Jump to content

User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

La clemenza di Tito recordings

In the discography table, you added a slash to all new line (br) codes I entered. I have been unsuccessfull in trying to find out what the difference is between the two. Could you please explain, because I use this new line code often, and I want to use the right form in the right context. Thanks beforehand. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's in some ways only cosmetic. The HTML tag <br> needs to be closed, at least according to current coding standards, so it looks like <br />. However, I believe that the Wikipedia software will take care of it and convert incomplete <br> tags to <br /> when it creates the HTML code for a page. Nerdism on my part, I suppose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Just to be on the safe side, I will use the correct complete form with the slash from now on. Regards. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bach Missa and Magnificat

Hi Michael, unhappy with Missa Brevis, I created a special one for Bach, Missa (Bach). Would you please also look at Magnificat (Bach), which reads at present as if there were only two Latin Bach pieces worth mentioning and if the Mass in B minor was 5 parts throughout. I trust that you can help as you did before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the sentence "It is also one of the two large works Bach composed in Latin; the other being his Mass in B minor" in the article Magnificat (Bach). The way I read that sentence, it does not say that Bach only wrote two Latin pieces, but only two major ones. If you think that the Missae breves BWV 233–236 should also be considered major works, I suggest to remove that sentence from the article; it doesn't seem to add anything substantial to it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What you called major I called worth mentioning, and every Missa is as important as the Magnificat, I would say (working on the one in g). - That leaves the 5-parts topic open. The b-minor is 4 to 8 parts with some 5-part, and the Sanctus 6. I don't see the shared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
So I removed the sentence and moved the 5 parts of the Magnificat. Also I said a major choral work instead of one of the major ... as if there weren't about 200 cantatas ... Do you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In toto. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dabber

Re Special:Contributions/121.115.68.130... note the similarity to Special:Contributions/Traudler. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a hydra; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg. (Thanks for your reverts.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

License to tremolo

You should look on the image file pages (File:Double stops not tremolo.png, for example). Hyacinth (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To give context, from User talk:Hyacinth:
You uploaded a series of 4 images related to tremolo in July 2009 and I don't quite understand how they can have the templates {{GFDL-self}} and {{Non-free fair use in}} – these seem to contradict each other. I've also mentioned this on each file's tak page. These are the images:
Am I misunderstanding the situation or could you explain whe these two licenses apply? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That's where I have been coming from when I asked the question on your talk page. Those two licenses seem to contradict each other; looking harder at the image file pages doesn't make it any clearer to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dies Irae

When you have a moment, can you take a look at the recent anonymous additions to the music list in this article? I do not feel competent to respond, as this is outside my bailiwick, but as you have recently edited the list, you would have a better explanation for your removals. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a constant struggle. – I only removed works where I was certain that the Gregorian melody was not used. I think the matter ought to be revisited on the article's talk page, where VinceBowdren made a suggestion in October 2008 that I'd like to see observed for all treatments, be they musical settings, literary references, or references in popular culture. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your response and attention to the matter. I will weigh in on the talk page. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a Grave

Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jane Austen's birthday

Hi, I happen to have Tony1's talk page on my Watchlist left over from some ancient exchange, so I noticed your query about removing the full dates of birth and death of Jane Austen. Discouraging (without banning) month and day of birth or death is not consensus, although it is the strong opinion of many editors, disputed by many others, at at a straw poll currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Since Jane Austen's editors have apparently decided against having an Information Box (which could display exact birthday and date of death), I think the argument for keeping them quickly accessible in this particular lead is rather stronger. And although I'm more of a Dickensian than an Austenite myself, I know several people in the San Francisco Bay Area who diligently celebrate Jane Austen's birthday with an annual ball. So in my book her birthday would fall in the same class as that of Abraham Lincoln (Kentucky, February 12, 1809 — Washington, D.C., April 15, 1865). —— Shakescene (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, it was very naughty of me to do that. I will readily reinstate the full birth- and death-dates if you prefer them; I am not conducting conversions of this type, aside from this and the two I used as an example at the MOSNUM straw poll. They were already in the body of the article. Perhasp Shakescene's point about the absence of an infobox is reasonable; but my concern is that years alone make it much easier for readers to identify and remember the lifespan in historical (and therefore cultural) terms, and are more consistent with the role of the lead, as stated in the relevant guideline. Please let me know. Tony (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no particular connection with Jane Austen, so I don't care all that much about this instance; I was just curious about a seemingly momentous change in MOS:BIO. Some time after I left my message on your talk page, I found the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but it was a bit late by then to comment there (which I have done now) or on your talk page. In short: I'm not in favour of omitting full dates from a biography's first sentence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

orchestra and chorus vs Orchestra and Chorus

I disagree with your changes to the La Traviata discography. The words Chorus and Orchestra in this context are part of a name, and should therefore be capitalised. I am not a native speaker of English, but looking at other discography articles, and articles on orchestras and choruses, supports my view I think. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the words "orchestra" and "chorus" should only be capitalised if they are part of a proper name, e.g. Philharmonia Orchestra or Philharmonia Chorus. For the ordinary orchestra and chorus of an opera house, this doesn't apply; they could also be written as, e.g., "La Scala's orchestra and chorus" or "orchestra and chorus La Scala". Here are two links which confirm that view: "La Scala brings Beethoven to Ghana" and Google news archive. I'm not fanatical about my view, so if you want to capitalise the words, go ahead. If you want a wider discussion, I suppose you could raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I really don't have strong feelings on this matter either, and I don't want to start a discussion, so let's just leave things as they are now. So many things to do, so little time! Best. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Classical charts

Thanks for pointing me to that category. This is the one I had been looking for: User:Erik Zachte/Timeline Classical Composers Famous. And, by the way, I'm devastated that it has been removed from Wikipedia mainspace. It's always been one of my most useful tools. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Translations

Hi Michael, I would like to know what Ganztonschritte is in English. + Augsburger Tafel-Confect. + (full title) Ohren-vergnügendes und Gemüth-ergötzendes Tafel-Confect. + „Ebenfalls großartig der Bassist Andreas Pruys ... Mit profunder Stimme trat er in Erscheinung und vertrat seine hoffnungslose und gerade deshalb siegesgewisse Partie.“ (hopeless?) - I am still not happy with the tag on Messa da Requiem, hopeless? The music is in my head now day and night. My original research, well, not so original. The Ganztonschritte I found first in the closing chorale of BWV 60, then read that Alban Berg quoted it in his violin concerto, and sing some in the Verdi, "movendi sunt" reaching f sharp for the altos in a c-minor-surrounding (Libera m. 303), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would translate Ganztonschritt with "whole (note) step", but in certain contexts it might be "whole tone" (if set against semitone) or "major second".
Rathgeber's Ohren-vergnügendes und Gemüth-ergötzendes Tafel-Confect maybe as "Table Confectionery," (or "Candy" for those left of the pond) "Amusing to the Ears" (or "Pleasuring the Ears") "And Delightful to the Soul".
Herr Kluth's sentence borders on what's called purple prose in English — best not to translate it. Here goes: Pruys "made a profound appearance with his voice and presented his part/role which is hopeless, but therefore sure of victory." Puhleeze!
It's not clear to me which tag in Verdi's Requiem you're not happy with. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, amusing and pleasing, and for the term purple prose and the advice (taken). Requiem: both, additional references and original research (further down). A work like that should not have them, imo. I remember how you rescued the Mozart c-minor ("ours" was 2008), with thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

More wishes for translation (programs didn't help) about where we sing, do you happen to know Kreuzigungsgruppe? Querschiff? (Seitenkapelle is not quite it, as you can see on the pics). The part on the organ was written by an organ expert in German, translated by the writer, I changed a bit, please look, if you have a few moments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I forgot one term: Denkmalpflege? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would translate Kreuzigungsgruppe as "crucifixion scene"; see Crucifixion of Jesus and Crucifixion in the arts.
A Querschiff is normally a "transept", but if there's only one, I suppose that "half-transept" might convey the meaning, or more specifically, one could call it a "north-transept" or "south-~", as the case may be.
There doesn't seem to be an English article for de:Disposition (Orgel) althought the term occurs once in pipe organ, so you might have to leave it unlinked; I think Disposition refers to the main sets of pipes and/or the organ console, and Schwellwerk might be called "wind system", although the German article de:Schwellwerk links to expression pedal. Hope this helps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It does, thanks so much! That leaves Denkmalpflege. Would you read the article again, please? (I just added. Feel free to edit.) Lichtband? You see the Kreuzigungsgruppe on a pic, it's just Jesus, Mary and John, I wonder if I want to call that a "scene". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The link from de:Schwellwerk to expression pedal seems nonsense. The pedal would be Schweller in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I read your draft briefly and found no outrageous howlers, although the phrase "The disposition of the Great(?) reflects …" could use some work; it could be simply "The disposition of the 'organ' (or 'instrument') reflects …".
de:Denkmalpflege links to "'historic preservation", although I would prefer "heritage conservation" (same article). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Your translation of Pleasing and Delighting went to the 2 composers, and to 4 singers as requested by DYK, did you know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
On St. Martin's day: St. Martin, Idstein, I minimized the organ section and will pass it to Classical music for improvement. Grateful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 16

The Piano Sonata No. 16 was added to the catalogue by Mozart ten days before the 39 Symphony. Check it yourself in the Köchel catalogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.239.242 (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That article is wrong; see the NMA score. Just goes to show that one shouldn't trust Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

List of operas by Monsigny

Thanks for your help on this. I guess you are right on the various forms of 'mêlé', though apart from one KZ typo they were as given in Grove. What about Pegamin as an 'opéra lyrique-comique' rather than an 'opéra lyri-comique'. Are you sure about this? Do we have a reference? --Kleinzach 16:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I had the impression that "lyri-comique" was one of those abbreviations which the French are so fond of; apparently, it's a proper word. It seems to me, though, that the long form "lyrique-comique" might be easier understood.
"mêle", which is 3rd person singular active ([he, she, it] mixes) doesn't make any sense to me in this context – it has to be "mêlé". Whether it gets another "e" depends on the gender of the noun it describes; "opéra" and "drame" are masculine, "comédie" is feminine.
There are two instances of compounds: "drame en prose mêlée de musique " and "opéra comique en prose mêlée d'ariettes". I think the adjective/participle "mêlé" describes the nouns "drame" and "opéra", respectively. If written as "mêlée", it must refer to "prose", which is the only feminine noun in the vicinity. So the question whether it should be "mêlé" or "mêlée" depends on whether the phrase wants to say that the prose drama (or comic prose opera) is mixed with music (or little arias), or whether the work is a drama (or comic opera) in prose which is mixed with music (or little arias). I think the former makes more sense.
I have no sources for any of this other than various French dictionaries and grammar books. Feel free to revert to your heart's content. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't intend to trouble you to explain the 'mêlée/mêlée' grammar point. I'm sure you are right on that. At the time it did cross my mind that it was a bit odd, I should have checked.
What I wanted to ask you about was 'lyri-comique'. The only other reference I've found to this opera is here. This does give 'lyri-comique', so if you don't mind I'll change it back, subject to any further information emerging! Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Abduction

It's great to see the arias integrated into the synopsis as you have done! Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dies irae

Hi, Much as I admire your work, [Novi Thesauri Musici---Liber II---Venetii---A.Gardano---1568ndex.php?title=Dies_Irae&curid=183669&diff=399103318&oldid=399043352|this] attempt at consistency goes against the 1961 Gradual, which like the LU uses j's throughout. Is the cited source (GR 1962) actually different? If not a different source could be supplied, or all the j's restored, depending on which might be less work ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(That link you gave is somewhat mangled.)
I simply reverted the change of one "i" to "j" to the spelling used consistently in the text. This spelling was introduced by the editor Echevalier on 4 November 2009 with a reference to the talk page. I didn't specifically inspect the source given on that talk page, but I do have a Missale Romanum (1920), 18th ed., 2004, which on page 835 gives the text with "j" throughout. As a result (and based on my own experience of Church Latin), I think you're right and the claim by Echevalier doesn't hold. To be certain, one would need to inspect http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/missale62.pdf (79MB). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now checked the source above (Missale, 1962), and it does indeed use "i" for "iudex", "iustus", etc. Now what? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cats

Since this issue surfaced I've look at the other cats and found various problems. It seems some are old cats and some are new. I've started some cfds here and here with more to follow. --Kleinzach 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I did notice those CfDs; the whole issue seems messy, confusing, and not fully thought through. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that genres frequently cut across languages. If they are compatible, like for example Category:English-language operettas, then that's fine. --Kleinzach 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rudi Spring

Thanks for looking attentively at the composer! As Rudi Spring is also a pianist, should he be labelled Classimal music as well an his talk? I am not sure if I translated his subjects Korrepition, Gehörbildung, Analyse, Tonsysteme, Liedgestaltung well enough, can't believe that repetiteur is genererally used in French spelling as that article suggests, which mentions the term with and without accents in the text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mozart C minor

On my latest visit to that piece I read that Mozart's wife sang "the soprano solos". I bet she didn't do S I and S II. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the most likely part would be Soprano I. I don't have access to the sources mentioned in the article; my liner notes read: "What is certain is that Mozart had Constanze’s voice in mind for two the solo soprano arias" and the text in Great Mass in C minor should probably be modified to this effect. The best place to discuss this is Talk:Great Mass in C minor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ

Hi Michael, Christmas appraoching, I started Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ. The source on Melodies ... has a picture (among others) that I would like to see in the article. Possible? btw thanks for adding to James Kent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries – I can't see a copyright problem with a score that was published in 1524. However, I'm away from home for a couple of days to see Uncle Vanya at the Sydney Theatre Company with the greatest cast ever assembled on an Australian stage: Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Richard Roxburgh, John Bell, Jacki Weaver, …; uploading that image will have to wait until the weekend. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Weekend is early enough for Christmas, smile. Enjoy the performance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I did, enormously; it was the most exhilarating theatre performance I've seen since Thomas Holtzmann as Faust at the Cuvilliés Theatre in the 70s. And not only was the stage performance extraordinary, Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban were in the audience, seven rows behind us.
To the matter at hand: done. The file is available as File:WalterGelobet.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for both. I saw Holtzmann as Der Kaufmann von Venedig at the IMF. The informative pic decorates the article in en and de and is nominated for a Christmas DYK, thanks for the present. But to my knowledge it is not plainchant. Chorale tune? Some say choral theme? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"Your" pic is now in Q4. Thanks also for the translations in Schnarcherklippen, appeared. DYK: Frohe Weihnachten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

URLs with spaces

I am having trouble using URLs that contain spaces (like this one: "http://www.chandos.net/details06.asp?CNumber=CHAN 3119") in references and cite web templates. I seem to remember you are a bit of an HTML specialist, so I would be grateful if you could advise how this problem can be solved. Best regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Use Percent-encoding and substitute a blank with "%20": http://www.chandos.net/details06.asp?CNumber=CHAN%203119 . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jim Neversink

Hi Michael Bednarek!

Thanks for correcting many typos in the article on Jim Neversink. I undid one of them, as Diane Coetzer is really called Coetzer, not Coetzee.

Thanks SkaraB 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I now realise that there is a Diane Coetzer, music journalist from South Africa (Interview). But the article quoted in Neversink's Wikipedia page is signed by a Diane Coetzee. That's why I changed it. Did The Times misspell her name? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Botticelli

Thank you for the Botticelli pic for the WO. It was in the catalogue for the Frankfurt exhibition in 2009, but was not shown there, and a friend liked it for his Christmas greetings (2009). But I don't think it is so helpful for Bach in terms of century, country and feeling. That little devil is too small and harmless for Baroque Lutheran, - thinking of "Und ob alle Teufel ..." in BWV 153 or Herr, wenn die stolzen Feinde schnauben. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly; the previous picture (File:Anonymous 18th century Birth of Christ.jpg) didn't have any devils and was too sweet for my liking. The Boticelli is much better known – it has its own article – and has a gripping background story. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! You are right, I don't even remember the former one (being used to the churches of de, btw the mentioning of the soprano sometimes continuing the annunciation was just dismissed there as being not relevant to the story.), so a stronger one is better. Do you have an idea how to illustrate "Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied" BWV 190? I just adopted the Flight into Egypt from the WO for BWV 153. I thinks human singers should be shown, not angels, "alles, was Odem hat". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding BWV 190: there are plenty of images in Commons:Category:Circumcision of Christ and one other fitting image: File:Sonderheim St. Peter und Paul Deckenmalerei 016.JPG ("Cantate Domino canticum novum").
Side remark: it is a bit odd that a former altar boy and pupil of the Redemptorists' boarding school in Glanerbrug ("Zubringerjuvenat" for the Collegium Josephinum, Bonn), a long-lapsed Catholic, a decided atheist (Hitchens' God Is Not Great is my credo), should assist in matters of deeply sacred music (while he is listening, as he does every year, to day 3 of the WO). The thing is: Bach's music is just too wondrous to be ignored just because of its religious context. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the canticum novum and the Credo! There are plenty of images for the circumcision, but that is not Bach's theme, and mine is singing. Canticum novum is very Latin, and I would prefer to see angels and people singing together, rather than letters and an organ. But you got close. In case you want to add to Herrscher des Himmels on the third day of Christmas: one of today's cantatas is BWV 64, I cannot imagine a picture for that. Do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For BWV 190: have a look at Commons:Category:Music-making angels and Commons:Category:Singing angels; there's also Commons:Category:Singing in art where File:Nicolas Poussin 053.jpg fits your requirement of humans and angels (or rather putti) – maybe there's something suitable in those categories. Further, File:Cantoria di luca della robbia, formelle, dettaglio 02.JPG and File:Cantoria Della Robbia OPA Florence 5.jpg from the Commons:Category:Cantoria by Luca della Robbia (Luca della Robbia) look suitably intense.
For BWV 64: blank. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful, thank you! When my parents saw this della Robbia they noticed that one of the singers resembles my brother (then, as a boy). BWV 64 blank, of course, nice contradiction in terms "Sehet" and then something you absolutely can't see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
For more contradiction: I added a pic after all. I saw the real one recently, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Credo

Remembering the above, you seem best qualified to translate "dessen kühne Harmonien die Schrecken des von Gott verlassenen Menschen abbilden" (Dürr, of course, on BWV 154), "kühne Harmonien" being all I would like to mention in English. Same piece: "vielfache Terzen- und Sextenseligkeit", if only I could say Terz- und Sextparallelen, but Third (music) is just a disamb page (Sixth ... the same). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would use "daring harmonies" for "kühne Harmonien".
Speaking of "daring": without studying the score, I dare to assume that those thirds and sixths are major thirds and major sixths; piping would probably be OK.
You may want to change the wikilinking of affekt to Affect (psychology) (piped, of course), and disambiguate Thomas Hampson to Thomas Hampson (baritone). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! baritone yes, Affektenlehre: rather no to psychology, a link to the Baroque concept seems more appropriate in the context, imo. I wonder if the thirds and sixths would be understood without a link, which really doesn't help a reader who doesn't know a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

NBA

Hi Michael, the Neue Bach-Ausgabe comes in German with "historisch-kritisch", how would that be said in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Template:NMA calls it only "critical", but "historical-critical edition" finds that usage plenty of times. (In our household, NBA is more likely to refer to NBA.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, helpful again. I noticed your household link before, that's why I wrote it as I did, smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Now I got some more paragraphs from de to en NBA (Bach), realizing that I don't know English terms for such common words as Entstehungsgeschichte, Gesamtausgabe, Notenband, Lebensaufgabe ... please have a look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have found adequate terms for those words; I can only suggest two alternatives:
  • "Notenband": instead of "volume of sheet music" (as you already use it), it could possibly be simplified to "music volumes".
  • "Lebensaufgabe": Instead of "[Neumann and Dürr] made the new edition their project for life", the phrase "… made the new edition their life's project" seems slightly more idiomatic to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Taken, I enjoy this! btw Alfred Dürr was accepted for DYK overnight, I wanted NBA for a background. Improvements for the editor welcome, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

EAR - listening to your problems.

A member of the WP:EAR team has addressed your enquiry at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Vienna New Year's Concert and the Anschluss. If the issues/problems persist, please make use of one of the WP:dispute resolution departments.--Kudpung (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bach-Archiv Leipzig

de:Bach-Archiv has a Logo with Leipzig in the name. I would like to see that in Bach-Archiv Leipzig, possible? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See File:Bach-Archiv Logo.svg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! What do you think about the name? In a way there is only this one, like one Thomanerchor, but as they carry Leipzig in their logo I took it as par of the name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That's what they call themselves, so I can't see a problem whit that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unwanted parameters on OP banner

Before I ask Antandrus to make the changes to the OP banner, I just wanted to check that this is what he needs to do

Under the line:

|MAIN_CAT = WikiProject Opera articles

Remove:

|attention={{{attention|}}}

|infobox={{{needs-infobox|}}}

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think should be done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Grychtolik

Thanks for your support! Following up, is there a term for Huldigungskantate, and is Trauermusik Funeral music or something else, in general and specifically in Köthener Trauermusik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would indeed translate Trauermusik as "Funeral Music", or, depending on the work, "Mourning Music", but the term is often left untranslated in English usage – see Maurerische Trauermusik, Trauermusik, or these works.
Huldigungskantate is a bit more difficult; "cantata of homage" or "homage cantata" (note the English spelling, different to the French/German spelling de:Hommage) – see this Pachelbel catalogue – is the only thing I can think of. H. C. Robbins Landon uses "allegiance cantata". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, working on it, BWV 210a, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Homage: O angenehme Melodei, BWV 210a and O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit, BWV 210, translating to "O pleasing melody" and "O lovely day, o hoped-for time", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Robertson refs

Hi Michael, I noticed you reverted my edit. The reason I removed the references was because just one would be sufficient to meet WP:V - we aren't supposed to be a collection of newspaper articles and I noticed that the only edits Siddell (talk · contribs) made were dumping references to every newspaper article related to Rick Gibson (see that article for the real mess). I haven't reverted you, but if my edit now makes sense, can you consider a self revert? Thanks. P.S. If you're interested in the article, I'm contemplating putting some work into it next week, you're welcome to help. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Leere Saite

Such a simple term, but I don't know it, would be nice for BWV 83, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to leere Saite at BWV 83, but the normal English term is open string. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, copied, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Genügsamkeit

Please give me more feeling for language, the keyword of BWV 144 is Genügsamkeit, which I see translated to both contentedness (never heard before, matching syllables) and contentment. Difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are probably correct, and I can't tell the difference. Both seem to reflect more the idea of Zufriedenheit, although my Langenscheidt shows Genügsamkeit for "contentment". The aspect of Genügsamkeit that's missing from both these English words is "frugality" or even "asceticism". I suspect, "contentedness" will have to do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Would you mind going a step further and implement the attitude "let it be enough and don't complain if someone else seems to have more or to be happier" to a better translation of the Dürr "sich mit seinem Los zufrieden geben und in Gottes Willen schicken" than my rough approach. I guess that neither fate nor destiny match "Los" in a Christian sense, especially not of 1724. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
"fate" or "destiny" would be OK, but "to be content with one's lot" for "sich mit seinem Los zufrieden geben" is perfectly idiomatic (see wikt:lot#Noun #6 & #8). "Submit to God's will" would probably work for "sich in Gottes Willen schicken". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the idiomatic one, thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no there wasn't

Hi Michael. With the greatest respect, no, there wasn't, but thank you for looking out the WA schedule. Another editor has now pulled us all back to the present time. :) I would imagine that this service will be an impressive event. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Four

Thanks for Musiktheater im Revier! Title of the musical, who translated that? Teach me more language: will that "Oh" be understood as the number, not an exclamation as in "Oh no"? And is "outdribbles" as doppeldeutig as "kommt vorbei"? Perhaps a bit of explanation might help readers not familiar with Schalke nullvier. (I tried a bit) Also: if nullvier is not capital, why Oh Four? (back to "op.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I came across this little gem rather late in my preparation for the article, and there (Der Spiegel) it was spelled that way; see also this & a further link there. I now realise that that was possibly not a good idea – Wikipedia usually avoids idiosyncratic original spellings in favour of the more conventional one; maybe it should be spelled "Nullvier". And the English translation (mine) would probably be better as "Nought Four" or even as the digits 0 4 – Nobody… – I have to ask my son who's a Schalke fan (he never fails to go Auf Schalke when he's in Germany) and whose idiomatic sense of English is naturally much better than mine. He might also have an answer for the really difficult Keiner kommt an Gott vorbei, with its subtle double meaning (the phrase originates with Reinhard "Stan" Libuda, as you can see on the German Wikipedia. I'm not sufficiently acquainted with English religious language to know whether there is a phrase vaguely approximating this German term. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Smiling ... I like that little gem, tried to arrange the line to explain what Schalke 04 is a bit sooner, and dropped the italics from the translation, just as in the Bach cantatas. Perhaps a second translation would help? But I would not change "nullvier" - a title is a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Squeeze?

Hi, Michael. I was just curious. You put "squeeze" on the discussion page of Maestro Alex Gregory, and I was wondering what that means? :) Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Normal practice on talk pages is to add one's comment to the bottom of the discussion. I wanted my comment to appear directly beneath yours – to squeeze it in. To indicate the non-standard placement of my comment, I used "(squeeze)". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Musiktheater im Revier

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't resists your little gem, the Heimspiel now featured on Portal:Germany. Borussia - Schalke 0:0, you probably know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Alexander

Hi. Can you explain why you removed important text from the Peter Alexander article as: "unnecessary hatnote; Luftwaffenhelfer & Reichsarbeitsdienst: -unnecessary explanations (it's in the articles); +wl The White Horse Inn; -some WP:OVERLINK; -Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II (non-defining)". In line with AGF I will assume that this is not an attempt at whitewashing history but must point out that all the references (except for IMDb) on the Alexander page are German language articles, which are of little value to non-German speakers on English-language Wikipedia. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary explained my edit. Here it is again in more detail:
  1. Unnecessary hatnote: if the title of an article is unambiguous, as it is for Peter Alexander (Austrian actor and singer), the article doesn't need a hatnote; see Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous (WP:NAMB).
  2. Luftwaffenhelfer & Reichsarbeitsdienst: these terms are thoroughly explaineded in the linked articles; there's no need to attempt a summary here. That's what I wrote in my edit summary.
  3. +wl for The White Horse Inn: what's your objection to adding that wiki link?
  4. -some WP:OVERLINK: I corrected the link for Vienna, Austria to Vienna and removed an identical link; see WP:REPEATLINK. What's the objection?
  5. -Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II: this category does not define Peter Alexander; he is known as an entertainer; see WP:COP and WP:NPOVT#Categorization. He would not have an article in an encyclopedia because of what he did as a 18-/19-year old at the end of World War II. Please compare Alexander with the other 10 entries in Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II and my point will become obvious.
  6. German language references: I did not introduce them, I formatted them properly.
I resent you edit summary "POV rv; text deleted for no valid reason restored"; I did not express a point-of-view and I provided a comprehensive edit summary explaining almost every change I made. You replaced the section heading I introduced ("Life and career") with "WWII" which is inappropriate in its form (it should be "World War II") and in its meaning: the section covered much more than that. A section "Life" has since been split off, which in my opinion leaves an unacceptably short section (2 sentences) "WWII"; which, as explained above, is WP:UNDUE given what Alexander is known for.
I think all my edits were well reasoned and should be reinstated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Opera infoboxes/Original cast names

I see you raised this subject elsewhere. As you may know, I have an open mind on non-biographical infoboxes. The boxes on the German articles are OK, but unfortunately they don't accommodate the original cast names. I suppose some new boxes could be designed to include the whole of the present English Wiki role box, but the result might overwhelm the rest of the article and be technically difficult for people to edit. Conversion of 1,880+ articles would also be a vast job. What do you think? Regards. --Kleinzach 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just spit-balling; I suspect that the volume of articles makes changing their structure almost impossible. Gaining a consensus on an info box is probably even more difficult. It may well be too late for such a monumental change and we all have probably better things to do. I for one am very busy in real life now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Batavia

I am very sorry, but I failed to notify you of a discussion at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation) in which, based upon your comments at Talk:Batavia (region), you likely have an interest. My sincerest apologies (I'm kinda new at this sort of thing). HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification; I did notice that discussion when it started, but it seems to go the right way and have nothing substantial to contribute. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Messa per Rossini

Thanks for improving, but I wonder how Rossini can disagree with the conductor after his death? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, someone is paying attention :-) I might expand the history of the work in that article a bit further – mentioning the committee set up to oversee the process (never a good idea) and elaborate on Verdi's less than dignified role in blaming Mariani for the collapse (cherchez la femme? – la Stolz – which I won't mention). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like that, even after our performance of the Verdi, pictured on my user page. Next: Monteverdi, touched on Classical music, but no answer yet, the complete confusion about the psalm numbering (never mention a psalm just by number without saying which system :-). So I delay the next question: is the 1641 Messa perhaps the 1631 Messa, as one of the recordings suggests (to me)? As I got no name for the Mass, I first expanded Selva. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not my bailiwick. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a new word! The psalm confusion is no musical topic anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for interesting reading! The NY performance a year later: two years are mentioned in the sentence before, do we get 1989 or 2002 by adding one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I found the soloists for the 2 Sep 2001 performance in my files, in case of interest, Karine Babajanyan, Lioba Braun, James Wagner, Mikael Babajanyan, Michail Schelomianski, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That performance was not a "first" and I couldn't find EN Wikipedia articles for any of the soloist, so I think it's probably not sufficiently noteworthy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I felt the same, therefore I put it here, not in the article, :-) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Column switch?

I wonder if you still have the column switch script handy? Help with the date col. here would be great. Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky to catch me before I leave for a week. Which order would you like? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Same as before, date before place. Thanks and have a good holiday. --Kleinzach 10:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Note that HTML synatx now allows the attribute data-sort-value= which is claimed to be much faster than using the crutch of {{Hs}}; it's certainly better HTML. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. the last thing is the premiere date sorting. I don't know if you have an easy way of inserting the data-sort-value= into the premiere date column? --Kleinzach 05:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As soon as I get back from the beach (see top). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Minor detail: using data-sort-value= didn't work for the dates; instead of investigating why, I used the customary {{Hs}}. --
Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

CFD follow-up

You recently participated in this discussion. There is now a follow-up discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Erroneous date formatting

Thank you for the bug report. The script actually made some attempt to keep the file name intact (thus the date order wasn't changed), but a misplaced validation function added the excess comma in the case of Sam Watson (activist). The script was updated and a few test cases run to ensure better protection of file names in the future. I generally do some proofreading of the results, so I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't spot the disrupted image, unless Wikipedia was experiencing one of its occasional image caching problems. Dl2000 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Bednarek/Archive_4&oldid=1262486918"