User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 18

Term origin
The French fr:Nicolas Slonimsky article claims that the term "Mother chord" comes from Berg's article "What is Atonality?", but I find no mention of the all-interval twelve tone row in Berg's interview. You may be better at French than I am, and more able to deal with the issue. Hyacinth (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "Mother chord" comes from an article by Fritz Heinrich Klein-Linz in Die Musik 17/4 (1924), pp. 281-286. Klein writes on p. 283:
 * "We know that there exists only one primal twelve-tone chord (Urzwölfklang), but that millions of its derivations can be represented. If we present the primal twelve-tone chord in a wide disposition on 61⁄2 octaves and if we dispose its twelve different notes in such a way that they also show twelve different intervals, we obtain a chord that illustrates the limits of the possibilities of the presentation of chords and, from a quantitative point of view, one cannot imagine a larger chord with richer content. In order to avoid the lengthy denomination "chord with twelve different notes and twelve different intervals" (zwölfverschiedentöniger und zugleich zwölfverschiedenintervalliger Akkord) and considering that it unites in itself so to say all other chords, I named it for short Mutterakkord." [My translation.]
 * Berg's "Was ist atonal?" does not include the term Mutterakkord and Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns does not refer to Berg. The French Wikipedia page appears mistaken on this point. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Do any of us know anyone who speaks French? Hyacinth (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can think of at least one of us who speaks French like a native. Why do you ask?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't speak French like a native, French is my mother language (and the one I usually speak). Needless to add, I know many around me who also speak French. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

electronic music reversion
i don't know if this is the way i'm supposed to communicate with you but you reverted an edit of mine about John Chowning in the Electronic Music Article. You commented that it was covered later in the article, but in fact the information in my edit was not covered later. Maybe you're an expert that goes around undoing other people's work, but this does not encourage me to participate and make the articles better if my edits are undone. Conscientia (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't recall this edit. Would you be so kind as to point it out to me?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

All-Interval-Tetrachords
Dear Jerome,

I have a question to the all-interval-tetrachord. I know, it isn't your work to help me to understand things, but I would like it if you would help me.

The AIT in set theory notation in prime form are
 * [0,1,4,6]
 * [0,1,3,7]

in inversions
 * [0,2,5,6] (to 1.)
 * [0,4,6,7] (to 2.)

see All-interval_tetrachord

So in note names about "e": prime form:
 * E, F, G#, A#
 * E, F, G, B

inversion:
 * E, F#, A, A#
 * E, G#, A#, B

My question: Why are the inversions inversions? If I have an inversion I get after four "inversion" the same chord, right? Or in this case I [E,F,G#,A#] become to [E,F#,A,A#]. But it doesn't happen...

Okay, what if I write the set class so that I have as first the minor second:

prime form:
 * [0,1,4,6]
 * [0,1,3,7]

inversions:
 * [0,1,7,9] (to 1.)
 * [0,1,6,t] (to 2.)

now you see, they are definitely no inversions, or is it? Can you then explain it for me, please? Or for everybody who reads the page about AIT and ask: "Why are they inversion?" Maybe it is enough if you can quote Michiel Schuijer, so I can understand why he is the opinion that [0,2,7,9] and [0,1,6,t] are inversion. Thank you very much for your help, Joseph Tubajoeseph (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand your confusion, and perhaps I can help. The problem has to do with two incompatible uses of the word "inversion". In everyday musical terminology, this word refers to the positions of chord members; in musical set theory, however, it refers to directed interval classes (also called, somewhat confusingly, pitch-interval class within a set. This is clearly shown by the integer notation, where you can simply count the numerical differences from left to right (in the prime forms) and see that the results are the same as counting from right to left in the "inversions". In 1960, Howard Hanson published a book on this subject in which he distinguished between these two concepts by inventing the term "introversion". This term (and several other potentially useful ones found in Hanson's book) unfortunately did not catch on. There is also a conflict in this area between the use of terms in musical set theory and in mathematics, which is discussed at the heading Mathematical set theory versus musical set theory within the Set theory (music) article. If you have not yet read that article, I think it may answer most of your questions. This is admittedly a rather arcane subject, so if you do not find that article entirely satisfactory, please do not hesitate to ask me any further questions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your helpful explanation. Now I understand what "inversion" means. But is inversion meaning that [0,1,4,6] and [0,2,5,6] are different chords and which meaning has it in the analysis of chords?
 * For me it is still a bit strange. If I "inverse" a major triad [0,4,7] I get a minor triad [0,3,7]. For me that are two different chords.
 * So if I build the "inversion" (mathematical) can I say I get a complementary chord and if I build the inversion (musicical) through "octavation" (is that english?) can I say I get an inversion (root position, 1st, 2nd inversion and so on)?
 * Joseph 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Your example of major and minor triads has often been cited as an argument against treating pitch-class sets as equivalent under inversion. Nevertheless, that is what Allen Forte decided to do, and this limitation of the theory must always be kept in mind. The traditional idea of "chord" is not entirely compatible with the concept of pitch class, so that it is not possible to speak of "root", "third", "fifth" (and so on) of pitch-class sets. The idea of "normal form" is a convention to simplify discussion of set types. Because one pitch class cannot be said to be "higher" or "lower" than another one (consider the notes B and F, for example: which one is higher?), most traditional chord-theory concepts are not valid in pitch class space. While this may at first seem a disadvantage of pitch-class theory, it actually frees up theory from many limitations imposed by traditional approaches. Perhaps the most immediately obvious example is the contrasting treatment in "classical" and "jazz" theory of things like "first-inversion triads" vs. "sixth chords", or the issue of whether there can be such a thing as a dominant eleventh chord in fifth inversion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my last answer. Now I think I understand it. I didn't saw the pitch class related to the term "set". If I have 5 different colored balls in an urn each ball has its own weight. The combination of colors is important. So it doesn't matter which ball I take first. In "traditional" theories the order of colors is more important
 * Joseph 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad analogy, though of course in traditional theory there are two ways of ordering the "colored balls": horizontally, in time (melody) and vertically, in "pitch space" (chords). Pitch-class theory allows consideration of the relationship between the "colored balls" of a group while disregarding both horizontal and vertical dimensions. One analogy often made is to the numerals on a clock dial. The set properties, however, still are more closely related to harmony than to melody.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
in Freundschaft. Kontakte - I was in a stage workshop of Originale, premiered in 2015,, quite literally so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! What an experience it must have been! Thank you for telling me!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite fascinating! Many videos, did you see. Let's look at the article. Originale doesn't mean real people, but special (unique, often a bit strange) people. I see many reference errors. Traveling, more later. Yesterday's program had Fearful Symmetries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see how (for example) a newspaper vendor selling newspapers is "special", "unique", or "strange"—except of course when transposed onto a stage in front of an audience. I think Mary Bauermeister is fairly clear about this, though I think we may both want to double-check the cited source. Do please tell me of my errors of references. I thought I was very careful.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a bit more time now. In German, the first meaning of "Original" for a person (not a piece of art) is someone unusual and a bit weird. I knew one, Harry von de Gass, see also Original (person) The Weihnachtsmann (Christmas Man or Santa) is certainly not real ;) - Stockhausen may have used it in irony, of course, referring rather to art in a double meaning. In Berlin, it was not at all "in front of an audience", - the audience sat on the edge of a stage surrounded by a broad aisle, and most of the action was on the aisle, some also on a higher smaller central stage with stairs leading to it, some on a gallery surrounding the "Werkstatt" hall, + one actor sat on a swing aboe it all. The pianist was in one corner, the percussionist in another, the elecronic music came from the center (below the stair), lighting was in a third corner, we also had projections on two walls, mirrors on one other wall, and towards the end the next room was included were art was made by people from the audience, such as myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the senses of the German word Original, and agree that the expression "real people" isn't quite right. The problem is that there is no single English word that acurately translates the senses of the German, without adding unintended nuances. Perhaps you can help me out here. The citation from Mary Bauermeister also supplies a context that may be important. It runs: "Im Sommer 1961 zeigten wir unsere künstlerische Zusammenarbeit zum ersten Mal öffentlich. Stockhausen und ich bekamen vom Direktor des Theaters am Dom, Hubertus Durek, und seinem Regisseur Carlheinz Caspari einen Auftrag für ein Stück, in dem Schauspieler, Maler, andere Künstler oder eben einfach »originale« Menschen frei in spontanen Aktionen auftreten sollten. Mit Caspari war abgesprochen, dass jede der zwölf geplanten Aufführungen etwas Neues bieten solle, es waren also zwölf »Uraufführungen« angedacht."


 * The phrase "oder eben einfach »originale« Menschen" is the key problem. In English, we have any number of words to describe "special, often a bit strange" people. We may say, "characters", but the context must make it clear that we do not mean characters in a play or a novel, so this word always requires a qualification, as in "she is a real character" or "he is a genuine character". On the other hand, when used alone, "real character" could be misunderstood to mean a "realistic portrayal" of a protagonist in a book or film. We may also use words like "eccentric", "oddball", "goofball", or even "kook", but can be construed to imply mental disorder, unless once again the content makes clear that it is intended affectionately. I do not have sufficient fluency in German to know exactly how or if the word Original could be misconstrued in this way and, if it can, whether or not Durek/Caspari's usage, as related by Bauermeister, strongly implies or discourages such an interpretation. Certainly the casting of the original Cologne and the subsequent New York productions did not insist on such an understanding, though of course Nam June Paik's presence would fully encourage it. One of the key problems, it seems to me, are the "actors", who are cast as actors—not in roles such as kings, queens, thieves, racing drivers, bank tellers, politicians, or newspaper sellers, which they are meant to portay as realistically as possible. Your thoughts on this problem would be much appreciated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for enlightening! I think we need to differentiate the title of the piece Originale and its translation, Originals (not "Real People"), from explanations about what it may mean which could happen in a footnote or in the text. I think the above quote should be in the article, and its translation. I think this again different meaning of "originale" (adjective) as not an actor playing the role of a lighting director but a lighting director acting before the audience (but an actor being Santa, and a grown-up taking the part of Kind, at a time in Berlin with a paper on her forehead spelling KIND) needs some explanation. Will you do it, and I watch? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. This sounds like a good way of dealing with the problem in the article. I will see to it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I like what you did, thank you! - Mozart: how about you and me leaving the topic to others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am still a little uneasy with the result, though it is an improvement. Having done a little research now, I discover that these various English terms are all very recent coinages, and I suspect the same may be true for this sense of the German word. The German, however, has less chance of being misunderstood I think. I will continue to think about it. As for Mozart, I agree that both of us should stay well clear of any further discussion of the infobox issue. (I assume this is what you mean.) I think you will agree, however, that my edit was justified, given the long and contentious history on that page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a long history on the page, which I summarized in the last discussion (2015). Now, in 2017, I'd really like to know if anybody is still in the mood to fight that silly battle. I liked the his piano concerto on the Main page, and no protest came from the 25k readers that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that one editor appears to have been unaware of the discussion and the consensus (or lack of consensus, as the case may be) and, under those circumstances, it is fairly clear that unilateral action is to be discouraged in favour of raising the point for (yet another pointless) discussion on the Talk page. Your summary is a good one, and useful to have right there in plain sight, since the discussions themselves are hidden in the archive. As for composition articles, you will have noticed I do not oppose infoboxes there, since the data tends to be simple and non-contentious (I have not, for example, seen any attempts to qualify Mozart's piano concertos as German, Austrian, or Salzburguensian). You may even have noticed that I, myself, have added infoboxes to articles such as Chôros No. 2.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are right, that one editor was unaware, saw missing what they are used to see in other articles, and thought they helped ;) - Thanks for the compositions. You may have noticed that there is no attempt to call Mozart Salzburguensian in the proposed little thing. A piece by Boulez will be mentioned in my DYK #800, did you know? - I am going to create NDR Chor (a redirect now), - I think even English-speaking readers will understand that name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me to the upcoming new article on the NDR Chor, which figures in several articles I keep watch over. We shall see whether the German title of the organization provokes any objections. The English Wikipedia is very divided on the matter of translating institutional names, as you must be aware.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware, always use Frankfurt Opera (although it's not our article name), but I think that in this case (chorus? choir? who defines the difference?), the German will be understood. What I really dislike is when German organizations translate their own name - and we have to use the result. Often a "castle" is no castle, and the EKD is not evangelical. - Thank you for restoring, - the silly character: I must have touched the keyboard inadvertently. Was a funny reason to revert. I was ready to ask eventually if it is assumed that our readers know who Tallis was, - not having to think about a polite way helps! - In the below: I commented out the harvids, leaving them ready to be used when needed. They are all construed normally, - I think just "ref=harv" should do, - but calling the ref, it will be needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to simplify reference formatting for beginners!" I had no idea that leaving "harvid" tags in Further reading items would generate "unused reference" errors! It looks like I need to make a few thousand more edits, since I have been formatting "Further reading" entries this way for some time now. Of course the problem with the EKD is that the usual sense of "evangelical" in English does not correspond to that of "evangelisch" in German: a case of a false cognate!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason to revert was the infobox, not the silly character or the links. It is not a question of whether readers will have heard of Tallis, since he, along with Byrd and Palestrina, has been linked in the Influences section since the first version of the article. I have no objection to their also being linked in the lede. But I wasn't going to waste time sorting out the infobox versus what else.
 * Jerome, you will of course remember that I created that article and that you and I collaborated to take it to GA. You may remember that, during that collaboration, I deferred to your preferences on the formatting of citations, although they differ very substantially from my preferences. So I am disappointed, now, that you have ridden roughshod over my views on the infobox, which you have not only restored, but started to load up with such trivia as 33.3rpm 12" for the first recording. I expected no better from Gerda, who has never contributed to that article before today, and did so now only to try to exert her preference in this matter over those of other editors, as she has been doing for years when ArbCom hasn't been controlling it. But I did expect better from you.
 * It's not worth the candle to edit war with you two, and I won't. The article is coming off my watch list right now, and permanently. But I want you both to know how contemptible I consider your behaviour today. --Stfg (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the subject under discussion here is first the article on Originale and secondly the biographical article on Mozart, I think a little emceeing might be in order. You must be speaking of the article on Stravinsky's Threni, the editing of which I do recall. I do not recall that the question of an infobox was considered at that time, or subsequently up until now. As it happens, I agree with Gerda on this one: the article not only looks better with an infobox, but it provides a convenient place to put such trivia as the date and place of the first recording, which does not always (as it happens to do in the case of the Threni article) find a comfortable place elsewhere in the article, even in a "Discography" section. I have often added infoboxes myself to composition articles, such as the example I mentioned above. Beyond this, there are ways of removing infoboxes (and stray unintentional characters) that do not involve at the same time reverting useful and constructive edits, such as links to composer names that may not be familiar to all readers. Further, I do not now recall any details of our discussion about referencing-format style (though I do not doubt that we did discuss this), but the article emphatically does not use my own preferred style of parenthetical referencing, probably because the current full-footnote style was already established when I first discovered it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Threni. I wrote in this section because Gerda referred to it in this section (post at 17:51). For the record, our discussion on references is at User talk:Jerome_Kohl/Archive 9. It concerned the templates, and in particular the formats they generated. --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I now recall that discussion. Very strange, because I had just earlier today (in this same thread) made reference to how complicated those templates (which appear to be aimed at helping beginners) make life for editors who already know how to format references. That experience taught me a lot, and I now hesitate less to undo well-meaning additions of templates that impose new (and by no means necessarily better) referencing styles, contrary to WP:CITEVAR.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't come here to discuss citation templates; I merely wanted to remind you that I had deferred to you on that issue. But since you make that point, let me make mine: there is nothing sacrosanct about academic citation styles, which are not completely uniform anyway, nor about the CMS. Wikipedia is entitled to its owns standards. I don't object to your preference, but it is merely that: a preference.
 * The purpose of CITEVAR and other guidelines is to protect peaceful and humble-mannered editors who want to develop content, from more assertive folk who would love to impose their view of how things should be done on everyone else. That was also the purpose of the restrictions regarding infoboxes that ArbCom imposed on Gerda and others in the past, which I wish had been retained and even imposed on the rest of us in the form of an INFOBOXVAR guideline.
 * You, Jerome, may not know, but Gerda certainly does know, that I have been active in infobox debates in the past, on the side of AGNOSTICISM. I simply don't have a position on them. Had I been asked before it was done, I'd simply have said "Yeah, go ahead, no problem", and that would have been that. What I do have a very strong position on is the need for consultation, and for respect for the opinions of those who have created significant pieces of content on the part of those who haven't contributed at all to those pieces of content. Especially when it to comes to presentation. Just trying it on without discussion and waiting to see if it sticks is, to my mind, arrogant and disrespectful.
 * Presentation isn't content. Content is subject to certain requirements, but what constitutes good presentation is only a matter of personal opinion. That remark includes citation formats, the use or non-use of templates, infoboxes, as well as a host of other things. Those who think that their opinion on matters of presentation is better than anyone else's opinion about presentation are simply snobs; and those who try to impose those opinions on the work of others are arrogant snobs. I have never regarded you as either, Jerome. I hope your comment about CITEVAR doesn't mean I'm going to have to change my opinion.
 * I want you to know that this incident isn't the only reason why I'm retiring from Wikipedia today. There have been a small number of other cases done to me and a much larger number I've seen done to others. But it is one of the reasons, and I think you both need to know that.
 * Good luck. --Stfg (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with just about everything you have just said, especially about presentation vs content. I do wonder, though, what you think might be a more appropriate way to float the idea of an infobox on an article. We have seen a lot of friction on this issue on biographical infoboxes for so-called "classical" composers (where I am firmly in the OPPOSED camp), and now the subject has to do with a "classical composition" article (where my judgement is very different). I find it interesting that you say you would not have found any problem with an infobox for the article on Stravinsky's Threni, if only you had been asked. Well, I didn't find any problem, either, even though I had not been asked in advance and, as far as I can tell, we are the two editors most involved with that article. Should there be some sort of protocol (is this what you mean, for example, about an INFOBOXVAR guideline) for suggesting such a change before actually implementing it? I know that infobox advocates such as Gerda are impatient with such ideas (which they regard as a waste of time) but, as an AGNOSTIC on the subject, how do you think this could be better addressed?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. Yes, that's what I meant. IIRC, if someone wants to change the citation method of an article, or the date format, or the EngVar, or do a merge or a split, etc, etc, then they are expected to propose it on the talk page and abide by consensus. That should be the case for anything potentially controversial. Also, if someone does jump the gun and is reverted, the right procedure is not to counter-revert, but to follow BRD. --Stfg (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, your rebuke is perfectly justified: I should have followed BRD. I will try to remember this in future.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jerome. Bye now. --Stfg (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Vague statement on Soprano recorder
Hi there,

I would like your help in clarifying the statement you marked as vague in the article "Soprano recorder". Before you added that, I had edited an earlier version (which was also marked as vague) to try and make it clearer. You left a comment, "What is simpler than the Baroque fingering?" I am not sure if this is a genuine question or a rhetorical one, by which you mean that the sentence should answer this question. I thought it did!

The meaning of the sentence is that, to play an F, the Baroque fingering requires cross-fingering (the fifth hole is open, but those below it are closed). The German fingering does not, and so it is "simpler". Unfortunately I don't think there's a particular term for "not cross-fingering" that could be used instead of calling it "simpler".

-- Perey (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is precisely the problem: In what way is T1234 "simpler" than T12346? There is a long history of woodwind fingering involved here, particularly on the transverse flute, but also concerning the oboe, clarinet, and bassoon. It requires a great deal more than the glib invocation of the word "simple" to explain this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I would have thought that T1234 was objectively simpler than T12346, merely by virtue of needing fewer fingers. Also that it follows a "simple" progression of "one more hole" for each note (in C major) from B down to C. This is not to say that the Baroque is particularly hard (I would call the contrast "simple versus less-simple", not "simple versus complex"), although this is not the only article to suggest that cross-fingerings are complex (or at least undesirable)—Fingering (music) itself does so!


 * But if a proper appreciation of the nuance of woodwind fingering is necessary to explain this more clearly, then I'm not the right person to write it anyway, as I never went further with woodwinds than the recorder itself. :-) -- Perey (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are bang on target with the observation that "a proper appreciation of the nuance of woodwind fingering is necessary to explain this more clearly". If it makes any difference, I have played all of the basic woodwinds (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, saxophone) at one time or another, including "historical" models of some of them. Think for a moment about the implications of what you said, that T1234 is "'objectively' simpler than T12346, merely by virtue of needing fewer fingers". By this logic, the low C on a soprano recorder is the most complicated of all. I agree that you are saying has some merit, and the word "simpler" is sometimes invoked in this context, but not usually with a full appreciation of what is meant. All that is needed, really, is a reliable source that (incautiously) uses this word.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Stockhausen on the corner...
As the resident Stockhausen expert your input would be useful here if you have time.Thanks. Acousmana (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Le marteau sans maître
The last comment on Talk:Le marteau sans maître was yours ;) - in 2012. I had a look at the piece because it will be mentioned for a DYK, and found several messages about unused references, beginning with the score, #2. What would you suggest, - use them, or place them in "further reading", or for some this, for others that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think those items ought to be moved to "Further reading", even the score itself, as long as it is never referenced in the article. They can always be moved back again, in case any should be cited in the future.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about getting you in conflict with Stfg, and for what? - More than 500 views on Threni yesterday, and the marteau. - My simple belief is that we should not go by the authors' preferences, but the readers'. We don't need "infoboxvar", because while date format should be one and only one in a given article, an infobox is an additional service which does not exclude a lead, and a reader who doesn't want to see it can opt it out, without taking it away from other readers who may have a different approach and different needs, - thinking of vision-impaired, those not great in English, or in need of a particular fact fast. Arbcom has been mentioned, - well, the arbs changed since the last case (and they are not eager for a new one), and now one of them said things like this "On the other hand, it would really help if people who make "editorial choices" not to use infoboxes would do some more thinking about how they are going to serve their less prose-oriented readers - people who are just skimming, who aren't sure this article is the one they're looking for, who don't read English well, who are reading on their phones, who are trying to reuse our content, etc." (from User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 14. So I hope, Stfg, you'll think it over and return to the good work you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerda, you are as much an author as I am, and you represent readers' needs no more than I do. You are of course entitled to your opinion about infoboxes, and as I said to Jerome, we could have discussed it constructively if you had proposed it. What I object to is the hubris of one editor imposing their views without consultation; that's the arrogance I referred to above the other day, compounded by deleting my message on your talk page without replying to it. No, I won't be returning. I find I'm much happier now retired. Oh, and please remove me from your list of "Precious". Logging out again now, and for the last time. --Stfg (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am happy that you replied, Stfg, but - forgive me - less happy about its content. I didn't "impose" anything, I said "try", you reverted, and that was ok with me, - I would have done nothing. I confess that your message on my talk annoyed me a bit. I regularly revert bot messages and other things that concern nobody but me and are not going to get archived. I responded to it, not on my talk, but on yours, "playing" Mozart's piano concerto in C minor, with 25k+ views on its day on the Main page (24 March), and nobody argued about the infobox. Article and box are not by me, - I feel that it's now (2017) the normal standard of GA and FA articles on classical compositions. Of 100 infoboxes that I add, about 3 % get reverted. To ask before adding every time seems a waste of time, or, as Voceditenore said a year ago: "But otherwise no, it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia. It's no different to adding or removing any other content or formatting to an article. If someone adds an infobox and another editor thinks it's inappropriate they can revert and discuss. " (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 125). No "arrogance" was intended. - Also please see my talk about a recent loss of a dear family member, putting all little boxes in perspective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerda, (1) I am very sorry for your bereavement, but you cannot expect other Wikipedians to put their concerns aside because of it. I haven't tried to burden you with what this is doing to me under my current circumstances, and you shouldn't try to burden me. What you do on Wikipedia and how it affects others in these days is as much your responsibility now as at any other time. (2) The Mozart concerto you posted a link to on my page has nothing to do with Threni, so at best that's other-stuff-exists. You normally reply on your talk page, so deleting without reply and posting something irrelevant to the issue on my talk page wasn't a reply, it was snarky. (3) I have the greatest respect for Voceditenore, but the fact that you and he agree about something doesn't oblige me to agree with it too. That's an appeal to authority. (4) This isn't about infoboxes; I've already said I'm neutral about those. This is about collaboration. I'd have thought that the past ArbCom restrictions might have alerted you to the provocative nature of what you do with infoboxes, and suggested to you to be more careful. If you think that consulting is "bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time", then we must agree to disagree.


 * I've had enough of this, and probably so has everyone else reading this page. I won't be replying again. --Stfg (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We disagree that infoboxes about compositions are "provocative", but I understand that the one I added provoked you, and am sorry. I should have looked up the article history, as I usually do, avoiding disagreement with several editors I know don't support infoboxes, but was in a rush for Threni. - Just imagine how many misunderstandings we could have avoided if I had looked and known that you are in that group, - I didn't. Enjoy music. I still think that you are precious, so won't remove the entry with a history of four years, but I will not remind you this year, just think of you fondly on 14 April. - Voceditenore is a she, btw, the spirit behind project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Gerda. I do appreciate that reply. Apologies to Voceditnore for overlooking (or forgetting) that. I genuinely will be moving on now, so: goodbye, and very best wishes to you, and again to Jerome. --Stfg (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have added that if you come to any of my other creations, feel free. My watchlist is empty now anyway, and I won't be back. There are a couple of minor Stravinsky works (maybe only one, I can't remember) and the translation from German of Beethoven op109, which had such a dismal article on enwiki before. Other creations are about tree-of-life topics you may not be interested in. They will already have taxoboxes where they need them. Good luck. --Stfg (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel free ;) - Look. I am less interested in Stravinsky's other pieces than this one which was presented on the Main page, and still is for Opera. Stravinsky's operas all have at-a-glance information, take Oedipus rex (opera) for example. I won't touch Pelléas et Mélisande (opera), but can tell you that I find Les Troyens simply more attractive, mentioned today with Claudia Mahnke. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Horns and pitch and ... and ... the whole thing.
Dear Jerome, I was going to get all high-horsey with you about this as I read it initially as perhaps a bit snarky and diggy and I think of you as very much not those things, and was a bit upset.

I then, however, reread my own previous ES here and realized - aaargh! - that there was a bit of Matthew 7:1-5 going on, with possibly even a tiny dash of John 8:7 thrown in, and actually I had perhaps better get off the high horse and think about it all.

So, I'm sorry about the silly edit summary, and I would like to start again on this topic. After a suitable time for contemplation I will take it to the article's Talk page and try to explain politely what I am on about, and hope that we can move on - or indeed agree not to do so - from there. I must be honest and say that I remain quite deeply unhappy about that particular place in the article, but maybe I can set my stall out and there will be something to discuss. (Please don't hold your breath for this though as I am juggling 47 things, ineptly, during a brief period of holiday.) I hope this is OK.

Thanks and all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping me a note. It helps to create a little context for what otherwise could lead to some misunderstanding. I shall have to look at the edits in question (at first, I thought this might have been about the Post horn article instead), in order to understand just what the problem is, but I shall do so in the spirit of "let's start again".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Work on classical music
Thank you for your efforts. This article really is a bit of a mess overall, and I wonder if it would be productive to start a discussion on the music project page... but sometimes I think quiet improvement might be more likely of success. Some comments: Imaginatorium (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Much of the very OR-looking stuff about "Modernist/High modern/Postmodern" was added by a single editor who has since been banned. I think much of this could be removed.
 * You recently wikilinked "discourse": I can't really understand what this means in the context, but reading the article discourse is so painful, that one ends up understanding even less. If we can't understand what something is trying to say, it is surely better to move it to the talk page until someone can explain it.
 * I will try to finish tidying up the timeline -- change all to surname only. Do you think this is worth it? Is it "Weber" and "de Falla"... (?)
 * Somewhere among the pomo babble, I learnt that it "embraces contradiction". Not sure it belongs on WP in that case.


 * Thanks for your thoughtful note. I didn't know about the banned editor, but the writing style did suggest that all of the sludge was coming from a single sluice. Let us start by removing this opinionated junk. I share your ambivalence about starting a discussion, either on the project page, or on the Talk page of the article itself. I assumed that "discourse" was a misuse of the term, and probably something more like "over the course of" was meant but, given the lack of references, it was hard to tell just what was meant. The word "discourse" has a specialised sense in philosophy (as you have found out the hard way), as well as a somewhat antiquated general use in English. In such cases, I tend to leave a "citation needed" tag and wait for a few weeks before removing the garbled claim. It is unusual to get a response this swiftly! I agree that surname-only is a more suitable style (with exceptions in the case of names like Strauss). FWIW, it should be "Falla, Manuel de", not "de Falla, Manuel". Any similar name issues can be checked at the individual biographical articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Meter
Jerome, I can't recall contributing to that article, but I watchlist it. Your recent edit removed a referenced proposition I find pretty credible and useful: "In an alternative definition used by most modern metric theorists (Schachter 1976, Lerdahl & Jackendoff 1983, Hasty 1987, London 2012), hypermeter is meter where downbeats act as beats. For example, the four-bar hypermeasure is the prototypical structure for country music, in and against which country songs work ."

And reinstated an unverified proposition that I think London and others would find simplistic: "In some styles, two- and four-bar hypermetres are common."

Thoughts? Tony  (talk)  04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, to start with, the so-called "alternative definition" is, as far as I can see, identical with the original one. I didn't notice I was reinstating an unverified proposition, but I did notice that I was reinstating two perfectly reasonable statements about simple and compound meter that had been removed without any stated reason.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff.
 * "If the beat is divided into two the metre is simple, if divided into three it is compound. – It's a comma splice (see the subsequent sentence for correct usage).
 * "In an alternative definition used by most modern metric theorists (Schachter 1976, Lerdahl & Jackendoff 1983, Hasty 1987, London 2012), hypermeter is meter where downbeats act as beats." – I agree that it's too similar to the previous statement (although not the same). It's a pity to favour a tertiary source over those experts. I'm not sure Schachter would agree with that simplistic definition nowadays: see his The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory (2015), p. 210, in which he discusses the single-bar downbeat hypermeasure.
 * "For example, the four-bar hypermeasure is the prototypical structure for country music, in and against which country songs work . In some styles, two- and four-bar hypermetres are common." – This pre-existing text comes straight after that edit. I don't get the logic of "for example", nor the meaning of "in and against". The final sentence ("In some styles,") does not logically flow from this. I do not intend to edit the article myself.  Tony   (talk)  02:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are the differences I noticed. I might observe as well that Schachter 1976, Lerdahl & Jackendoff 1983, and Hasty 1987 are all "dummy" entries, since there are no corresponding sources in the list of references (they also lack page citations). This makes it impossible to verify if they say what they are claimed to have said, never mind that the difference in phraseology is meaningful. I don't understand what you mean by "comma splice", but if it creates a incorrect usage then of course it should be changed. I'll take a closer look at the country music reference (which is obscure enough to warrant investigation), and I agree that what follows it doesn't, er, follow, though there could be some sort of connection. A reliable source would be nice, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Eminescu, neo-romantic or not
I'll give you that Romanians have not had a typical European Romantic period (late 18th century - middle 19th century) in literature; so it would be absurd to call a Romanian artist a neo-Romantic, domestically. However on the European continent, the Romantic period, in literature, was firmly ended just as Eminescu was born (1850s). So it would be relativistic to keep Eminescu classified as a Romantic while many others around the continent, including eastern Europe, were already transitioning to Modernism in literature. Music on the other hand, which seems to be your expertise, had its Modernist period delayed further down the line beyond the late 19th, early 20th century period, with a more continuous Romantic period. In European literature, as you can see in the Romanticism article, 1850s is the latest possible exentions of Romantism. It's all whether you want to extend a European common theme in literature to Romania or not. I'm fine with it either way. Dzdzds (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could not possibly agree with you more (except on the question of music history, which is not the point here). My sole reason for reverting the addition of Eminescu's name from that list is that his article describes him as a "Romantic" poet, not a "Neoromantic" or "Post-romantic" one. Although it might seem reasonable that he could be both (or all three), say, at different points in his career, or that he might be classified differently by different commentators, speculation of this sort on the part of editors is firmly in the realm of Original Research. Do please try to find sources that discuss Eminescu's poetry in the light of the considerations you mention, and make the appropriate adjustments to his biographical article. Once that is done, then of course he had be added into the list of Neoromantics. It is a simple matter of being consistent across articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'm still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia editing policy but I do remember reading what you said about Original Research rules on articles, and I do agree there needs to be consistency. I'll see if I can find some time to look at the different neo-Romantic/Romantic sides concerning Eminescu's work, but until then I won't include him in Neo-Romanticism article. Dzdzds (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Lower cases in composers' works
I haven't the faintest idea why Samuel Adams, Emily Hall and others have chosen to use lower case letters for their works, in apparent defiance of standard grammar practices. It's best to ask them rather than me. Michael Cooper wrote a recent article in the New York Times on this recent trend. Whether I personally care for it or not, it is necessary to respect the composer's wishes for how they wish to present the titles of their works. Thus I have (re-)reverted the titles again, to the composers' preferred format. DJRafe (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect, there is absolutely no reason at all to respect the composers' wishes (or their publishers' title-page design quirks). It has nothing at all to do with grammar (except perhaps in the case of German titles, where all nouns must be capitalized). It has to do with style guides, which will vary from one publisher to another. Wikipedia uses one of the most common styles, and there is absolutely no reason (well, very nearly absolutely none) it should not be followed. We should probably seek a third opinion on this matter, since there is not point in getting into an edit war over it. If you like, we can continue to discuss, if you think there is any point, but your reversion before such discussion has now already put us over the threshold of WP:BRD. Let me know how you would like to proceed. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about what evidence there is that these typographical designs are the preferences of all these composers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to your first and last statements (at which my jaw hit the floor in disbelief):
 * (a) On the first, with respect, there is every reason to respect the composers' wishes, for precisely that reason. They are the creative artists who have chosen to title the works the way that they wish.  It is not for you, me or anyone else on Wikipedia, or any Wikipedia guidelines, to override their wishes, or superimpose its guidelines, in terms of title presentation.  It is their work, and they have made their choices, and we must respect their prerogatives as creative artists.
 * (b) The evidence for the composers' choice of case is in each respective link that I provided, in particular to the Samuel Adams and Matthias Pintscher compositions. When you click on each link, to either the programmes for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Adams) or Boston Symphony Orchestra (Pintscher), you will see the presentations of many words of love and un despertar in the external links with the lower case presentations, clearly exactly as the respective composers intended.  Even further, in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra pdf of the programme, you will see Samuel Adams' own essay on his work, where he presents the title as many words of love.  What other evidence is necessary, when it is given directly by the composer?  The proof is self-evident right there, accessible by simple click-throughs to the external sites.  DJRafe (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, your jaw is not alone, down there on the floor. Since I have already explained Wikipedia's position on point (a), I will not bother repeating it. I will only ay that composers are creative artists in sound; most are only amateur typographers, if their interest even extends that far.
 * I am more interested in your response to point (b), which is new. I notice that the headline of the article on Adams capitalizes the title in the normal way, even though the title appears in lowercase in the the of the article. I fail to see that this proves anything about the composer's intentions, any more than the fact that E. E. Cummings's publisher's decision to lowercase his name on the covers of some books proves it was Cummings's preference that his name not be capitalised (it was not). If we were to follow your suggestion, then there is one well-known composer whose work should always be presented in FULL CAPS on Wikipedia. This is sometimes called SHOUTING, though of course it is often used in newspaper headlines, book chapters, and magazine-article titles. It does make that particular composer's works jump off of the page (which is the whole idea), but I do not think many editors would want to follow that pattern. Still, if you seriously want to follow this notion up, I suggest we take your proposal for a change to the guideline to the appropriate Talk page, where more editors can weigh in with their arguments. Perhaps it would be best taken first to the Classical Music Project talk page, rather than going directly to discussion of the Manual_of_Style/Titles guideline. What do you think? Either way, you might care to have a look at a related discussion from a couple of years ago, at Talk:A_Boy_Was_Born.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In A Boy was Born, is was how the composer had one word styled (which highlights the BB of his initials), not the whole title, and if Wikipedia can present it his way. The answer was no, even the image showing the printed styling was removed from the article, because House style rulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's a little wriggle room; but I lean strongly toward what User:Jerome Kohl says. Tony   (talk)  08:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Major Sixth
Hi Jerome Kohl, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Major sixth page. I am pretty sure no ratios from Pythagorean tuning are considered "just intonation" except for fourths and fifths. Should we at least remove the Pythagorean ratios from the article? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the article Just intonation, any system using small number ratios is regarded as JI. My reversal of your edit was primarily aimed at the septimal major sixth of 12:7, which you deleted in spite of the fact that it carried a verifying reference. I am inclined to agree with you that the Pythagorean 27:16 is pushing the boundaries for "small numbers", though it is specified in the body of the article as "another just major sixth", with a citation to p. 124 in John Fonville's article on Ben Johnston's extended just intonation. This source does not baldly state that the Pythagorean 27:16 ratio is considered a just interval, but does include it in a chart of the "structure ... based on the 2, 3, 5, 7, and 11 limit" Johnston employs in his Sixth String Quartet (at the end of the otonal series, together with its utonal counterpart, the 32:27 minor third). It would be useful to discover a reliable source saying just where this Rubicon is on the map. I am inclined to let the 27:16 stand until a reliable source rejecting such a ratio is found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Momente
I mentioned Momente in a DYK hook about the Kölner Rundfunkchor, - would be a good time to improve both articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

... and, to create some missing pieces, and polish the others: "Other premieres included Hans Werner Henze Laudes, Karlheinz Stockhausen's Momente, Luigi Nono's Il canto sospeso, Pierre Boulez' Le Visage nuptial, Bernd Alois Zimmermann's Requiem für einen jungen Dichter, Penderecki's St Luke Passion, Iannis Xenakis' Nuits , Luciano Berio's Coro , York Höller's Der ewige Tag , Péter Eötvös' IMA and Toshio Hosokawa's Die Lotosblume. " --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific suggestions for improvement to the Momente article? As for the others, I will have a look and see what I can come up with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing but the error messages, I fixed the ones in red, - still several greenish, about unused refs. What did we do recently? Was it putting them in a different section, Further reading? - The lead is a bit tough for people who don't know anything about music ;) - How about an infobox? Do you happen to know when the Kölner Rundfunkchor styled itself WDR Rundfunkchor Köln, - from looking at recordings? I thought when WDR was founded but no, not yet in 1962, possibly not until much later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, unused sources should probably be moved to a "Further reading" section. I didn't make this distinction when I created that reflist. I don't see any error messages. Do I need to switch something on to see them? I don't know about changes to the name of the WDR choir. It is possible they were not always consistent about what they called themselves. Musicians can sometimes be less scrupulous about these things than librarians and encyclopedia editors!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just the last: Kölner Rundfunkchor means just radio choir from Cologne, - at some point the WDR probably wanted their name in there as well, and that time may have been recently, while the name NDR Chor has a tradition dating back to the 1950s. Radio announcers would just have said "Chor und Orchester des Westdeutschen Rundfunks". - For the messages: copy the one line from User:Gerda Arendt/common.js --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As you may have guessed: the moments for Momente are now, - I decorated my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha, another "Did You Know?"! (As a matter of fact, I did know that!).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That was unfortunately the first day with only 12 hours instead of 24 before, but still a few hundred looked at Momente that would otherwise not have known. Thinking about iboxes for the operas: do you think infobox opera is better or infobox musical composition, - the difference was outlined in a current discussion of project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will have to look at that discussion, since I have relatively little experience with the infobox opera, and not a lot more with infobox musical composition. My first impulse is to say that operas ought best to be served by inboxes designed for them, but I suspect you are pointing me to that discussion because there is some difference of opinion about this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, Opera is simpler, so I guess for complex compositions such as Stockhausen's, who is also not The opera composer, the other might be better for consistency among his works. I'll try for Atmen, and we can see if it works, better than abstract comparison. Look at (almost) any opera you may know: you can see how they look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, five it a try. If I see any problems, you will be the first to learn about it! :-) FWIW, Stockhausen did regard Atmen gibt das Leben as an opera; although he did once say Momente was "sort of like an opera", it is really a concert cantata. I don't think this matters much, when it comes to choosing an infobox template. I do know what the opera template produces, visually; what I am less familiar with is what its various elements are, as opposed to the infobox musical composition, which I have used a few dozen times now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried, and confess that two parts, the second again in two, premiered apart but published together, present problems I couldn't solve, but think it's a bit more "übersichtlich". Both templates have a "type" parameter, describing what it is, both can say there Opera, or Cantata. It used to be Genre, but that limited things too much, and where is a definition of genres? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have had a look, and I think I see what you mean. It does look odd to me that there is only the first, partial performance mentioned. I think of Momentes performance history as being in three distinct stages (which I suppose is the same thing you describe as "two parts, the second again in two"). The 1962 version has the central group of K moments, plus two of the smaller M moments; the Donaueschingen version performed on 16 October 1965 added the rest of the M moments and the concluding I moment (even though a few of the D moments had already been composed, they were not performed at this time); finally, the Bonn (or Europa) version of 1969 presented all three main groups, D, K, and M, and added the very long I(k) moment. I would say that the premiere of the complete composition on 8 December 1972 ought to take precedence over the 1962 and 1965 "partial" premieres, though both of the latter merit inclusion. I see that this same problem exists with the infobox for Don Carlos, whereas the multiple-version difficulty is dealt with by having separate articles for I Lombardi alla prima crociata/Jérusalem and Les vêpres siciliennes/I vespri siciliani, though the Italian version of the latter involves revisions that might demand at least two further "premiere" dates. These examples from Verdi all involve revisions of an opera that was complete in its first version, however. Atmen gibt das Leben will present the same difficulty as Momente, though in just two rather than three stages. Henri Pousser's opera Votre Faust is a much more complicated example because, as the article's lede says, "Although about seven hours of performable material exists, the variable structure does not permit use of it all in a single version, and performances to date have been between three and three-and-a-half hours." Indeed, it is likely that some large portions of this material have not been performed yet, and the three versions staged so far have each included different content (not to mention that each performance of a given staging may contain substantially different material). Pigeonholing, such as infoboxes demand, becomes rather difficult in cases like these.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Atmen first, perhaps we can get ideas for Momente. Typically, only a first performances is mentioned, but the parameter "performed" permits several entries of date and location, however not performers. Atmen, the composers name could appear a few more times, as librettist and conductor, but I think the prose can do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, oh dear! I see I was looking at the wrong article! I thought you were speaking of the Momente article. Sorry! In the case of Atmen, four consecutive infoboxes for a single composition does seem to defeat their purpose, doesn't it? I notice that the years of composition in the first box are slightly inaccurate, in that the first phase of composition was completed in 1974, and the second was in 1976–77. (I imagine this can easily be corrected to "1974/76–77" or similar.) If we were to follow through on this model for, say, Karel Goeyvaerts's opera Aquarius, it might require as many as nine infoboxes, which would be far more complicated than the prose article!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We can always simplify, for example not mention composition time but for the first 1974 to 1977. Nothing is required ;) - but a translation of the second title to English would be nice, at least in the prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The "second title"? Do you mean "Sing ich für Dich, singst Du für mich"? A translation is already given in the prose, and this is also the case for "Eine Welt von Sorge und Schmerz". I now see a further problem, which is that the section titles (actually text incipits) for the second and third parts should be enclosed in quotation marks and not capitalized. To be absolutely consistent, part one (in infobox #2) should be punctuated similarly: "Atmen gibt das Leben", though of course this would be utterly confusing to the newcomer who has not yet read the article. Yet another difficulty with pigeonholing for "simplification".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced about the need for quotation marks. They are useful within prose text, to separate the sometimes longish incipit from the rest of the text, but as a subtitle, or its translation, it's clear without them. I wonder why I saw the translation of "Sorge und Schmerz", but not the other ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see your point. It seems to me that it is exactly the same as whether or not to italicize (or enclose in quotation marks, or neither) article titles for musical works according to the rules for in-text usage found at WP:Manual of Style/Music. When the title appears as a headline, there is no real need for this (and I know of no standard reference sources that have adopted a similar style), yet the Wikipowers have decreed it shall be thus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wikipowers have decreed that I am an infobox warrior, so I don't trust them ;) - In a list of Luther's hymns, not every hymn in the table gets extra quotation marks, at least not by me. Their navbox is bad enough. I will add one now, dutifully with the little things around for no reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , same for Britten, but I will not waste time for both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew that Benjamin Britten was a "classical" composer, but I never realized that Harry Lauder was one, too! That is a very heated discussion!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Schumann is a classical composer, but happens not to have been written by certain editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Latsos
Hello Jerome

I have started new article, not sure if I am doing OK, but I would certainly appreciate all your suggestions and some help to improve my artcile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Latsos_Piano_Duo Cheers Asuas (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

dorian mode
What would you think would be an appropriate way of citing the chord progression for each song? I didn't want to use "chords and lyrics" sites. See also this video including all the songs I included in my edit (which are by no means all those using the i-III-VII-IV progression). --bala [ biot] 20:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC) ps: some Wikipedia pages for the songs do mention the progression or Dorian mode, for example here or here.
 * I don't think a complete inventory of chord progressions is necessary (though without one it might be better not to include the chord progressions). Certainly watching a video is insufficient, unless there are subtitles indicating each chord. All that is really needed is a reliable source verifying the Dorian mode for each song. Wikipedia pages, of course, are not reliable sources. Neither, for that matter, are most "chords and lyrics" sites, which amount to no more than self-published blogs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. bala. on the "complete inventory" issue, it would make sense to focus on progressions that are regarded in the literature as models for variation. Tony   (talk)  08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Role of Christianity in civilization edit of inadequately identified sources
Thanks for your edit of Role of Christianity in civilization calling attention to two inadequately identified sources. I have dug back and found where Xandar lifted those two pieces of text back on 11 April 2010. One was from the Catholic Church article of the time, and the other from the History of the Catholic Church article. Without your edit, I might not have been motivated to dig that deep. Thanks again. --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I found those two citations exported to the article Musical notation without proper identification in the reflist there, and was surprised to discover the lack of information at "Role of Christianity". Now perhaps the same repair can be made at that notation article. Thanks for finding those sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The perfect edit summary in a brass article
Love it. Thank you for a good laugh ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I only wish I had done that on purpose!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't disillusion me! ... Come to think of it, I might start referring regularly to my flugel as a "null pipe". Even if no-one gets it, I will continue to enjoy it ... DBaK (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought you were already Disillusioned 8-0. Nevertheless, please feel free to use the expression. I have no wish to claim copyright!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)