User talk:Opus33/Archive2

About Japanese page of Haydn's 104th symphony

Hello.

That page moved to page of Haydn's 100th symphony because of misstake of title. So now, the Japanese page of Haydn's 104th symphony is empty.

Yhr 23:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Music images

It's nice to get some feedback. I have been creating images with no standard in mind, usually just trying to keep images that will be on the same page about the same size (this size changes whenever I change the settings for my personal (not-wiki) use).
I proposed that a standard be created: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music#Graphics. Hyacinth 19:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

May I nominate you for adminship? uc 16:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1911 articles

Hi Opus, you must have been reading my mind. That almost made me dizzy. For the last couple of days I have been thinking about messaging you with this: "how do you really feel about those 1911 EB articles? While some of them are useful, even some of the contributions by Tovey read like he wrote them on the back of an envelope, or scribbled them to meet the last-minute publication deadline." I really want to dynamite most of them and start over. The article on sonata is terrible, and the one on cantata is worse. The biographies of composers are so turgid, dense, and the POV is so tightly interwoven that it is impossible to edit it out short of deleting whole paragraphs--and when I read one of those biography articles I feel sort of like I do when I step in gum. Anyway I fully agree with your rant. Another reason to axe most of them is that the musicological research now is so much more complete--in many cases the 1911 is just plain wrong. Well, hey, have a great weekend, and happy editing. Antandrus 17:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pleyel

Hey, thanks for continuing on Pleyel! My priorities are getting scattered here--I started working on the cantata article and some other stuff, and forgot to finish my old friend Ignaz (played his violin duets when I was kidlet ...) Cheers, Antandrus 23:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pic of Mozart's birthplace

Opus33, why did you remove a pic I took in Salzburg of Mozart's birthplace. You did the removal at 22.21 hours on 29th October 2004. There may be a perfectly good reason,, however I am returning it to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article for the moment - Adrian Pingstone 22:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apology happily accepted Best Wishes, Adrian - Adrian Pingstone 22:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The western wynde

Do you want to post a tune (which I think, with the words, is exquisite) for this stub? Linuxlad 12:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I've got it in the programme notes on another Tallis scholars CD - do I break copyright if I scan & post it here?

I'll bet if it's just up for a day or so and then is deleted it wouldn't be a problem. Opus33 02:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK I gather you've found a copy - good. I've found all the Phillips sleeve notes are on the web at www.Gimell.com - full link on the Tallis talk page IIRC. (No tune though).

19:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

"Meditation" by Joseph Haydn

>>Hi AugPi, I'm trying to specify what this piece is a little more precisely but can't find it. Can you provide a hint? (like what it's written for, its Hoboken number, whatever...) Thanks very much, Opus33 05:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) <<

The piece is short: one page long, written for the piano. It's all in the key of B-flat major (G minor?). That is all I know: but I sequenced it in MIDI and uploaded the MIDI file, so now it is in the double-dotted note's Listening section.

The title "Meditation" is all I know about the piece. It appears on page 23 of the book "JOSEF HAYDN / his greatest / PIANO SOLOS / A Comprehensive Collection Of His World Famous Works", compiled by Alexander Shealy. Copa Publishing Co., Sole Distributor: Ashley Dealers Service Inc., 263 Veterans Blvd., Carlstadt, N.J. 07072. The book has no ISBN, measures 11_7/8" x 9_1/16" x 1/2", and has 191 pages. The front cover is filled with a (painted) portrait of the composer up to thin blue margins. The book is soft cover and was obtained recently in an H&H Music store. Strangely enough, both "Meditation" and another short piece on the page's reverse side did not show up in the Contents page: the printer's must not have been too careful (that, and the missing ISBN...).

Another Haydn piece with double-dotted notes is "Sonata in E Flat", which is much longer: the double-dotting appears in the 9th, 10th and 11th pages of the Sonata, but not through most of the rest. --AugPi 22:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Opus

...and welcome back. You're welcome on Pachelbel, and thanks for the comments on Beethoven and Brahms. There's been a lot of minor activity on major composer articles while you were away (have a look at the latest minor controversy on the Mozart article too). Wikipedia, after nine months of editing here, is starting to remind me a little of gardening; if you leave your house for a few weeks, you come back and find you have to pull the weeds. Happy holidays to you! :-) Antandrus 16:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And thank you...

for noticing; and cheers to you for the image work! Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 23:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ficta, und so weiter

Thanks for the note! and as usual I'm glad to see you have put up another wonderful article, this one on Sacred Harp singing; it's very fine indeed. I'll take on musica ficta (and take a deep breath ... LOL ... thorny, "diabolically" complex topic, and it being a Sunday night it might not be for a few days ... )And for this one I really will have to put up some musical examples. Cheers, and happy new year! Antandrus 04:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and I love your comment! I fully agree (causa pulchritudinis) ... would that the idea were widespread ... Cheers! Antandrus 05:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Opus, here's hoping you come back for a Sunday visit ... when you get a chance could you check over the recent edits made by 212.183.90.212 to Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert? I took a stab at fixing some of the Schubert article (I'm wondering about the futility of it, though, since we had talked about dynamiting it anyway and starting over). Best, Antandrus 15:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take on Notes inégales; it will be fun! I'm not up on the most recent writing on the topic, and I know that opinions of performance practice in this regard, especially in non-French music, are rather contentious. It'll be interesting. Where do you think the topic should be linked? (Possibly in Baroque music; there's an article that needs some expansion and TLC at some time soon). Best, Antandrus 17:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Opus, please have a look at Notes inégales and feel free to peer review it and make sure it makes sense; I'll read through it again after dinner when I'm running on a full tank. Cheers, Antandrus 22:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Opus, and thanks for your addition to Notes inégales; I didn't know that (about Sacred Harp practice). Rhythmic mode has been on my to-do list for a while; some of those medieval topics are thorny and I've been procrastinating on writing them, but maybe it's time. :-) Cheers, Antandrus 17:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Project to record and upload keyboard works

I'd like to invite you to comment on my plans; please see my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How Sacred Harp music is sung

I just want to compliment you on the tremendous job you've done on "How Sacred Harp music is sung". Keep up the good work. - Rlvaughn 20:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quality of sound recordings

Thank you for your comments. I share your concern. There are two issues.

The first issue is that most of the "recordings" of classical pieces that we had up until very recently are not actual recordings. They are MIDI files played through a software sequencer. I believe that this may be what you remember when you refer to performances with a wholesale lack of expression. Moonlight Sonata is probably the most illustrative example. These sound files are, at best, useful as placeholders.

The second issue is that those who contribute recordings must be just as ready to accept revision, editing, and deletion as those who contribute text. I don't believe that musicians are necessarily any more emotionally invested in their music than writers are in their writing, but the nature of musical recordings (at least in the classical genre) is that incremental improvement or editing is less likely than simple replacement. Speaking for myself, I am fully aware of my musical limitations -- which are legion -- and see myself as being chiefly in a position to provide seed content that is all right for now (and certainly an improvement over the robotic MIDI sequences), that will hopefully draw more skilled people to the project.

Take a look at Wikipedia:Sound/list. I've uploaded one item thus far, and it is fairly typical of what I'm able to produce. You might compare it with the MIDI conversions. Let me know what you think. If you don't think it's up to snuff, I can accept that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Monty Python and the holy flagellants

Hi Opus! Thanks for the compliment ... actually I was strongly tempted to mention that delightful scene in Holy Grail; unfortunately for historical accuracy, but not for entertainment value, the musical flagellants are singing Latin, which is quite incorrect, LOL. If I remember correctly they were singing a plainchant portion of the Requiem mass. (Oh, and tell me if the last line in my article is over the top; sometimes I can't resist.) On a completely different topic, that brouhaha over at sonata is a little distressing; I think I'll give it a couple days to rest before reading the whole thing and seeing if I can improve it a bit. I had a nice long weekend in San Francisco seeing concerts and getting away from Wikipedia; maybe more of the same is in order. Cheers, Antandrus 04:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Opus for your note today; I appreciate it a lot! The incident to which it refers was one of the least fun things this week for me, actually. Your metaphor was particularly well-chosen. Hope all is well with you! Antandrus 22:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mozart's name

Hi Opus,

Just in case you get a chance to edit today, could you please take a look at [1]? It may be moot since the current vote is 7-4 to keep, but I think it would be a terrible precedent to set to begin merging our "satellite" articles around composers back into the main articles. Hope you are having a great weekend! Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sound clips and instrument articles

I'm currently working on creating a standard for media for instrument articles which will suggest what should be recorded as well as set various criteria for how the recordings should be prepared. Once I believe I've worked out the details and received the input from others I will go ahead and create the clips as I have the ability to do so. :) Right now I am using bassoon as my first victim, but I will probably branch out soon to gather some more ideas from the needs of other instruments. Could you take a look at bassoon and tell me what you think? I created the illustrations and media except for the two solo works, which were preexisting and don't really meet my audio quality desires. --Gmaxwell 00:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello GM,

The Josquin with bassoons is lovely.

Re. general formulae for recordings, I have two suggestions.

Remember that the average Wikipedian is pretty young and may not have much cash for fancy equipment. I think the best strategy is to help people get the best results with what they can afford--else you might intimidate people out of producing recordings that would be beneficial.
In this connection, it seems that a huge benefit for very little money comes from getting a USB microphone, which digitizes the sound outside of the electronically noisy environment of the computer.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours truly, Opus33 14:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mozart

Ah, good, thanks. Funny thing is, I was just about to leave you a note asking you to have a look at that today. Hope all is well with you! Antandrus (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't have a good Mozart bio, at least not one better than the article in either edition of Grove. Is it still possible to get the 1976 A. Hutchings Mozart, the Man, the Musician? Interestingly, I just bought Maynard Solomon's book on late Beethoven, and I find it readable and interesting (but then maybe I find his POV harmonious to mine at least on that subject ... ) Best, Antandrus (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too for sorting it out. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Harp questions

I tried to contact you by e-mail awhile back, but was unsuccessful. So I'll try posting here. In the e-mail I mentioned using your public domain graphic of the major scale in shape notes on my book about the East Texas Convention. I'd still like to give you credit in a future printing. Also Steven Sabol has included the Wikipedia articles on Sacred Harp and Shape Note in his "Sacred Harp and Related Shape Note Music: Resources". <http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/resource/chap02.html> He would also be interested in giving you credit. If you're amenable to this, why not go to my user page and click on "E-mail this user". <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlvaughn> If you wish to remain anonymous, that's fine too. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. Steven has already acknowledged the work of "Opus33" on his site. I'll let him know you prefer to remain anonymous. Feel free to delete this exchange once you've read it.

Giustini

Hello Opus,

Oh for heaven's sakes, I had no idea there was not even a stub for Giustini yet! Certainly, I'd be happy to put up an article on him. Hope all is well, and happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Opus,

If you happen to be editing this fine Sunday, please have a look at Lodovico_Giustini -- I've about exhausted the resources in my personal library. If you have any more detail to add please have a go at it! I'm surprised the Grove article is as short as it is. Best, Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

I'm trying to whip Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) into shape so I can nominate it on the featured article candidates. However, it is sorely lacking for references, which I am ill-equipped to provide. Can you help me out? Raul654 03:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I did it myself following a trip to the library. Raul654 02:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old American music

Hi Opus,

Random question (since it is Sunday and you might be around) -- do you have a recommendation on a good book, preferably in print, for American music of the 18th and early 19th centuries? I'm trying to fatten up the Justin Morgan article, and am frustrated by Grove, which doesn't always do a very good job with Revolutionary War era American topics. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven 5th

Hello Opus,

Among my recordings, I find Hogwood, Gardiner and Harnoncourt using the ABABA' scheme as well. These obviously don't make good examples of this reading being used outside of the authentic performance movement, though; Zinman might serve a point as an example of this. EldKatt (Talk) 21:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosen and Historically Informed Performance

Hello Opus,

Do you know where I can find the work by Charles Rosen where he talks about the HIP/Performance Practice movement and the recording industry? Thanks --Jinnentonik 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks a lot. --Jinnentonik 03:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brahms: request for Sources

Hello Opus,

I've no objection to citing sources but it would help me if you indicated specific points which you think need such citation. Most of what I have written amounts to a tissue of biographical commonplaces and could probably all be found in or extrapolated from the three titles already present in the Bibliography. Cenedi

Chopin infoboxes

Opus,

I've noticed that non-standard infoboxes have recently appeared in articles on Chopin works (everything in Category:Compositions by Frédéric Chopin, for instance). They appear to be subst'd, and I haven't found a corresponding template. It seems rather inappropriate to me, considering that consensus on Template talk:Classical work infobox seems to lean against the whole idea of infoboxes—and also that, if anything, some sort of standardized infobox should be used instead. And it's terribly ugly, but you're probably already aware of my opinion on these infoboxes. I don't feel confident to embark on a big cleaning-up crusade here, so I'm asking your opinion on the issue. EldKatt (Talk) 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. EldKatt (Talk) 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing classical pianists

Hello, Opus! I remember talking with you about the 'classical pianists' category and its articles in the past, so I would like you to know about this: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 11. I do feel that the 'Classical pianists' category works just perfect right now and would like to keep it just as it is now. Vote if you wish :) --Missmarple 11:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gottfried Silbermann

I recently translated most of this article from the German. Unfortunately it focuses on his organ building only, and says nothing about his piano building. I saw you added a sentence about him to Innovations in the piano some (long) time ago, and that made me wonder if you might be interested in adding a little paragraph about Silbermann's pianos to this article? I am also not so sure whether what I am writing about his conflict with Bach is actually correct; it seems to somewhat contradict what the Encyclopaedia Britannica writes. If you are the wrong person to ask, please disregard this message. Thank you and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for offering to help! The article can certainly wait until Sunday. Kusma (討論) 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great expansion, thanks a lot! I knew there was a lot to be said about his piano work, and now the article doesn't suffer from the organ POV anymore. Kusma (討論) 03:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

I was wondering why -- when I listen to certain song's by Bjork, particularly "I've Seen It All" -- any 's' pronounced produces what I would describe as a hard hiss that hurts the ears. Thanks. Courier new 02:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it so strange is that it is only on one song. Poor recording quality I'm guessing. Courier new 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fake articles

I don't think fake articles should get our credibility down, as it's not in the main namespace. But you could expose your concerns to Flcelloguy about them, as he's the one who suggested their creation. F e tofs ^Hello! 10:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check redirects when moving pages

Hi Opus33, I noticed you recently moved Piano Sonata No. 11 to Piano Sonata No. 11 (Mozart). While I agree with the move, please remember that it's a good idea to check the "What Links Here" page for the old article name and modify any redirects that point to that name. For instance, after you moved the page, Rondo Alla Turca became a double redirect, as it still redirected to Piano Sonata No. 11, which is now itself a redirect page. I fixed Rondo Alla Turca and the 16 or 17 other redirects that were affected, but please remember to check this in the future. Thanks! -Big Smooth 20:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for the suggestion; indeed I'm becoming rather obsessive about stopping the endless flood of crud. I'll see what I can do. Hope all is well with you, and thank you for the excellently written note on Talk:Piano which explained the timbral situation well! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven

Would have to rearrange a few things (I've moved house since last time) but I think it's doable; I'll get to it in the near future. (Though actually I prefer the horns there... perhaps it's just how I'm used to hearing it!) Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapellmeister

Good edits on the page, and a good clean up. Part of my undergrad thesis is on this topic, so I'd love to throw in some clean up if possible.Letoofdune 02:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unhappy newbie

Hello ElectricEye,

I've replied to you on the talk page for Piano.

Yours sincerely, Opus33 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Opus. Thanks for letting me know. Waikiki!!! ^_^ --User:Electric Eye (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Harp

Opus, Thank you for your hard work on the Sacred Harp article. The sensible organization and well-written prose has helped me understand the "big picture" about this tradition. Cheers! --W0lfie 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for alerting me to the terminological question regarding Authentic performance. I don't visit WP that often anymore and would have missed it otherwise. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the railsback link cleanup

Thanks for cleaning up the redirect links after merging Railsback curve. - Rainwarrior 04:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]