User talk:Hucbald.SaintAmand

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or. Again, welcome!

Schenker
Great to see someone working on those Schenker articles. Thank you! Tony  (talk)  10:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You know who
I think the guy is crazy because he's unable to respond to messages, only repeat his own issues. I don't intend to respond to him. He clearly can not work within Wikipedia's guidelines. -- kosboot (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. We would need Dr. Emma Sculate (formerly of TIT, the Texas Institute of Theory, http://web.archive.org/web/19990127234125/ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~bogo/tit/home.html) to solve the case, but I think she retired quite some time ago. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Schenkerian analysis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Schenkerian analysis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- 14:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Schenkerian analysis
The article Schenkerian analysis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. I have left my comments at the review page, Talk:Schenkerian analysis/GA1. There are other matters that may need looking at, but the matter I have raised is the most pressing, and the week's deadline is for that to be done. Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As you will see from the nomination page, I have failed the nomination on this occasion. I repeat here what I said there: I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia despite your reservations about our citation criteria. You have a great deal to offer Wikipedia, and we should be the poorer without your contributions. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Schenkerian analysis
The article Schenkerian analysis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Schenkerian analysis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- 10:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not public domain?
Hi Hucbald.SaintAmand. In the edit summary for this edit, in what sense is that source "not public domain"? It loads just fine. Is it a copyright violation? --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the situation of this document is not clear. The contents may be considered public domain, while this particular formatting is property of the French CNED (Centre National d'Enseignement à Distance). The authors deposited it there for colleagues and friends, but it shouldn't be widely advertised. In addition, it will be removed soon, to be replaced by a version that will not reproduce the CNED formatting. Earlier versions also exist on the same website, and these can be read freely. If you have read the document, fine; if you want to download it, do so without delay, or wait for the new version. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to you on that. Having no citation there makes that paragraph look like original research, thus vulnerable to deletion. Will there be any objection to citing the new version when it appears? If not, we could restore the existing citation for now (or just wait, if the change is imminent), and simply amend the citation when the new version comes up. It's up to you, I think. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The example was already given in an earlier version of the text, to which the wikipedia article now refers. I should have thought of that from the start... [By the way, is it enough that something exists on Internet in order not to appear as original research?] Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not even necessary for something to be on the Internet: books and journals only available offline are equally fine. But they do need to be explicitly cited. The key words near the start of Verifiability are "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" (my italics). Thanks for restoring the reference, as you did just now. --Stfg (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Schenker
Hi, nice work on the Schenker set of articles (although too much repetition, I think).

I wonder whether you conduct Schenkerian analysis? Tony  (talk)  12:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do conduct Schenkerian analyses. What do you mean by "too much repetition": can you be more specific? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music theory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alypius and Gaudentius. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

failed reference in Univeral "Aspects of music"
Hi,

I am referring to the failed reference: ) where I wrote: "Spatial location (see Sound localization) represents the cognitive placement of a sound in an environmental context; including the placement of a sound on both the horizontal and vertical plane, the distance to the sound source and the characteristics of the sonic environment (reverberation)".

Cariani and Micheyl refer several times to "location" as a cognintive property of sound and I found a quote which I believe reflects the intent of my statement: "Location here includes several spatial qualities of sounds that include the apparent direction, extent, and range of the sound image in auditory space." (p.357) Cariani, P., & Micheyl, C. (2012). Toward a theory of information processing in auditory cortex The Human Auditory Cortex (pp. 351-390): Springer.

Their use of: "apparent direction" relates to my reference to "the placement of a sound on both the horizontal and vertical plane" (which uses two different cognitive process, which I haven't cited because I didn't think it necessary) and the "extent, and range of the sound image" is judged primarily by reverberation (I would also have to chase up references for this if needed).

I understand that you found the actual referencing inappropriate (the book is called "The Human Auditory Cortex" - I have the EBook in my EndNote program. I would be very appreciative if you could fix the formatting issues for me or let me know how I can do it myself (so I know for next time).

I will have to borrow the book containing the Levitin chapter and recheck the reference. Is it possible to give some more specific guidance as to the problem? Levitin divides location into two different areas: spatial location and reverberant environment, but he mentions both and I thought the Cariani and Micheyl source (which links them) would cover that issue. Levitin (from memory) was far more detailed on the cognitive processes involved I believe. below is a quote that I noted but failed to record the page number:

"A performance of music contains the following perceptual attributes: pitch, rhythm, tempo, contour, timbre, loudness, and spatial location (one might add reverberant environment as an eighth)." Levitin, D. J. (1999). Memory for musical attributes. In P. R. Cook (Ed.), Music, cognition, and computerized sound: An introduction to psychoacoustsics (pp. 105 - 127). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT press. (page unknown)

I can also probably find more specific sources if you feel it necessary.

Regards, Rburtonresearch (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Message copied to Talk:Aspect_of_music, where I'll answer it. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Aspect of music a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fayenatic, you are perfectly right. The move has been discussed at length in the talk page of Aspect of music, with Wikipedia administrators participating in the discussion, but nobody really deciding, so I decided to plunge. I could not merely have moved the article to Elements of music, I think, because this article already existed (as a redirection to the first). On the other hand, I do not regret having done it: everybody caring seems satisfied and the interest for the article appears to have been renewed. I am aware of the problem so created, and I hope somebody (you?) will be able to solve it. I can only say that I will proceed otherwise if another case arises. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize that I answered the above without being aware that you had already solved the problem: many thanks. The fact is that I am more interested in contributing content than in mastering the technicalities of Wikipedia... I'll do my best in the future. Thans again. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious
On Debussy's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) A year ago, you were recipient no. 2006 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

French usage
Good afternoon, Monsieur Hucbald. Your comments on capitalisation on the Berlioz talk page were so instructive and enjoyable that I feel emboldened to ask you for two further pieces of advice on French usage. Neither has anything to do with my Wikipedia activities, and if you think this an inappropriate place to raise them I shall perfectly understand and will withdraw forthwith. But I have long wanted to know why some places where I lunch when I'm in Paris call themselves bistros and others call themselves bistrots. Is there a difference? I can find nothing online or in print to explain. And the second point, if you will indulge me further, is the "de" in some people's surnames. I struggle to work out why, e.g. Guy de Maupassant and Michel de Montaigne are always referred to as "Maupassant" and "Montaigne" and are indexed under M but e.g. Charles de Gaulle and Simone de Beauvoir are referred to as "de Gaulle" and "de Beauvoir" and indexed under D. If you have time and inclination to enlighten a puzzled Anglo-Saxon it will be esteemed a favour. Best wishes,  Tim riley  talk   16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With pleasure, Tim riley . About bistro/bistrot, I had at first no answer, so I turned to the Trésor de la langue française, probably the authority of all matters of French language. As you may read in this page, the two versions are somehow synonymous. Bistro (1884) seems the more ancient of the two, and Bistrot (1892) may have been construed to allow Bistrote, when the word refers to the patron of your favorite café: bistrot if he is a man, bistrote if she is a woman.
 * As to names with de, these often are names of the nobility, where de is the name of a place – much like von in German, I think; de means "from". This must be the case of many medieval toponymes, where it is difficult to determine whether the place is named from its owner, or the reverse. In any case, without the surname, de would hardly be needed. These names were turned into family names, but remain characterized by the fact that the d in de is lower case. This usage must be distinguished from that, say, in Dutch, where De merely means "the" – "De Jonge", for instance, meaning merely "the young one". Today, it is difficult to determine whether the lower case "d" in de is a matter of nobility or one of modern usage. There seems to be no proof, for instance, that Charles de Gaulle's family was of noble origin; on the contrary, his name may be of Dutch origin. Nevertheless, his ancestors have used the lower case "de" since at least the 18th century.
 * In the case of nobility names, de is unneeded as soon as the Christian name is not used. One would not have adressed Louis XIV as "France", I suppose, even if his name was Louis de France; but one may have said "Nemours" when adressing the Duke of Nemours, for instance. I presume that one does something similar in English when adressing, say, the Duke of Windsor. The fact that the names Simone de Beauvoir or Charles de Gaulle are indexed under "De" probably reflects that they are not considered of noble origin, while Maupassant or Montaigne are (rightly or not). This being said, I cannot stand reading in bibliographical lists entries such as
 * Arezzo, Guido d', Micrologus
 * Saint-Amand, Hucbald de, Musica
 * nor, as a matter of fact,
 * d'Arezzo, Guido
 * de Saint-Amand, Hucbald
 * as if these were family names!
 * Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I couldn't ask for a more comprehensive explanation. I am very much obliged. I reciprocate with a tiny bit of amateur sociological observation: in Paris, it seems to me, downmarket outlets will sell you "sandwichs" and more upmarket ones offer "sandwiches". I don't buy either, preferring the offerings at bistro(t)s. –  Tim riley  talk   21:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of an examination in a Conservatoire, where a girl annonced that she would sing a Lied – she pronounced Li–èd, very much à la française. She sang, and a jury member said Merci, mademoiselle, vous avez chanté comme un pi–èd (comme un pied). The plural of Lied is either Lieder, if you consider it a German word, or lieds, if you consider it integrated in the French language; idem for the plural of sandwich.
 * Do you think that the Earl of Sandwich would have been called "Sandwich" by his friends? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC);
 * I think so, by his less intimate friends, at least; his closest friends would have used his given name or (knowing the English upper classes) his nickname, if he had one. I shall be purloining and retelling that excellent Conservatoire story. Many thanks!  Tim riley  talk   08:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

French capitalisation
Following on from WT:WikiProject Classical music and Talk:Société nationale de musique, a memory had been nagging at me. I've remembered why - Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20. Regardless of whether my argument there was or was not correct, 'The French description says "la tour de l'Annam" – it isn't capitalized, implying it's just a generic Annam tower, not a specific tower called "Annam Tower"' struck me as just plain wrong. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Narky Blert No, it merely implies that the Annam tower is (or was) a tower among others. It is not a generic Annam tower, merely a generic tower. Similarly, la mer Morte merely implies that this sea is one among many, but not that it has nothing particular. The usage is a bit strange, but that's how it is. Consider also that the English usage transforms descriptions into proper names, which could also seem strange. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the oddest features of English is that it capitalises adjectives derived from countries (as I just did). I don't know another language which does. Narky Blert (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Narky Blert, I think that French does something similar. One would write Les Français parlent le français where the substantived adjective is capitalized when it denotes people, and not when it denotes the language. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Frappez, frappez toujours"
May I again impose on you for a steer in idiomatic French usage? Your thoughts on the penultimate bullet point here would be greatly appreciated, if you have time and inclination.  Tim riley  talk   17:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The French words indeed are ambiguous, they litterally mean "Hit, keep hitting", but this may be taken metaphorically. (In English also, I presume, "to hit" may be with the fist or with words...) But I see that the French quotation comes from a Dutch site, where one reads Die strijdkracht bleek ook wel uit een bekend citaat van haar: 'Frappez frappez toujours'. Blijven herhalen totdat de boodschap is aangekomen. I happen to have some knowledge of Dutch as well: the French quotation is followed by an explanatory translation. The whole sentence literally says: "The combative force appeared also in a well-known quotation of hers : 'Frappez frappez toujours'. Keep repeating until the communication is arrived." So this, because of "the communication" (de boodschap), obviously refers to "hitting with words," i.e. metaphorically. I let you figure out how to best express that in English.
 * I did not know of Corry Tendeloo, but I found the article as a whole quite interesting. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, my thanks for your helpful advice.  Tim riley  talk   00:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Free Composition, Figure 49.png
Thanks for uploading File:Free Composition, Figure 49.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Jean Molino
Hello, I wrote based on that Jean Molino was dead based on what you said here :, which is non-encyclopedical. Can you help me find a reference on this? Nucleos (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Jean Molino's death was announced by Jean-Jacques Nattiez on the musiSorbonne discussion list on 25 May, which may not really count as a reference. The archives of the list are available to members only. I made a search on Google but remained unable to find a confirmation. Nattiez of course can be trusted. He wrote on musiSorbonne that he would later publish a more detailed portrait of Molino. I'll tell you as soon as this happens. (La même chose en français ;–)) Best, Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)