Talk:Momente

Merge without discussion
I note that User:Hyacinth has decided without prior discussion to merge "Moment (Stockhausen)" with this article. Because of the lack of discussion, I cannot tell whether Hyacinth believed that "moment" was no more than the English translation of the title of this piece and therefore "Moment (Stockhausen)" was simply a description of the composition's form. The nature of the merge suggests this, but it is not the case, as I have now clarified by creating a new "Form" section and renaming the old "Form" section "Moment form". On the whole, I think this was a bad move, since the term is by no means exclusively associated with Momente (as is plain from the content), nor was it even originally formulated in connection with this work (in fact, from this point of view it would be better located in the article on Kontakte). Further, it hampers efforts to put the notion of moment form into the larger context of Stockhausen's compositional theories developed in the 1950s: Punctualism, groups, collectives; fixed, variable, and polyvalent relationships; dramatic and epic (episodic, or serial) forms. For these reasons, I recommend restoration of "Moment (Stockhausen)" as a separate article, which mercifully would not entail disentangling the references, which Hyacinth at least kept in a separate section (despite duplications).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Undone. Moment (Stockhausen) moved to Moment form. Hyacinth (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Much obliged, and I think people generally are more likely to search for Moment form than for Moment (Stockhausen), so this is an improvement. Unfortunately, now all the links pointing to Momente default to Momente instead of to Moment form, and will need to be changed, but at least I made them recently enough that I think I can remember where they all are. I do hope that in future you will think to ask first whether there are any compelling reasons not to merge or separate articles, before going ahead and doing so. You could save other editors a lot of trouble and wasted time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to have changed the links. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, one more thing. By reverting to the earlier form of the article, you also inadvertently deleted all the edits (including addition of about five items to the reference list, and corrections made to bring this into line with the entries in the Momente article) that had been made in the meantime. I have gone back to the previous version and replaced the entire contents of Moment form with the latest edit. Changes to the Momente article were minimal, involving only new section headings, which may not now be necessary anyway.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)