the fact that it has been taken off of the main article page for separate discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Made me laugh[edit]

This. Just, the correction of a misspelling to one that "looks worse"...Face-smile.svg Eman235/talk 21:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. That was a serious correction, that was. Serious! Even typos have got standards, you know!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Jerome, I was reading the article on Cantillation and was surprised to see the word "motive" used in "musical motives" (in the italicized note at the end of Cantillation#Music). I had more often seen "musical motifs". So I looked it up on Wiktionary and, sure enough, the sixth definition shows it to mean "motif". How often is "motive" used instead of "motif"? Corinne (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know what the relative weight of usage is for those two variants. Subjectively, I feel that "motif" is rather more old-fashioned than "motive", though at the same time "motif" offers less liklihood of confusion with other meanings ("Tell me, professor, what was your motive in placing that particular motive at the outset of your symphony?"). There may also be a difference in national style, though again I don't actually know whether the English may favour "motif" and Americans "motive", or the other way around. Sorry, but this time the oracle is saying both "yes" and "no"!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jerome. Rothorpe Do you know? Corinne (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I came across motive meaning motif for the first time recently in a Wikipedia article, unless you count my (English) parents using both pronunciations to refer to some wallpaper we had back in the 50s. I'd go for 'motif' every time, but of course I'm très très pretenzioso. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I see (for what it's worth) that Motive (music) is a redirect to "Motif (music)". The lead of that article quotes some ancient authority (from 1976) by an author named White, using the "motive" spelling. Since the inline citation fails to give a place or publisher (I could track down the ISBN, but I am basically too lazy), I cannot say whether this source might be British, American, Australian, or something else.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Octatonic Scale[edit]

Dear Mr. Kohl - I was reading the article on Octatonic scale and noticed that there is a missing antecedent to "his student" in the third paragraph of the ""History"" section, related to Stravinsky's use of the scale. I tracked it down the loss of the antecedent to your edit of April 3, 2015. Thanks.Henryaz (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I will check it and, unless you have already corrected my error, fix it myself. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Corrected. Thanks again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Musical examples.[edit]

As you have noticed, I have been adding Lilypond musical examples to a number of articles. At this time, I am not always focused on the text. I have noticed a lack of cited sources and/or a lot of subjective statements. You commented that my examples are highlighting the number of requests for citation. Any thoughts or suggestions?Profbounds (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your examples are not the problem; it is the uncited text. I merely felt it necessary to explain why it is necessary to proliferate the "citation needed" tags. In one case, the insertion of an example actually helped to focus the problem, when the new break came immediately after an attributed direct quotation. At that point, I was able to use the more specific {{citequote}} template. Only one of your examples seems actually to conflict with the wording, and that is the natural-horn solo, which may need some additional context in order to clarify how a pentatonic melody that assiduously avoids the note F can be in F major. Or is that example in transposed, rather than sounding notation? (I don't have a score handy to check.) As long as I have your attention, does the natural-trumpet solo actually use the three-quarter-flat sign? In the (manuscript) example in Howells's 1922 article, there are ordinary D-flats.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been transposing all examples to C. Yes, that horn solo is over an F minor chord - the dissonance is quite haunting. I could add the chord underneath. The trumpet solo does not use the three-quarter-flat sign, I debated on whether to use the quarter flat to get the sound right vs. the actual notation (c g c b-flat g c b-flat g c b-flat in the untransposed E-flat trumpet part). The three-quarter-flat still is a little too flat compared to the natural harmonic but I thought it might help demonstrate the "intonation" called out in the text.Profbounds (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Adding the chord underneath would be quite helpful—perhaps even essential, given that the melody alone "sounds" to me (based solely on the example—I have not heard this symphony now for several years, and do not clearly remember how it goes) centred more on D than anything else. This of course makes perfect sense, given RVW's liking for the slightly unstable, "floating" quality of chords featuring a sixth above the bass. I don't think the discrepancy between a three-quarter-flat and a septimal seventh is worth the trouble of having to explain an even less-standard accidental sign, but it may be a good idea to add a remark explaining that the printed score uses a regular D-flat, and relies on the nature of the instrument (and the good will of the player, who can with only a little effort "correct" that note to give an ordinary D-flat) to produce the intended tuning. When (if) you get around to adding examples to Britten's Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings, you are going to be faced with a much greater notational dilemma, since not only the 7th and 11th, but also the 13th partial of F are specified in the score without any special accidentals (though nearly every horn player substitutes the 14th for the 13th, as Dennis Brain did originally, probably without realising his mistake).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
LOL at the Britten dilemma. I will add the chord in for the horn example and "fix" the trumpet. Perhaps an actual sound byte from a performance could demonstrate the natural tuning better.Profbounds (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Every performing musician knows the shortcomings of our notation system, even without venturing into refinements of tuning! A sound byte from a really good performance would doubtless be at least a more realistic demonstration of the passage than a synthesized example, but the problem of copyright violation might arise. I don't know the ins and outs of this, but I am told it is a real nest of worms.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in and be nosy, but where, please, are the trumpet and horn examples that you are discussing? Just curious. Thanks DBaK (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) btw Jerome are you sure you didn't mean it was a can of vipers? DBaK (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Prolly a can of vipers, yes. The article in question is the one on Ralph Vaughan Williams's Symphony No. 3.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah great, thank you. DBaK (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

{{Cite thesis}}[edit]

Hello, Jerome! Regarding this edit: The documentation for {{Cite thesis}} states outright that it should be used for formatting dissertation references. If you feel that it is not actually appropriate for formatting dissertation references, then could you raise your concern here so it can be addressed? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I shall do as you suggest but, as you no doubt are aware, there is no standard citation style on Wikipedia, so that CS1 and CS2 are merely two broadly representative styles among hundreds. The problem with the citatoins in the article Pachelbel's Canon goes far deeper, since there are at least four different citation formats in place at the moment, and therehave been still others in the recent past. When that particular dissertation was first added, it was formatted in the style to which I have been trying to return it. In the meantime, two different inline citations to it have been reformatted in two different styles. I think the appropriate place to discuss this is actually on the article's Talk page, since years and years of discussion about creating a uniform citation style for Wikipedia have proved utterly fruitless, leading to the guideline directing editors to seek consensus on an article-by-article basis. If the CS1 discussion page can lead to more flexibility in the template associated with (or conformable to) that style constellation, then this is a good thing in my opinion. However, it appears to me that the raison d'être of CS1 is to create uniformity, so that increasing formatting flexibility from within it actually subverts its purpose.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, and I agree with them all. My original note to you was sparked by your edit summary commenting on italicizing the title of the work, so I was thinking more specifically about that rather than citation style consistency in general. While researching this I found that MOS:ITALICS doesn't seem to address whether a Ph.D. dissertation should be italicized or not. It says that "research papers" should not be italicized, but I think that it may be reasonable to draw a distinction between a doctoral dissertation and a research paper. It does discuss editorial discretion regarding formatting booklets vs. short books vs. pamphlets vs. leaflets, but it seems that dissertations vs. everything else is a notable omission, given what it is that we do here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I have seen style sheets that recommend italics for thesis and dissertation titles (D. Kern Holoman's Writing about Music: A Style Sheet, for example), but in my experience they are in a very small minority. I also believe that "research papers" is meant to include theses and dissertations, but then it is often difficult to know what people mean if they do not spell it out in agonizing detail. In the meantime, I have double-checked my memory and found out I was wrong: I did not add Weller's disertation myself and, when it was added on 17 November 2009, User:Jashiin did italicize the title. However, this does not change the fact that there are by my present count six different citation styles used in this one article, which is contrary to WP:CITESTYLE, which states "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Theory and (or vs) analysis[edit]

This discussion may better be followed here. You wrote on User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Music_theory:

Thanks for the links to very pertinent and interesting discussions. My "feed" to SMT-Talk was severed some months ago after some strange messages about my email account, which made no sense at all. Discussions there had become rather tedious, but I see this is not the case at the main bulletin board. I have been aware of this debate for nearly twenty years now, and it is of considerable personal interest, since my (American) credentials are as a "music theorist", but in Europe am usually addressed as a "musicologist". Neither term is as well-suited to what I do as the word "analyst" is (though I find both theory and musicology disciplines of immense importance for my analyses!), but in the American academy this seems not to be a separate category. Perhaps this discussion points to a future change of thinking in the US.

  • 1) SMT Discuss replaced SMT-Talk, with important changes, mainly that you don't have to be inscribed to read the messages, and that there is no moderator (which made possible the clash that ended the discussion on theory vs analysis; on SMT-Talk, some of the messages would have been blocked, I think).
  • 2) "Musicology", in Europe, often merely translates Musikwissenschaft and denotes all aspects of the knowledge of music, including both history and theory (and history of theory, and theory of history, etc.). Solfège, Harmony, Counterpoint, may be considered "theory", but what is meant, often, really is "technique". The Paris Conservatoire, in the list of its disciplines, quotes neither theory nor technique. Harmony and counterpoint belong to the field named "Écriture", and the Conservatoire also has a domain strikingly named "Musicologie et analyse". The Lyon Conservatoire divides the disciplines between "Principales" and "Complémentaires"; analysis and "écriture" (harmony, counterpoint, etc.) are "complémentaires". Neither of them proposes classes in anything called "theory".

This all may also belong to a "Music Theory" article. Indeed, if the article wants to cover music theory worldwide, why not include Europe? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "Musikwissenschaftler" is the word that was in my mind, and I am more familiar with the senses this carries in Germany than I am with "musicologie" in France. Thank you for the explanation, and also for informing me what actually happened to SMT-Talk. I thought my email provider might have caused some problems that led to termination of my subscription.
I believe that the journal Music Analysis was founded in Britain with the deliberate aim of creating a more focussed field, similar to the intention of the founders of the Journal of Music Theory in America two or three decades earlier, which resulted eventually in the creation of the SMT and the proliferation of advanced-degree programmes in music theory in US and Canadian universities. The Zeitschrift für Musiktheorie in Germany foundered after a few years in the 1970s, but similar journals have also been created in the areas of either analysis or theory, in Italy and France, at least. I have had some contact with European scholars who distance themselves from "musicology" by calling themselves "analysts" instead. It is interesting that "theory" as a separate discipline seems to be having more difficulty establishing itself in Europe than "analysis", while in America it is the other way around. Certainly the place of music theory (however we eventually define it) in Europe should be an important part of the article which, as it presently stands (apart from the ridiculous preamble on prehistoric "theory"), suggests it should be retitled "American music theory".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Choral symphony[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye on this article and for cleaning up the bibliography. Both are welcome and apprecaited.Jonyungk (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. It is a well-written and informative article. I just thought it was time the bibliography was tidied up a bit, the better to reflect in appearance the quality of the article as a whole.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The timing was very good. I was notified that the article is up for review by FAC, so I was going through the article body as you were going through the bibliography.Jonyungk (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Musical analysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coup de théâtre (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) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Chrono within Alpha"[edit]

Hello Jerome, Surely Barry Cooper alphabetically precedes Martin Cooper? Knucmo2 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

PS I read one of your Stockhausen articles for my MMus. Very informative.

Oops! That's one thing I hate about those templates: you can go cross-eyed trying to figure out where each parameter has gone, so in the end I just looked at "last=" and thought that told me everything I needed to know. I guess it's back to Templates for Dummies for me!
I'm glad to hear that at least one person has read one of my articles. I encourage you to read some of the others—I promise they will be just as informative!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Agon and Giuseppe Anedda[edit]

I see you reverted my change to Agon. Do you find the material irrelevant, unsourced or did I choose a bad way to put in the information?Jacqke (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw after typing the above that you did give a reason, not sourced. Letting you know I just resubmitted with my sources.Jacqke (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Practices vary amongst different editors, but I always explain my reasons in an Edit Summary. Reliable sources are required for most things on Wikipedia, especially for a claim that sounds as unlikely as this one. I look forward to reading your verifying documentation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Lab at the UW Research Commons[edit]

WikiLab Logo.svg
What: Wikipedia Lab
When: Weekly on Mondays, starting 10/5/2015 through 11/30/2015, 4:30pm-6:30pm
Who: UW students, faculty, and staff; Wikimedians; Seattle community members
Where: UW Research Commons
Focus: Women and the Sciences in October and Pacific Northwest in November; weekly topics
Wikipedia Lab at the UW Libraries Research Commons brings together local Wikipedia experts with University of Washington subject specialists and UW community members to learn about editing Wikipedia. Come contribute vital, local, and corrective content to the world's largest online encyclopedia. Come as you are with questions, ideas, or content knowledge to share!

The Wikipedia Lab will run weekly, every Monday, during fall quarter. The Lab has two thematic focuses: Women in the Sciences and the Pacific Northwest. Each week will feature a special collections librarian content specialist and Wikipedian editors. Sponsored by the UW Libraries & Wikimedians User Group

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox page on Westen Music Theory[edit]

I just opened a new sandbox page, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Western_music_theory. Your collaboration will be most welcome. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will try my best to contribute, though things in my non-Wikipedia life have suddenly turned very busy indeed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Kelsely Abaza[edit]

I would like to calmly discuss the matter. Indeed some pages I have been thinking are appropriate may not be for this work (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I am trying my best to share the art I love), but some certainly are. This is not 'pop', simply give it a listen. In terms of teh Egyptian music article I think this is indeed relevant and useful. As we see he has already gained acclaim in Egypt and soem in New Zealand, and is presenting something very new that fascinates me as I am a lover both of electronic experimental music and Egyptian culture. You are welcome to view the video for 'Grounded' if you wish, an 8.30 long piece hat is very hard to digest and is far from pop - he created video and music to play in a prestigious NZ institution where the specific them was Egypt post-revolution. I was lucky to attend one of his concerts in Christchurch, but I only got to shake his hands. There is a growing local following going on across the hemispheres. This is not pop. Graceaudio (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there are many issues beyond whether his music is "pop" (or "popular"). First of all, since you are new to Wikipedia, you should make yourself familiar with some principles in the guidlines you can read at MOS:LEAD, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:NOT. Your enthusiasm for Kelsely Abaza's music is commendable, but it is important to keep things in proportion. Inserting a wildly enthusiastic comment at the very top of an article not primarily about this artist is not in proportion to the article. Adding a soundfile to the main body of an article (as opposed to the "External links" at the bottom may or may not be in proportion. In an article like Electronic music, for example, there are no sound examples for internationally known composers in the field, such as Milton Babbitt, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Iannis Xenakis, Halim El-Dabh, Morton Subotnik, Charles Dodge, Barry Truax, and many others. This suggests caution when the composer you are adding is scarcely known outside of his own country.
As to the question of genre(s), it is not up to you or me to listen to the music and decide for ourselves what category it might fit. On Wikipedia, this is called "original research" (often abbreviated OR). Instead, it is necessary to find reliable sources that make this determination for us. Several of the articles to which you attempted adding this artist's name are mutually contradictory. For example, Electronic dance music is a type of popular music, and it is inconceivable that Avant-garde music, the very purpose of which is to annoy or outrage listeners (often with a political message) would find any favour in clubs or at raves. Similarly, although there are some who might argue there is an overlap between popular and classical music, that overlap is very marginal at best, so that EDM is difficult to justify as "classical music". While it is possible that a composer might write different kinds of music for different audiences, or may turn from one style to another in the course of his career, this also needs to be established by reliable sources. Experimental music is especially tricky because the phrase is used in at least five different senses, few of which have anything to do with one another. I suggest you read that article carefully, and you will see what I mean. Next, browse the articles on Minimal music and Postminimalism. When you have done so, move on to Neofolk (a genre with which I have absolutely no familiarity at all) and carefully consider whether "avant garde" and "classical" are not actually exclusive of that category. All of this, of course, is only background for your work on Wikipedia. It will the the reliable sources you find that decide what genres or esthetics are appropriate.
Best wishes for you future work on Wikipedia. It can be a bewildering place at first.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)