Talk:James Tenney

possible issue with article links to clang and gestalt
.. Not sure if anyone with expertise is watching this page, but thought i'd note: it seems that the link to clang is almost certainly erroneous (i'd guess it was a 'wanted' page when written, and later filled in with the current content, which appears to be irrelevant to Tenney), and that possibly the link to gestalt is unnecessarily confusing. I'm familiar with a bit of Tenney's music and have read most of hodos/meta-hodos. I'm fascinated by his concept of clang, and would like to see it done better justice. Anyhow, i'll try to do some more digging and see if i can help resolve this myself in the near future, but if anyone with more expertise has a contribution, that'd be great. baxrob (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I qualify as "expert", but I was the Managing Editor of Perspectives of New Music at the time the Tenney tribute was published, and I do have some familiarity with his work. The link to clang is certainly erroneous. Clearly it was meant to link to an article on the composition of that name, and I have delinked it rather than redirecting to "Clang (Tenney)" or similar, because when someone does get around to writing an article, either about this work or about the theoretical term used in Meta (+) Hodos, he/she will certainly start from this article, and can place the link or links (in case of two separate articles) at that time. The link to Gestalt was confusing because it was to a disambiguation page. Since the intended link was evidently to gestalt theory, I have replaced the links, both here and in the article on For Ann (rising).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

added reference
Added citation link to liner notes, and for full disclosure I work for the non-profit educational resource linked to. The notes provide reference for several facts in this article, and the liner note quality is extremely high and is itself fully referenced.Ribbonabaca (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)