User talk:Delahays

Welcome!
Hello, Delahays, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! bobrayner (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Who might you be and why do you think my user idemtity needs the sort of page you propose? I suggest you delete it. It helps nobody and insults me. Delahays (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Le Comte Ory
I've added the Glyndebourne recording (with details from the LP set that I possess) to the table in the article. Best wishes. --GuillaumeTell 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine 1610, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 10:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Robt Milligan statue, article
The picture of the statue caused me to look up Robert Milligan. I will be in London starting August 3 for Wikimania2014, and your comments in January will be something I can research at the Barbican Library. Any thoughts for me, leave them right here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've left them anywhere but here, I'm afraid - see the talk page to Milligan and your OWN talk page edits. You may conclude that you've disrupted my day, but in fact you haven't, so that's OK. I don't know whether you know the Legacies of British Slaveownership database, (google UCL LBS) but you might find it useful - not necessarily for Milligan but for his contacts, especially the Hibberts. In fact, there's a blog and contact methods, though these days they are not particularly responsive, - too many folk doing too much research. And its the deep long vacation. I'll probably leave a few more in the same places. Good luck with your research.Delahays (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Response
Hello Delahays, I'm responding here to the message you left on my talk page. As I said at Talk:John Peter Grant, all of my comments are represented here on the talk page. I don't see anything in the history of the page that would suggest your comments have been erased by another editor, so I'm not quite sure what you're experiencing. Sometimes, when you edit a page, someone else may be editing the same page at the same time. And when you try to save it, there's what is called an "edit conflict." And your work simply won't save. You have to cut and paste your comment, reopen the page, and post it again. Maybe that's what's happening to you? I would also like to ask you to please make use of nesting features when responding on talk pages. Otherwise it is very, very difficult to follow the thread of conversation. All you have to do is add an additional colon and then begin writing. For instance, if you were going to respond to this message, you would type " :Thanks for your reply " or such as that. And it would make a small indent. Like this, which you should be able to see when you edit this section or page:
 * Hello!
 * Hello!
 * Hello!
 * I'd like to address your referencing the ignore all rules rule. That was created to help keep bureaucracy or the sheer weight of rules from getting in the way of improving Wikipedia. However, that doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want, in contravention of a rule you understand. I would submit to you that if you ignore the primary sourcing rule in such a way that inappropriate information is added to Wikipedia, which you then seek to defend by edit warring in contravention of a consensus, that is not helping to improve the encyclopedia in any way. (Please note that I'm not suggesting you are, or have, or would do such a thing - just making the point.) Keep in mind that, in the end, we all want the best Wikipedia articles that we can have. But these rules are here for a good reason, they're supported by many experienced editors and have been for a long time. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 21:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Don't think it was anything I did. I seemd to have been dealing with a page which resolved the discussion about editing into two columns, one of which was bordered in yellow. I added talk, but the page could not be persuaded to come back. How can taking the trouble to get things right not be a good thing for Wikipedia? Mind you, this is my talk page, so I may be writing to myself. Best wishes, anyway, to whoever it may be reads this.Delahays (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sonata form
I meant to write a short reply to you about this. Now I know why Rosen when summarising this can be met with very valid objections; he has a point, but it seems impossible to explain it in less than seven paragraphs. Phew. Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just read your new paragraphs, and I'm going to reserve the right to reply fully. So don't take too much serious notice of this. But we are up against two problems - the basic difficulty in all discussion of music in that you have to do it by analogy and the analogies you have to use are necessarily inadequate - if they weren't you wouldn't need music, and the second one - an offspring of the first, which is the relationship between form and content in any organised utterance. But the proposition that melody becomes the determinant of sonata form via Mozart/Hummel/ Chopin or Mozart/???Beethoven (op31.1???)/immature Schubert (probably combined with some accidental personal recent contact with the Berg Violin Concerto) does rather for me beg the question of why we seem to be discussing symphonies, when Mozart's greatest instrumental achievements in this direction are his piano concertos, which - even in - say (at random) K459 or even K503, in which the finale is organised around a melodic (almost operatic) response to a second- hand dance out of Idomeneo - are melodically led. And, if we follow Tovey, misunderstood by all romantics (and even only belatedly by Beethoven) until Brahms. And I am not sure about Mahler and the graduation symphony - either all of them are graduation symphonies, with No 6 the Ph D thesis and No 8 (at least the Veni creator Spiritus) the professorial inaugural lecture, or none of them are - after all, the Ninth offers a first movement which pretends melodically to be a sonata form with a concerto cadenza but collapses (five time I think) repeatedly on to the tonic D announcing, if you want to believe its claims, that it is harmonically a rondo, and the "Song of the Earth" offers the ultimate deconstruction of the previous two centuries by proceding cancrizans with the finale a hybrid of scena/cavatina/cabaletta and a sort of omnium-gatherum ghost of all possible single movement sonata style models. Anyway, thank you for one of the best pieces of writing about music I've read in a long time Delahays (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the compliment! I don't have enough time to really write very much in response to these short comments now, which is good since a full response is coming anyway, so I'll just say a few things. Yes, Tovey is as always right on the mark that even Beethoven started out misunderstanding the classicists, as is obvious with the Third Piano Concerto (if you are in need of some low-level entertainment, it is mildly amusing to look for the part of KV 491 each passage is liberated from; the only exception is one bit in the development, which you will not find in KV 491 but rather in KV 450). Also, yes, I'd put the change from classicising to classicism with Beethoven at op. 31 no. 1, though the change took some time and didn't happen all at once.
 * About Mozart's piano concerti – first of all, finales tend to be a lot looser classically than first movements, and there is not really a need to go anywhere harmonically, since they are grounding and resolving the tension. (Which is why the variation-finale and the contrapuntal finale are viable classical forms, and why the finale of KV 570 never actually goes to the dominant.) The finale of KV 459 is pretty clearly of the contrapuntal type. This notwithstanding, it seems to me that it does replicate the harmonic structure expected of a classical finale sonata form, as does KV 503, and there isn't that kind of "melodic filling" as in the Coronation Concerto (and the First Piano Concerto of Beethoven) where the piece just keeps hanging after instead of before the resolution of a cadence to mark time for the next melody to start.
 * Lastly, I didn't mean to say that Mahler's symphonies are graduation symphonies, and I see I phrased that badly in editing it; I meant to say that the graduation symphony was already an institution in his time. What you mention in the Ninth is certainly a clear sign that it was no longer felt that the harmonic and melodic structures of a piece needed to have anything to do with each other anymore, though. Leonard Bernstein's assertion that Das Lied was Mahler's greatest symphony seems to have put his finger on the fact that classicising sonata form has become so uncongenial that his best symphony is the one where he can ignore it and instead let the forces governing his style move around freely, instead of making them fight Beethoven's. For there is certainly a great deal of harmonic- as well as melodic-based construction in Das Lied. Consider Das Trinklied vom Jammer der Erde:

O A B    O  C            O D   E a    -A?-a   - Bb         g    -G?-g

O        A        B    O   C          O  D  E     g (through Bb) - a-A?-a       - Bb-bb  ab    -Ab?-

O A O A-> dev. of E D->E? D B     C O A C              B     E    O A f                     -Ab-f bb-Bb-Ab-a      [Bb/whole tone] A-a-A?-a

O = horn-call A = first theme, orchestra, moves to voice at "Schon winkt der Wein..." B = "Doch trinkt noch nicht..." C = "Das Lied von Kummer..." (always with fragments of A and E underneath in orchestra) D = "Wenn der Kummer naht" E = "Dunkel ist das Leben, ist der Tod!" [please remind me never to try to do ASCII analysis again]
 * Melodically, this is obviously a concerto sonata form with double exposition. Even if there is not much difference between the first and second exposition in the apportioning of themes between the voice and the orchestra, the way to telescoped development-recapitulation tries to resolve melodically all three expositions is striking, and the way the recapitulation is reordered so that the most harmonically grounded themes occur towards the end. Harmonically, we have 19th-century-style creating of a sense of distance without polarisation by treating keys a mediant relationship away from each other as really the same. Yet Mahler has simultaneously used the Neapolitan as his "dominant" that thematically needs resolution; every single time it is the agent of modulation, in the expositions to bring us away from the tonic, in the development-recapitulation to take us back. And surely I am not reading too much into it by thinking that this is connected to the way the refrain E returns a half step higher each time. None of this is conceivable in the absence of the classical tradition, but it is simultaneously pretty alien to the heritage of long, serious-sounding symphonies he surely inherited from Bruckner. I'll have to bow out on this for the moment because I'm currently at the stage of liking Mahler without being completely sure I get how he works, but it seems to me that Mahler's classicing tendencies are pretty different from that of the first Romantic generation; whenever he undermines the logic of the classical model, he adds enough of his own that it doesn't sound forced at all (like that off-tonic ending of the Fourth Symphony, which to my mind has already been adequately prepared by the breaking of the frame at the end of the slow movement). But more on that when I have more time to think seriously about Mahler ^_^, because I always found the "sonata form in Mahler is always ironic" theory as unsatisfactory as claiming that the early Wunderhorn songs are all ironic in the sense that Revelge clearly is. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some of your old comments on various talk pages and I've also taken a stab at answering some of them more succintly! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The only safe thing about Mahler is that you can't generalise about him, - there's always some kind of surprise or paradox waiting to trip you up when you do. Just now I find what you say about the harmonic and melodic construction of the Trinklied in Das Lied mirrors almost exactly my own instinctive reactions to the Berg Violin Concerto (and to the Chamber Concerto too). I might be ready to get back to you in about a week or so, but just now I'm up to my ears. best wishes Delahays (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Best wishes to you too! I still have to think about the programmatic and classicising aspects of Mahler, and determine what forces are at work (whose changes themselves create their own programme; anyone can see something has happened between the first and second half of the First Symphony). That and his returning interest from bars of the phrase to individual beats, and the similarities with the Second Viennese School often getting greater than those with Brahms, Wagner, or Bruckner. Will get back to you on this... Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion nomination of Fr Anthony Ross, OP 1917 -1993, historian, campaigner for the homeless, and influential penal reformer, and Rector of Edinburgh University 1979==

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Fr Anthony Ross, OP 1917 -1993, historian, campaigner for the homeless, and influential penal reformer, and Rector of Edinburgh University 1979 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Signing in articles
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Bill Speakman. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)