User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 21

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And a Happy New Year to you! I did notice today's Featured Article when it was first posted, and knew immediately that you had to be one of the editors chiefly responsible. Congratulations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? - Sorry for overlooking an edit notice for passacaglia. Was it perhaps not in the section? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The editorial note immediately followed the paragraph in question. Perhaps it would more appropriately be placed before that paragraph. I DNK about your colleague keeping you on Wikipedia. This is more of a community than most people realise, isn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos
04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

A draft page for a composer
Hello Mr. Kohl. I found a composer draft page these days and tried to improve and re-submit it. But it seems nothing happens. Could you please do something for this page, and let it become a formal article?

Draft:Ge_Gan-ru

Thanks. MusicaClassica (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have read the draft and the reasons for its rejection. The first thing that strikes me is that it offers a quotation said to be from the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, a source which would go a long way toward answering the objections, but then fails to provide an actual citation from that source. There is also a quotation said to be from the composer, but without a source. It seems to me that these omissions are the main problem that needs to be overcome.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mr. Kohl. Actually that draft is not good enough. So I hope you can do some improvement on it. And you can delete anything you think that is not proper to be there. I just want that the formal article for the composer can be online sooner... I think there will be guys who can make the article perfect in the future...MusicaClassica (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Perotin
I understand you have some knowledge of this subject so I would like to ask your advice about Perotin. I recently listened to a performance of his Salvator hodie, and turned to WP to see what we said about it. It was not even mentioned. The page looked like it was due for an update and could benefit from an upgrade. I have made a few additions as you have noticed. However so far the unsourced detailed analysis of a Benedicamus under Musical forms and style, has defeated me. Have you any idea where this material was sourced from? Thanks. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  16:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it helps it appears to have been largely added by User:Martin%20spaink on 24 December 2013. You quite rightly then flagged it as unsourced. The flag has been there since, though I removed it recently thinking I could source the material. You then added clarification tags. There has been no response and that user has not revisited the page. Policy suggests it should be deleted unless we can verify it. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am always suspicious of paragraphs like this, which rely on an opening claim supported only by record-liner notes. I expected to find some of the phrases, at least, to be cut-and-paste copyright violations from one or the other of those liner notes, because they throw around words that can be clear only to musicologists with a good background in the subject, and even then may be subject to different interpretations (hence the requests for clarification). I am relieved to learn that you have been no more successful than I have been in finding supporting sources for this material, which sounds like it may have been developed for an undergraduate class term paper and, therefore, constitutes original research. The bottom line is that I concur it should be removed. Thank you for your diligent work on the Perotin article, which I have been following with some interest. Well done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, thanks --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  22:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Colleagues, I found on Internet an analysis which may or may not be of the same piece: http://nicolas.meeus.free.fr/MusiqueAncienne/2Dechant.pdf. The uncertainty about whether it is of the same piece already raises suspicion ... I questioned Nicolas Meeùs (who had helped me finding it ;–)) about the composer of the piece. He said that one of his reasons for choosing this piece was that its score is available in Davison and Apel's Anthology, but added that they reproduce four organa on Benedicamus Domino from the Magnus Liber, only one of which is attributed to a composer, Leonin (not Perotin!), and is definitely not the one that was described in the WP Perotin article — but, oddly enough, seems to be the one said in the article to be by Perotin and recorded in the recording identified as "Perotin 1991".
 * The others may be by Perotin, but neither Davison and Apel, nor the Magnus Liber itself say so. For sure, the Liber included compositions by several composers. All three in Davison and Apel might fit the WP description, but the one analyzed in the French document is the most likely. Nicolas added that his works on his website are licensed under Creative Commons 4 International and that we should feel free to use his analyzis for WP if we feel like it. The analyzis, which stems from an undergraduate course in the Music Faculty in the Sorbonne, certainly is more informative than the one in the article, but it may be too technical for WP. Also, the score should be given, but Davison and Apel's transcription may not yet be public domain in the US (nor in Europe, as a matter of fact); the facsimile must be available in https://imslp.org/wiki/Magnus_Liber_Organi_(Various), but should be transcribed — which should not be such a problem, the notation is quite readable.
 * I'd be willing to translate the analyzis in my poor English if you think it might be of interest. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I reached out to the original editor, who confirmed the passage was unsourced and was an account of his own performance history. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  12:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the best we can do is state "attributed to Perotin" he/she did not sign the work, write an autobiography or have a publisher! I will take a look at these suggested resources. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  19:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth noting that the first of the two CD liner-note sources (Vellard 1986) cited in support of Perotin's authorship describes the composition as being in two parts: "Benedicamus corresponds to the definition of the florid style, which was Leonin's, and Domino to the descant style, which was Perotin's". I am gratified to learn that my speculation of the origin of this analysis is correct. Please send my thanks to Nicolas Meeùs, Hucbald, for helping you to find this source. It is reassuring to know that some Wikipedia editors are in communication with such distinguished scholars.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ;–)) — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the ill template because to most people it just looks like a redlink and they don't bother to look further. At least by bluelinking one finds an article about the subject. In either case the creation of a subsequent English page needs a clean up. In this case it was simply easier to write a Musik-Konzepte article and change the link to a standard blue! --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is certainly the best alternative! However, as I pointed out in my edit summary, the comforting blue of a link using the other syntax can be quite misleading, when there is in fact fr:no such article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the reviewer's name (I tried) - but if you change last= in cite you have to change it in the referring sfn or it generates an error message --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I failed to notice there was an inline citation pointing to that review. In any event, I am of two minds on how to list authors identified only by initials. Should that have been last=A., first=G. A.?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The easiest solution is last=G.A.A.! Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Motet
Arnold Rosner: look, here is the reference BR --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference is of no use here on my Talk page. The problem was with the footnote masquerading as a source (it merely gave the title of the composition). However, the problem now is that the work appears to be an orchestral composition titled Isorhythmic Motet, rather than an actual motet. The article describes a motet as "a mainly vocal musical composition".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Servus! Ein Nachweis ist ein Nachweis ist ein Nachweis :-) Ich habe kein Problem damit, dass du es gelöscht hast. Sehe ein, dass es in diesem Zusammenhang etwas deplatziert ist. Ob die Komposition den Formalkriterien einer Iso-Motette entspricht, kann ich an dieser Stelle nicht sagen, da ich die Partitur nicht gesehen habe. Ich könnte mir im Lemma einen Hinweis (oder kleinen Absatz) auf die reine Verwendung auch als Instrumentalversion vorstellen. Übrigens sah ich, dass du dich um Karlheinz Stockhausen verdient gemacht hast. Das freut mich umso mehr, als ich mit ihm befreundet war (auf deutsch, da du ja gute Deutschkenntnisse hast). Liebe Grüße (und hoffentlich ist es bei Euch nicht so kalt wie man hier hört) --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Herzliche Grüße, Ἀστερίσκος! Hier an der amerikanischen Westküste sind die Temperaturen ähnlich wie in Bayern (oder Köln). In Chicago und Minneapolis ist das eine ganz andere Sache! Ich freue mich sehr, dich kennenzulernen und zu erfahren, dass du mit Stockhausen befreundet warst. Es gefällt mir sehr die Idee eines Hinweises auf rein instrumentale (isorhythmische) Motetten. Natürlich müssen wir dafür eine "zuverlässige Quelle" finden!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Herzlichen Dank für deine Antwort. Im de-Wiki habe ich zunächst einmal einen kurzen Hinweis eingefügt und versuche, weiter zu recherchieren. Weiter oben gesehen, dass du mit Benutzerin Gerda Arendt aus Idstein kommunizierst. Sie ist eine sehr engagierte gute Autorin! Bavaria hat sehr unterschiedliche Klimazonen. Im Bergland sind in jedem Winter Temperaturen bis -30°C durchaus möglich und 1-2 Meter Schnee, aber nicht nebeneinander ;-) bei uns brauchts dann ein allradgetriebenes Geländefahrzeug. --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Selbstverständlich! Auch wir haben unterschiedliche Klimazonen (wenn auch nicht so extrem wie in Bayern), und Allradfahrzeuge sind hier sehr beliebt bei Menschen, die in die Berge reisen. Die wichtigsten Städte befinden sich jedoch nicht auf den Bergspitzen, und das gilt für Seattle, Vancouver, München und Augsburg, sowie Chicago und Minneapolis! Ich sehe aus den Wetterberichten, dass die Temperaturen in München und Augsburg den heutigen Temperaturen in Seattle sehr ähnlich sind. Freundliche Grüße!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Galant
Greetings from a fellow editor. I'm impressed with how active you are on WP and would like to address a concern with you. It relates to my editing of the Galant article. Please bear with me if this looks long. It's important.

I started reading the article with the question, how Galant fits into the transition from the Baroque to the Classical era. I expected the answer to be top priority in the article but was surprised to find few clues to it. As I reread it, I saw that the article was essentially unintelligible. The causes were three.

When editors blithely tack their own bits on, they can overlook what others have written. Over time the first consequence is, their ideas don't flow in a logical progression but stay in an uncoordinated sort of hodge-podge. The result is incoherence.

The second is inconsistency: they contradict each other, often with unfounded assertions. In this article, for instance, we have Mattheson identifying and naming a stylistic innovation that would change the history of music in just the year following its inception (or even, some years before it, to take the article literally). We also have the unsourced claim that simplicity manifested as "a reduced harmonic vocabulary emphasizing tonic and dominant", and later we have a sourced one that simplification in harmonic rhythm made "nuances of secondary harmonic colorings more important".

Unreadability was compounded by a third problem: verbosity. The article even closed with spurious digressions into the Rococo.

I turned to bland but acceptable sources outside WP that happened to be at hand. In the light of these, rereading the WP article became surprisingly rewarding. Then I thought, why not share that.

First I began rearranging the material in it structurally, to help with the first issue. Now faced with the second as well, I spent two days intermittently clarifying and rewriting. From the outset I made a point of changing as little of the actual content as seemed necessary, but the third problem led me to do at least more rewording of it, especially for conciseness.

I don't know if you intended it or not, but you seem to have reverted me without actually reverting. I've been around too long to be precious about that. However, your only comment on my editing was "(WP:Manual of Style)". I'm afraid to have to tell you, you pushed a button here. Too many years of other editors evading accountability with WP acro-jargonisms smacking of weasel words! Couldn't you have at least said something concrete? In your shoes, rejecting such a large bit of work, I would have shown the courtesy to make an entry in the Talk, at least listing what I thought was wrong.

I've looked at WP:Manual of Style. Two things stand out: not to go against a style that is already established in an article and to try for plain English. I'd like to ask, do you have the opinion that the flaws I've outlined in the article aren't there, or do you think there is something about style that has been violated in the course of dealing with them?

If I've missed something here, I should say first that the questions in my mind about Galant when I first read this article were upon some 50 years of passionate study of Baroque and Renaissance keyboard performance practice along with successful performance, myself.

More to the point of writing skill, I've loved languages too since childhood and have a degree in Sanskrit as well as middling oral and written proficiency in another Buddhist language and in German. I also have degrees in education, speech therapy and linguistics.

Until now my years on WP have concerned Buddhist issues. Now I've made a contribution to a music article too, but the reception to it has been disappointing, not to say, disdainful. So you see, the reason for taking the trouble to write all this to you is to regrettably ask for some proof of good will.

Do you feel there is room for another music editor on WP? In other words, if I edit some other thing on music, will I be wasting my time?

We're all volunteers here. Best wishes, Jerome, and happy lunar new year. May each year be better than the last! Moonsell (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I could have been more specific and cited MOS:HEAD and WP:SHOUT. When I see section headers all in full caps, I assume the editor is inexperienced and needs to become familiar with the Manual of Style. You also mention going against a style that is already established. This is a very minor point in this particular case, but you introduced a new citation style (one that uses footnotes) in an article that uses parenthetical referencing instead. This could easily have been rectified, but when combined with such conspicuous heading format errors, I had to assume there were probably other style issues as well. I agree with your idea to divide the article into clearly labeled sections, and also agree that there is an "accretional editing" problem that needs attention. Let us try to address these issues within those style guidelines which are established and which, heaven only knows, are all too few on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

..... sofferte onde serene ...
Hi, Jerome. I'd like to ask you why you didn't find it reasonable to use ..... sofferte onde serene ... as the original title. I understand you are doing this to make a point, but neither I nor the Luigi Nono Foundation agree with it. Luigi Nono wrote it by hand, so I believe there are certain aspects (especially regarding capitalization and spacing) that have to be overridden. However, the dots are relevant for a number of reasons, not the least important of which is the fact that he used five at the beginning and just three at the end. That lack of symmetry is not contingent upon handwriting, as capitalization might be. I find warring useless, so I'd like to confer with you before making any changes, but I'd ask you to consider ..... sofferte onde serene ... as an alternative way of referring to the composition. Provided you need more sources using five leading dots, I will be happy to look for them, but I do not think they will make much of a difference. Ron Oliver (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidently, the Luigi Nono Foundation does find the number of leading dots significant, but why? I assume it is because of the manuscript cover page, but what was Nono's purpose? Does the Foundation know something we don't, or are they just being faithful to what they believe was the composer's wish, without having any idea why he did what he did? I can think of at least one alternative explanation: Nono tried to center the title on the page, but without first carefully measuring the position of each letter he got it a little too far to the right. The spaces on either side of the title were then filled up with enough dots (spaced dots, by the way) to reach the margin of the page at the left and right. It took five dots to do this on the left, and only three on the right. The actual number of dots, then, is not important, but the filled-out horizontal space is. The visual effect is probably intended to indicate an infinite continuum, in the middle of which float the three words. The total visual effect depends not only on the number of dots, but the forms of the letters and their internal spacing (it can be no accident that the central word, "onde", is letter-spaced, relative to the first and third words). These are all matters of graphic design, not linguistic signifiers. If the Nono Foundation or some scholar with special knowledge of this matter can come up with a more plausible explanation for the significance of the precise number of dots, then I'm willing to listen, but until this happens, I think my explanation is as good as you are going to find.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Having just revisited the facsimile, I see that I was wrong. The trailing dots do not reach the right margin. I also notice, however, that Nono used low-high quotation marks around the title, as if it were a snippet from a literary quotation. Wouldn't this be just as significant as the number of dots?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9
To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Perotin: Reference style ?
Actually I'm not sure what you are getting at here, except that you seem to feel strongly about it and have made two recent attempts to change it. Actually I have never seen anyone try to do that before - and I have been here a long time. What does "established style" mean in this context? As far as I can see all the citations were placed by me - there was not much there at all when I first looked at this on January 14 (8 in line citations), so I don't think you can mean "established" for this particular page? I'm not aware that Chicago style has become mandated in WP MOS? I use Harvard style consistently in my pages, so I'm a bit puzzled. Am I missing something? --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  21:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In this context, "established style" means the consistent style that has been used since 19 March 2011, starting with this edit. Chicago Manual style is certainly not mandated for Wikipedia, but it was the one I chose at that time when there were conflicting ref formats that had been in place for some time. "Harvard style" is not actually a precisely defined thing, but rather refers to author-date citations generally and, more narrowly, to parenthetical referencing, which this article does not use. Instead, it is using footnotes of the short-entry variety (SFNs), linked to the list of sources at the end. All I am trying to do is to make the various footnotes consistent among themselves, and the default method on Wikipedia is to use the first-established style. In this case, you were manually putting into the "loc" field of the sfn template the abbreviation "p." followed by a nonbreaking space. This is unnecessary, since there is an alternative parameter "|p=" or "|pp=", which automatically does the same job. At first I noticed only the many footnotes that included the abbreviation for "page", and began fixing this parameter. In the process, I discovered that the "|loc=" parameter had in fact been there first, with the consequent omission (as Chicago Manual recommends) of the abbreviations for "page(s)". This happens to be my default preference, so I was not surprised to discover that I was the editor who first made this style consistent, some eight years ago now. I am not especially devoted to the abbreviation-free format, though I can see one advantage in this particular case: Several of the citations are to multi-volume publications where the volumes are paginated separately (that is, each volume starts over again at page 1). These citations, at least, must use the "|loc=" parameter, with some differentiation made between volume and page numbers (for example, "vol. 3, pp. 7–10", or "v. 3, pp. 7–10"). I don't believe the template has an automatic method of dealing with this. The abbreviation-free syntax simply puts a colon between the volume and page numbers ("3:7–10"). If you have strong feelings about having the page and volume abbreviations, then by all means let us discuss what might be the best way of presenting this information.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. That is a long history with this page. I used the term Harvard, because that is term used in the sfn template documentation, referring to the use of the anchor, ref=harv. I will try and stick with your style for this page. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  23:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. As I said, "Harvard referencing" refers broadly to author-date citations, and that is what the ref=harv anchor is for. Reference styles tend to "drift" as new editors come to work on established articles, and there are some articles on my watchlist that I consider hopelessly muddled up in this respect. Or perhaps I should say I despair of ever being able to straighten them out myself, and hope some other editor with a lot of time available will do the work and save me the trouble. You have been doing fantastic work on the Perotin article, and I would not want this fussiness about reference formats to discourage you in any way. If I notice any inconsistencies, I will try to fix them unobtrusively. I do have one small quibble that I would like your views about: I find the separation in the bibliography (I emphatically approve of that word, by the way, instead of "References" or "Sources") into "books", "chapters", "dictionaries and encyclopedias", "articles", and so on confusing, especially since the "websites" category includes items actually from encyclopedias and journal articles which just happen to be available online. The SFN template conveniently links to the correct item, no matter where it is located, of course, but when scanning the bibliography it seems awkward to have items by, e.g., Roesner in three different places. Would you consider re-sorting the bibliography into a single, alphabetical list by author?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion. When I sit down to work on an existing article, the first thing I do is tackle the citations and get them all into a consistent format. As bibliographies grow, their maintenance becomes much easier once you start to split off categories. Also it becomes much clearer to the reader what sort of source you are dealing with. But, as you point out, the situation is becoming increasingly muddied with many encyclopedias and dictionaries online, most of Oxford Reference is online as well as Cambridge Core so categorisation is no longer simple. I have not done so yet, but on many longer articles I have left a comment stressing the importance of keeping the bibliography curated (some quibble with the word). I will keep your above comments in mind next time I revise it, but it does not seem to bother reviewers, having just had another major article promoted this weekend. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition to article on Shruti (music)
I admit the article is misleading, but please read some of the other sentences in the article. In modern usage, "shruti" does not refer to an interval but rather a microtone. e.g.

Of the twenty two shruti, veena scholars identified the 4th shruti to be sa [the first note in solfege]

2620:0:E00:400F:0:0:0:158 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The usage is sloppy, it is true. The "fourth shruti" clearly refers to a succession of intervals ending on a particular tone. But if this careless usage is in fact common, then it needs to be explained in the context of your addition that this does not refer to the proper definition of the term, since it otherwise makes utter nonsense of the claim. Oh, yes: a reliable source is needed, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Boulez
Good afternoon. I feel you are entitled to an explanation of why I reverted your reversion chez Boulez just now. Dmass is working on getting the article up to a state good enough to go to FAC, and at my suggestion he is working on giving the English translations of the many titles as footnotes, to avoid having a sea of parenthetical English titles in the main text. My co-nominee and I did the same – for the same reason – with the recent FA on Rossini. The MoS's recommendation, having the translations in brackets, is fine when there are comparatively few titles to be translated, but when there are so many it seems kinder to the reader to use footnotes. But, as I hope I need hardly say, I'm sure any comments on this, or indeed any other points about the article, would be gladly received at the current peer review. Best wishes,  Tim riley  talk   19:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I happened by the article and noted the inconsistency, which of course can be fixed the other way if that is your and Dmass's preference. Personally, I loathe footnotes (especially of this kind, which always make me wonder what is in it and, when I find out, I wish I had not bothered leaving the text to find out), but this is not an article I am heavily involved with, and you obviously have got a consistent style in mind.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
For Georg Katzer, I didn't recognize a referencing style, was blind for that. Also sorry that I didn't notice sooner that you created the article. I guess I would have left it as it was, instead of working for hours and now feeling miserable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You should not feel miserable for making such considerable improvements to the article! The referencing style is a small thing, but I am noticing some discrepancies, and now one dead link (already!).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So far I heard ugly and distracting as the only comments for what I thought were improvements. This sounds better, so back to just feeling exhausted. - Last time I looked, there was a harv error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

New day. Georg Katzer is on the Main page now, after too many others who died this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What can we do? Many obituaries say Antigone oder die Stadt premiered in 1989, but no, certainly 1991, just the day in November is unclear. It seems to have been published in 1989, partly? Is it a 1989 opera then, or 1991? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an enduring problem on Wikipedia, and perhaps in the operatic world generally. I believe that the Opera Project holds to the convention that an opera does not exist until it has been staged, even if its composition was completed much earlier. On the other hand, I observe in the various lists of "[year] in music" that editors have listed operas by year of composition, without necessarily noting the fact. Once upon a time, there was seldom a significant lag between these dates, though there is at least one truly hilarious exception in the case of Haydn's Orfeo et Euridice. But over the last century these discrepancies have become more the rule than the exception. Tracking down the facts on Katzer should not be impossible, but it may take a little time. I shall see what I can find out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. - Please, if you have to change refs while the article is on the Main page and thousands looking: can you make sure that your changes don't leave fat error messages? At present "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGroetz2019." - We should show him at his best today, and probably for a few days to come. I will try not to disturb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone restored the citation anchor, and I didn't notice it. For some reason, my browser did not display the error message. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Somewhere further up I copied what you need to do to see the messages. Need fresh air. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Now that you mention it, I do recall this. Thanks for reminding me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After a stroll: the message is still there. May I remind you that the lead should have the information that is lost with the infobox? (... and that it is possibly more important than cite format?) - The response to citing the 2010 (non-binding) guideline to ask for permission before making an edit is on my user page, bottom: ;) - Long live his memory. He who said so is the first in my sad list of deaths. He died two weeks after he said so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you men the error message about CITEREFGroetz2019? How very odd, because I removed that anchor as soon as you called my attention to it. I will look again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The message is gone, thank you. - I never provide more than one language in ill-links, because one linked article will have the others, but as you wish. I just asked a friend to create the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I discovered the reason for that error message: I had left open some double-braces on a template. I fixed that typo, and the error went away. I see what you mean about using only a single language in the link, but the fact that the ILL template is now made to allow multiple language links does invite use of that option. In this case, it is not very important, but sometimes there are two or more equally important articles in languages with about the same level of familiarity, and a reader may be discouraged from looking if the only language listed doesn't happen to be one he or she can read. I hope the lead is now more to your liking. In the process of expanding it, I realized that the infobox did not adequately distinguish between the two Academies of the Arts, and their merging after the reunification. Hence the separate listings in the revised lead.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You did well on the lead. Complicated things are always better in prose, but mentioning of such an Academy provides some background at a glance. - I came to ask how this would be best in English (translator helpless, translating "anstoßen" as "toast"), from the opera: "Wir stießen an die Türen der Mächtigen an; ungehört blieb die herzkränkende Qual, unseres Volkes Jammergeschick!" - "herzkränkend" and "Jammergeschick" terms that English possibly has no way to express. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One more: do you have an idea when about his photo was taken? - Upload date 2006 probably says nothing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Opera librettos tend to use poetic language, and that always creates difficulties for translation. I would assume in that context that "anstoßen" might mean something like "hammered" or "pounded", though "kicked" would be more literal. I'm not sure that the second half of the sentence fits comfortably with that idea, though. "Herzkränkend" of course translates literally as "heart-sickening", but that is not idiomatic in English. "Heart-rending" or "heart-wrenching" would be better. "Jammergeschick" really does elude translation, I think. "Miserable fate" or "piteous destiny" sound artificial, like phrases from an 18th-century play. Just plain "misery" would probably cover it, but it lacks drama.
 * I could not hazard a guess about the date of the photo, since I never met the man, nor have I ever seen a published photo of him with a reliable date attached to it. Sorry. Is it possible that the person who uploaded it, Sebastian Katzer, has an account on Wikipedia? (I expect you already thought of that.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

10 May
Another new day, and impressive interest in Katzer. Thank you for the translation help! I'll take "pounded", and "heart-wrenching", and like "fate". - I guess Sebastian Katzer is a relative, such as the son of my friend, who opened an account after his father's death but stopped responding after a while. - I had an idea overnight, about the parentheses in your preferred referencing style. I overlooked them because they don't look like references (and give undue weight to their authors' names, no?). Could you make them small font, and put them up (like the common references) or down (like the ill-link language codes)? - I found an excellent source (JSTOR), giving the date of the premiere as 19 November, postponed because Kowalski was ill on the planned day, so nobody from the international critics' crowd there anymore. - Another person died, that will come first. I don't know anything about the man but this stub is a disgrace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I started work on the stub. Someone I know remembers having played with him as a child, - chilling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You are welcome for the help. Parenthetical references do look like references, but only if you are accustomed to them. One thing I forgot to do in the Katzer article was to make a link from the inline citation to the reference list. That makes the parenthetical reference light up in blue, which I find a little distracting but makes the citation more obvious. Your idea for formatting is novel, but not one I have ever seen used. The whole idea of the Harvard format is that it is read just like any other parenthetical insertion: the eye skips over it at first, because that convention of punctuation means it is an "aside", which can be returned to once the sentence as a whole has been taken in. The trouble with a nonstandard format is that it draws undue attention to itself. I also disagree that they give undue weight to the author's name. I often see on Wikipedia phrases like "according to John Jones ...", followed by some claim and a footnote number, which I take to mean that knowing the author's name is important enough to put it in the main text where no one can overlook it. Using parenthetical referencing eliminates the footnote, rendering the passage as "according to John Jones (1953, p. 22) ...". This retains the emphasis on whose opinion we are hearing, while at the same time alerting us to the fact that it was made more than half a century ago—something that would be obscure if buried in a footnote. I suppose it depends a bit on how much you value knowing what the sources are. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to make these as prominent as possible, because of the premium placed on verifiability.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Taken, thank you for explaining. I wonder a bit how many readers will understand them, but haven't heard complaints. I want to add the day of the premiere to the opera, then rehearsal. Singing in choir is so much easier communication and community than words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The date is now in place, and we can be proud that it seems to be about the only place where that is so ;) - Rehearsal was good. My friend wrote Deutscher Musikrat, - please check it out, - like me, he's no native speaker of English. I removed the article (the), because "Deutscher Musikrat" is short for "Der deutsche Musikrat", comparable to "The New York Times", with the article in the name. Please revert if you don't agree. - Now, you could expand, that for the Musikrat the same thing applies: he was first in the GDR organisation, later in the united German one. (I'd do it in the body, not in the lead, for both, but you decide.) - I am sorry that your first edit summary is now a topic on the talk, which I took care to avoid. I felt a temptation to revert that, but I should not touch posts of others. "Letting go" is a great art, or is it artistry? Eine große Kunst ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

13 May
Today on the Main page: still Katzer and another one from "my" Recent deaths, Wolfgang Meyer. I accepted by the user who created the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Waiting to be shown: Jens Beutel. New today: Anatol Herzfeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Closing this: Katzer is off the Main page, I like the interest. - The next one who died is Paul-Werner Scheele. He had no article yesterday, I was ready to create one, but was too slow. What do you think about this? I will expand eventually. I'd like a comment about the compromise also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The article on Scheele is very basic, but I have no idea what sources may be available. It certainly could use some expanding but German clerics and theologians do not fall within my area of knowledge or interest.
 * I don't understand the nature of the "compromise" on the infobox for Wolfgang Meyer, since I have not been able to discover any discussion about it. I do see that the latest version ("Infobox musician", replacing "Infobox person") has less information in it—in fact, almost nothing beyond what is already in the first two sentences of the article. And what is "Organization" supposed to mean?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts. Wolfgang Meyer was created by Nikkimaria who was on the "other side" in WP:ARBINFOBOX. Previously, she would have reverted the infobox, but over the years she has turned to just shortening, and sometimes changing the type of infobox . I use infobox person for all people, but usually don't object when something more specific is chosen, like for the bishop. I don't like the coloured bars of "musician" but still won't object. Nikkimaria is also a fervent defender of CITEVAR ;) when she created the article, and she created many Bach cantata articles. - In short, we don't waste time discussing any more. - "Organiztions" is a very general parameter for organisations where a subject is involved, such an opera company s/he directs or a university where s/he teaches. It's the first arameter I'd be willing to sacrifice, DOB (date of birth), POB, DOD and POD being the last. Compare Beethoven. Placing a person somewhere in time and location seems essential to me, compared to just a pretty image. - The bishop: It's basic but has a good infobox, and the whole thing not by me, - that made me smile. - FYI: I was asked about infoboxes, and reply step by step, here. I also mentioned Katzer a few times on user talk pages, which has been called "soft canvassing", sigh. Voceditenore, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. Looking at Beethoven's infobox I notice an odd thing: "Birth" has the place, but no date (despite the article's careful disclaimer but concession that most scholars agree it must have been on 16 December), whereas "Baptism" has the date but no place. "Death" on the other hand has both date and place. Don't you find this untidy, at least? As you know, I oppose infoboxes for composers, but support them for musical compositions, where I feel that the more data can be packed into them, the better, even if it makes the infobox larger than the rest of the article. I therefore find the trimming of BWV 28 regrettable. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" (Walt Whitman, Song of Myself, 51).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have loved the Whitman multitudes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just don't know if your contradictions in preference need to go to a community project where a multitude of readers of different abilities and reading skills expect an overview of key facts in the upper right corner, and get it for a multitude of articles, just not in a few written and defended by elite editors writing for elite readers.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have been over this ground so many times it should not be necessary to traverse it once again. The difference is between people with complex lives and careers, and works of art with very specific features. —Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ... but even the most complex lives have a beginning and an end which defines the person in history. A compromise might be to give that to Katzer, no? We have been over this many times, and last time you said something that made me hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see what accessibility advantage an infobox has where dates of birth and death are concerned. These are usually the very first data given in any biographical article. Furthermore, the Beethoven example illustrates the problems that start cropping up as soon as you go as far as adding further data, with complications that require prose text to understand.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

16 May
I came to say that. Perhaps that answers your questions? We went over it before, the difference of a date in plain characters vs. a date which has granular information about day/month/year, to calculate with, in whatever language, - no need to repeat. See Boulez, and you responded to my explanation and saying how the Italian Wikipedia handles it. "That is a very interesting template." which made me hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I read in an edit notice: "I contribute here for happiness; as an enchantment against sorrow." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

19 August
Antigone oder die Stadt was on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

elektronische Zuspielungen
Sorry, you probably explained what that is in English already, but my memory ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't recall that you have asked about this before. The English would literally be "Electronic playbacks", but the context might suggest something slightly different. I suppose that, today, this might refer to playing a recorded MP3 file, for example. A few decades ago, "tape playback" would have been almost the only possibility.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I asked, but someone else, - anyway, the context is "Die Anrede dieser Briefe - "Caro giudice" (dt.: lieber Richter) - hat Eingang in die Bandzuspielung gefunden, die Rolf Riehm hier neben und gegen das Orchester stellt." - not "play back" but rather "play in addition" or "play in opposition". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't read it that way, though you may be right. I would have translated this as "The salutation of these letters – "Caro giudice" (Dear Judge) – originates in the tape playback that Rolf Riehm has placed alongside and in opposition to the orchestra." So it still refers to a tape recording being played.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I may be confusedby the German use of "playback" which is specifically for singers who record sound and audio separately, for less awkward facial expression than in actual singing, among other reasons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you have got me confused :-) Too many different words meaning approximately (but not exactly) the same thing, and words borrowed from another language but with a slightly altered sense. It often makes translation a more difficult task than it should be!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Horn comma
Ah yes, sorry, thanks! 82.39.96.55 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No big deal. Your edit was absolutely the right thing to do. I suspect the instruments were originally ordered alphabetically, when the "tenor horn" article was titled "alto horn", and before "alphorn" was added at the end.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeedy, and thanks. I did think that but decided to refrain from writing too much about it in the edit summary! :) Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS – Homer nods – I had to go and look that up: due to educational deficiencies in my, ah, deficient education, I had somehow never come across the saying. What a very useful one, thank you! Best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Nono
I won't argue about lack of infobox, but Luigi Nono is another article with these harv error messages. As I am going to mention him in a DYK, can you please fix that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will take a look.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I manage to get them all? (I can't remember how to turn on the harv error messages.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3 are left under sources: "Casa_Ricordi_(Online)n.d.", "Nattiez,_Bent,_Dalmonte,_and_Baroni2001–2005" and "Pestalozzi1992". Do you think you could give an infobox to Prometeo? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The error script is here User:Gerda Arendt/common.js. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have found the reasons for those errors, and corrected them. I'm afraid I don't understand how to use "import script". My initial efforts took me to a "help" page that assumes everyone already knows how to do this, and would only be looking for help about exceptions and elaborations. I think an infobox for Prometeo would be a good idea, but which one to use, since the article states at the outset that "opera" in connection with that composition has the ordinary connotation of the Italian word for "work", and does not mean "opera" in the sense used in English. I suppose the "musical composition" infobox might be appropriate, but there will certainly be misunderstandings.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also go for musical composition, and basic parameters are fine, - time and place. Footnotes for what could be unclear. When given at La Scala, was that scenic? Wagner also insisted that some of his stage works were no operas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the script, you could copy from mine to User:Jerome Kohl/common.js, or perhaps ask Ucucha. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that the La Scala production of Prometeo was scenic, though I was not there and, as the article says, Nono forbade photography. If you are familiar with the work, you will know that the "set" for most if not all productions to date involves the interior of a large ship's hull, with spaces for both the audience and the performers. The spatialization of the sound varies from one set design to another, and is left up to the sound designer. Even if regarded as an "opera" in the English sense, it is certainly not conventional. Naturally, Wagner is not the only composer in history to deny that his works should not be called "operas". The 20th century is filled with examples of "anti-operas", and there is at least one "anti-anti-opera". In any case, let us settle for the "musical composition" infobox. I suppose we must use a photograph of the composer, since he specifically forbade photos of the work itself.
 * Thank you for the explanation of the script. I was beginning to suspect that what I needed to do was create a "common.js" subpage and then copy the script link there. It seems strightforward enough.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Nono again: I found this about a Prometeo recording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know this recording. It is listed in the Wikipedia article Prometeo, as well. Do you mean to call attention to the fact that the booklet is available online? That I did not know, thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The recording is in the article, but - on a brief read - the booklet seems to offer performance history and evalutaion. I also added the entry of the Fondazione Nono to the article. Henze and Iván Erőd on the Main page today, Erőd sadly because of his death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that must have been what you meant. Yes, that booklet contains a lot of useful information, and it is good to know it is available online. I haven't gotten to the main page yet, but thanks for mentioning Henze and Erőd.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Today on the Main page: Hans Zender and five Russians --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see Zender, but who are the Russians?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, they will come in a few days, all buried on the same cemetery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Il re cervo
Do you know about the composition and performance history of first König Hirsch, later Il re cervo? I read that it was revised and that premiered in Kassel, and then the "complete work" premiered in Stuttgart. Confused. Is there a difference between the Kassel and Stuttgart versions? - I heard the former on radio, and saw the latter, but really couldn't tell, this much later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article by Andrew Clements in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera disentangles this business. The original version had more than five hours of music, and was severely cut by Scherchen for the Berlin premiere. Henze substantially rewrote the opera as Il re cervo, cutting it to about half its original length. This was the version premiered in Kassel. The Stuttgart performance in 1985 used the original score of König Hirsch, uncut. Hence the "first complete performance of the original version", rather than a "completed version".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense, thank you. Should we use a link (redirect) such as Städtische Oper Berlin? - We shouldn't link Berlin at all ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Yes, I agree that the SO should be linked, and of course Berlin is too well-known a place to merit a link.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Next wish: a lead that reflects the history better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Capitals in French titles
Good evening, Jerome (if I may). I wonder if you have a view on the question I have raised at Talk:Hector_Berlioz about capitalising titles? I am struggling a bit and would be grateful for input from music experts.  Tim riley  talk   17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

French trill sign
Hello and thanks for your edit! Do you think we should include this sign in the list? I was looking at some baroque French scores and with a quick search I could find nowhere an explanation thereof. I think it would be very useful to include it. Dimboukas (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it in the list already? It certainly should be! As far as I am aware, the plus sign has been displaced in French scores since early in the 19th century by the Italian trill sign, but it still occurs in modern editions of French Baroque music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's missing! Dimboukas (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach
This has had a lot of additions in the last year, including some odd and over-ripe language. Someone is threatening to unleash the Guild of Copy-editors on it, which is not likely to help. Any chance of you or a stalker giving it a look-over? Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I consulted the talk page and understand the problem. I see that Tony1 has agreed to do some work on it, and am happy to learn of this. I looked specifically at that strange remark about "putting his foot down" and cannot imagine what was intended. The suggestion "putting his stamp on" doesn't seem to fit with what follows. I shall wait for a bit to see what Tony1 comes up with, before wading in myself. Thanks for calling my attention to this issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic
Dear Jerome, you probably saw the discussion opened by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Music_theory. I am afraid that my own reaction may not be the most appropriate: I tend to overreact to such matters. Your opinion will be welcome. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hucbald, for directing my attention to this. I have indeed been following the discussion. I don't know why you think you may have overreacted, but I will take this into account when (and if) I join the discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mass (Stravinsky), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ebony Concerto ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mass_%28Stravinsky%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mass_%28Stravinsky%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jean Sibelius
Just asked in the talk, there, if "oeuvre" was a correct word. Sorry, I withdraw the question, having now bothered to research it! MikeYates (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That has got to be the easiest question I have ever been asked to field. I wish everybody could find the answer before I could even read the question! Cheers!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Expo '70 German Pavilion
When editing Collegium Vocale Köln, I was searching for better pictures of the German pavilion at Expo '70 and I found this (1) which suggested to me that the sphere on the right of File:Osaka Expo'70 Korean Pavilion.jpg was the hall in question. I found since this (2), which is more in line with your description, but that doesn't look like a performance space. Unfortunately, both these pictures are in black-and-white, so they don't show the characteristic blue colour of the pavilion as shown here. Where there really two spherical structures, or were the Stockhausen performances in that sunken space shown in picture 2, and the description of picture 1 is wrong? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There were two structures. The spherical auditorium of the German Pavilion was, as you say, blue. It was smaller than the white Korean dome, but very near to it. The sunken portion shown in your second example was the entrance to the pavilion, which had underground galleries of exhibitions of various sorts, eventually leading to the escalators rising up inside the spherical auditorium. This image is an architectural cross-section of the auditorium, showing the escalator ascending from below. The architect Fritz Bornemann's original concept for the pavilion was to have a garden on the surface, with all of the exhibition halls hidden from view. The addition of an auditorium required a modification of this plan. I have not been successful in finding a copyright-free image of the actual auditorium to use for this and several related articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

List of oratorios
I'm pretty sure you know best. My thinking was just that if you went straight to the 21st century section as I did, you would think there was no link to those 2 composers. you would not necessarily expect them to have appeared in an earlier section. Aineireland (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The same situation exists for Haydn in the 18th/19th-century divisions, and for Elgar and Perosi in the 19th/20th-century divisions. I can certainly understand your point of view, but for consistency I thought we should follow precedent.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2019
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

User:GregU/dashes.js
I see that you are using User:GregU/dashes.js. Unfortunately it makes the time zone links in infobox settlement incorrect, see here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Aha. I had no idea, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I presume it is OK to fix the misused hyphens in date ranges and similar constructions, so long as I leave the infobox alone?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know yes. It's an odd thing but "-5" is ok just the "−05" which causes the problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How very odd! There is nothing on earth as inexplicable as nature and template syntax.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * you don't need to be fixing dashes inside of cites, the output is m-dash correct either way Dave Rave (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. The only ones I have seen display spaced hyphens, but if an unspaced em-dash is displayed in your browser, I apologise for the duplication.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Diphthongs
Thank you, Jerome, for rescuing me from error chez Berlioz. I thought – well I was jolly well convinced – that the MoS barred printed diphthongs, and I'm much pleased to find I was wrong. Bless you, sir!  Tim riley  talk   18:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Il n'y a pas de quoi! Technically, French œ is not a diphthong, but a ligature representing a single vowel. Still, I had to go look up the rule, since not every feature of French orthography is accepted by the MoS.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am (not for the first time) in your debt. Thank you, Jerome.  Tim riley  talk   19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Es ist genug
What can we do about "Es ist genug"? Bach's setting? this? this? - Another composer was mentioned on the Main page today, with Behold the Sun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there are three consecutive rising whole tones at the beginning of "Es ist genug", but this "half of a whole-tone scale" does not make the rest of that scale present. The next rising interval is a semitone, and the melody is clearly in the Lydian mode, complete with the alternative use of the perfect-fourth scale degree characteristic of the Lydian. I am still looking for a reliable source that makes this clear. The article on "Tritone" in the old edition of the New Grove (1980) apparently did so, but this was changed in the second (2001) edition.
 * I presume the composer to which you refer is Alexander Goehr, though I do not see that mention on the main page—at least, not yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Lydian" is a good way, - I wasn't aware. - DYK is only for 12 hours at present, that's why I said "was mentioned". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Only 12 hours? Doesn't that discriminate against roughly half of the globe?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have the feeling that European topics - such as this one - are mostly in the first half, with Europe sleeping 8 of the 12 hours. However, when I started, it was 6 hours. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. At least that is an improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Beethoven
Re your message in regard to the C sharp minor quartet - if I leave a comment on a talk page, being toldthat that it where I should have left it is a bit redundant. Unless one of us misunderstands the other. Or both of us. By all means take it down if it makes you happy.Delahays (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to this edit, where you left a comment not on the talk page, but in the middle of the article itself. Or am I wrong?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Klavierstücke (Stockhausen), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Harvey ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Klavierst%C3%BCcke_%28Stockhausen%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Klavierst%C3%BCcke_%28Stockhausen%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

International Confederation of Electroacoustic Music
I would appreciate it, if you wouldn't mind, if you could look over International Confederation of Electroacoustic Music. My primary concern is that I appear to have smashed the ICEM and the IBEM together. If so, I would like to seperate them. If you could help with this, or point me to sources to base my work upon, then I would be grateful. Hyacinth (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At first glance, it appears that your conflation of the two organisations is perfectly correct. Perhaps further investigation is needed. I will see what I can discover. Thanks for calling my attention to this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * Jerome Kohl is a Veteran Grandmaster Editor with almost 13 years of activity, close to 100K edits and has created 374 articles. But, let's face it, there are many editors with years of statistics and accomplishments. Not many have been able to keep a congenial conversant presence like Jerome has. Reading his talk page one finds an editor that:

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
 * --does his best to figure out graceful solutions to problems that are presented to him,
 * --takes his time to give positive feedback in a congenial delightful way,
 * --considers his best course of action and response,
 * --is always willing to help and "look into things" when requested and receives everyone with the utmost kindness,
 * --(almost) always use the edit summary,
 * --provides "valuable assistance" upon request,
 * --is open-minded and non-confrontational, a pleasant exchange leading to problem resolution,
 * --is a teacher that "provides expertise" and interesting discussions. The editors with whom he has collaborated know him to be a valuable asset to the encyclopedia.

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank you as well. Knowledge and dedication, long and hard work, and, most importantly, kindness. No personal attacks, no complaints about work or inconvenience after having chosen to volunteer, no assumptions of ignorance or declarations of superiority. No empty criticisms, no unsupported assertions, and no claims to perfect knowledge. You convince rather than insist. Hyacinth (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Woohoo, fully deserved for this extraordinarily competent and collegial (even gentle when reverting my mess ups) editor. Don't change anything, Jerome Kohl! ---Sluzzelin talk  22:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate this award, and the personal messages from my fellow editors. Thank you all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

100,000th edit!

 * I see you've already added the userbox to your page but I wanted to leave this large bit of bling as well. Here is to the next 100K! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! As you can see from my user page, I love bling. As for the next 100K edits, I will satisfy myself with looking forward to the next ten edits for now. The rest can follow in their own good time!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Byrds 5/4
Ouch! And thanks. Sorry for the biblio sloppiness (e.g., misalphabetization!!). FWIW, my hard copy is Bloomsbury Academics/Publishing, who is apparently doing the reprints as of 2017 or so.

I really wish I could sneak in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBQcPlXcROU or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgHj8mFNU3k, which are even earlier...but alas, no references yet... Finney1234 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I wish more people putting stuff on that article would bother to supply a reliable source at all! I don't mind fixing alphabetization problems, or even looking up bibliographical details. Even if Bloomsbury is now issuing reprints, the copyright page should still state that Continuum holds the 2007 copyright. In bibliographies, the copyright holder is normally cited, not a reprint publisher. As you can see from the article content, quintuple meter is not all that unusual, except in modern popular music. This is why an editor split off "Quintuple meter" and "Septuple meter" from the "List of musical works in unusual time signatures" several years ago. Those sections had gotten so large that it was hard to keep a straight face while scrolling through all the examples.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll have to look for a reference (other than my great, very clever, among the greatest, brain and ears :-) ) for the Grateful Dead's "Stronger than Dirt" in 7....
 * FWIW (and this is just informational, I have no concerns about your changes), it looks like Bloomsbury "took over" Continuum in 2012, so it could well be that "Bloomsbury" is the current owner of the copyright (although they weren't in 2007). Continuum_International_Publishing_Group. Finney1234 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Grateful Dead are comparatively well documented, so it should not be impossible to find that source. Good luck with your search. There have been a lot of publisher takeovers lately, but the rule for bibliographies is that we stick with the one who owned the copyright at the time of publication. Even then it can get tricky. I published a book in 2017 that had originally been assigned an ISBN belonging to Ashgate, but by the time it came out, Taylor and Francis had acquired Ashgate and assigned their catalogue to Routledge, so my book is copyrighted by Routledge but has an Ashgate ISBN.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're a famous author! "Interesting" about the publisher complexities. The only Stockhausen LP I ever owned was "Stimmung", which I liked. It was also interesting because it was a single LP with about 70 minutes on it: 35 minutes per side (I guess it didn't have to be loud). But I don't have a working turntable... Finney1234 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be nice to be a rich and famous author! I remember that LP of Stimmung vividly. When I first bought it, I didn't have a working turntable, either, so I took the disc to my university library to hear it for the first time. I was shocked when the first side abruptly stopped after only, what? Fifteen minutes? I thought that the student operator had cut me off prematurely but, when I ran angrily up to the desk, I could see my record had in fact run to the end. I asked to have it turned over, and went back to the listening booth. After a brief period of re-orientation, the second side seemed even shorter than the first. In a rather disorientated state of mind, I collected my record and set off for home. It was well after dark, and there was a lot of scud blowing through the sky, under a bright moon. In those days, there were a lot of semi-wild dogs roaming the campus, and their howling in the moonlight created an eerie atmosphere. Ever since then, listening to that piece usually sets me into a "trance" mode, and it seldom seems to last as long as the actual elapsed time. Fortunately, the CD re-issue of the original recording doesn't have that infuriating break in the middle, and neither do the many subsequent recordings.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ashgate! – gosh, that's a blast from the past. I typeset a few books for Avebury, later Ashgate, in the 1990s. Sadly no music books, as that was not my route into it, but I typeset for some fascinating authors and the Avebury>Ashgate editor for whom I worked was an absolute joy. You have really triggered a surge of reminiscence/nostalgia here! Thanks DBaK (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ashgate! – gosh, that's a blast from the past. I typeset a few books for Avebury, later Ashgate, in the 1990s. Sadly no music books, as that was not my route into it, but I typeset for some fascinating authors and the Avebury>Ashgate editor for whom I worked was an absolute joy. You have really triggered a surge of reminiscence/nostalgia here! Thanks DBaK (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Jerome_Kohl: If you want to be rich as well as famous, possibly you should consider writing about Madonna or Jay-Z rather than Stockhausen =)
 * Finney1234 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right. Religion and ornithology have more public appeal than geography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wish
Hello. Help copy edit and proofreading the article Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you very much. 123.31.43.63 (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit made by a sockpuppet of User:Fdery- gadfium 08:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Fipple flutes
Hi Jerome. I notice that has created a new page for fipple flutes and changed the linkage on Recorder (musical instrument)‎ to point there. There doesn't appear to be anything on the stub which was not already on fipple. I'm tempted to suggest a merge (though frankly it would be more of a delete), if you have a few moments could you please have a look and see what you think. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article "Fipple" is not restricted to the fipple alone, but is actually about fipple flutes. This new article appears to be nothing more than an excerpt from the older one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fipple flutes are a class of instruments that is included in Hornbostel–Sachs and that already has a related category (Category:Fipple flutes), while fipple is a component of a musical instrument. Fipple obviously is tipical of fipple flutes, but the two are different concepts.
 * I think Wikipedia needs both the articles: "Fipple flutes" must contain the characteristics of the instruments and further subdivisions of the class, while "Fipple" must contain the functioning of it. --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would say the current situation has got it exactly backwards.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Bass brass is not brass bass is not ...
Thank you so much for catching this. I fear that my head would have exploded with sheer wrath if I had seen it first. And I promised my Mum that I would be nice to people ... DBaK (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Of course, the question remains, what does constitute the brass section of a brass band?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone who is already in the pub while the percussion section are still packing up? DBaK (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Septuple Time article
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 18:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * The circumstances of that revert are covered by WP:BRD. A bold edit was made, I reverted it with a request for discussion, no discussion ensued, but instead the other editor simply re-instated the original bold change. It is clearly not I who am engaging in an edit war.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, you were edit-warring as was . "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense is literally spelled out for folks who make comments like that in the first paragraph of Edit warring. Beyond that, there is only one "R" in WP:BRD, yet you invoke it above after multiple reverts:   and waited for your opponent in the WP:EW to open the discussion which s/he eventually did.   Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources
Really? You know how to add a ref and why one is required for adding WP:DOB info to WP:BLP articles  Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DOB, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." That would seem to cover even the subject's website but, since there are many other reliable published sources, I have added a few of them, as you insist. On the other hand, WP:DOB also says, "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." I am not aware that Mr. Welcher has complained. If he has, it is not on the Talk page of his article. Perhaps he is only "borderline notable", but I should not have thought so, given the biographical entries for him in The New Grove and Bakers. I don't see the passage stating that references are required for BLP articles, which might be why this practice is not common (for example, there are none in the biographical articles on, for example, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, or Boris Johnson). Could you point this out to me, please?
 * From the third paragraph of Biographies_of_living_persons:


 * With you having over 100k edits, it's downright scary to need to be explaining such basic editing principles to you.
 * And you're now arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF? Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, could you point out to me, please, the passage in WP:DOB (or its larger context of WP:BLP) that specifies that citations verifying "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" must be provided, when the subject of an article has not complained "about our inclusion of their date of birth"? We are not talking about publishing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, or other sensitive personal data here, and I am having a really, really hard time finding other BLPs that include such citations. Could you at least point me to some examples of BLP articles that include such citations?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not relevant. See one of the many discussions like Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_43 Toddst1 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Still ... ???—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Roger Redgate. ''That source does not support his WP:DOB. You really need to take publishing unsupported personal information about living people much more seriously.'' Toddst1 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hang on there! Christopher Fox's New Grove biographical article on Roger Redgate (the source I inserted) begins "(b Bolton, June 3, 1958). English composer ...". In what way does this not support his date of birth?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake - apparently I had a weird cache/version issue while editing. My sincerest apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. It has happened to me on occasion, also.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johannes Brahms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical period ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Johannes_Brahms check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Johannes_Brahms?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

ISBNs need hyphens, not dashes
Hi Jerome. Please note that this edit broke one of the ISBNs in Enrique Granados. (See the red error messages about parameter error, showing up under 'Sources and further reading'). If ISBNs are to be punctuated at all, they need hyphens not dashes. Can you fix? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can. My apologies for the script error. It has not done this in hundreds of previous edits I have made. I cannot understand why this should have been different.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Escalating discussion
I feel that the discussion at Talk:Russell's teapot is escalating and could be greatly helped by someone reasonable, with knowledge of policy, and with patience to offers reasons (such as by quoting policy) rather than shouting orders. Must warn you, that, since the discussion is escalating you should expect to be personally attacked if you engage (but this is what made me think of your generally calming effect). Hyacinth (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am touched by your faith in my ability to spread oil on troubled waters. In this case, however, I'm not sure there is any policy or guideline to quote, except for ones that already have been. It seems to come down to a question of interpreting the guideline on illustrations, and here I can be of very little help. I can see both sides of the argument, and am unsure of which to side with. I think the question of an RfC should probably go ahead, but only once a proper formulation of the issue has been made. It looks to me like the discussants are moving in that direction already, and do not require my assistance in hammering out the framework for the issue. Once that has been done, I may join in the discussion. Thanks for calling this to my attention. It is an interesting point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What policies have been cited? Hyacinth (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEADIMAGE is the most relevant one, though, as I said, there is some room there for interpretation. It is an interesting issue because the subject of the article is a metaphor, and I find myself divided over the question of whether the metaphoric object is a good thing to illustrate, or not. In this case, especially, because the point is that the object in the metaphor is not visible.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that most people have chosen sides (and most people assume that everyone else has). MOS:LEADIMAGE has been mentioned, but its content has not been discussed. Hyacinth (talk)
 * SummerPhD has addressed the lead-image guideline, though there seems not to have been any response yet. The issue, with respect to that guideline, seems to be whether that particular image confirms that the reader has landed on the right page or suggests the contrary. It does seem that there are firmly chosen sides on that question, but there is an open invitation for discussion from other editors, even if a formal RfC has not been proposed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am really missing some big things (notice there is a subheading "RFC" where they discuss an RFC being proposed and then squashed, so your comment that a formal RFC has not been proposed seems quite odd). However, if you don't want to read the discussion or talk about it with me then tell me you prefer not to. As I attempted to say, I was asking you for a favor you had no obligation to fulfill. Though I haven't mentioned it, keep in mind that I can't use your advice to participate in the discussion. Have you heard of Nicolas Bourbaki? Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I said "formal RfC". The discussion seems clear enough that the proposed RfC is too vague to constitute a formal proposal. I am following the discussion but, so far, have nothing to offer. It was good of you to call this to my attention but, so far, at least, I have no opinion on either the subject or the nature of the discussion. It does not seem alarming to me. And, no, I have never heard of Nicolas Bourbaki. It seems like a very odd thing to do, since such matters are often dealt with by groups of authors, all signing their individual names to co-written articles. I shall have to read a little further. Does that have something to do with alleged orbiting teapots?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Musical object" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Musical object. Since you had some involvement with the Musical object redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hyacinth (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As always, I don't care how or if you vote. But you contribute peace as well as knowledge to discussions. Hyacinth (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Gesang der Jünglinge
I just mentioned Gesang der Jünglinge in a DYK nom, looked at the article and noticed the familiar "no link to this citation". Will you take care of it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Thanks for alerting me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the further reading section. Now, five items in the Sources section have no links, and I don't know if they should also go to further reading, or be used as citations: Baranski (also in external links), Frisius, Stockhausen 2009, Toop, Ungeheuer + Decroupet. Finally, is there a citation about the boy singing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am impressed, as always, with your X-ray vision. As a mere human being myself, I could not have detected any of those violations of linking protocol, had you not called them to my attention. I have moved all of the uncited items to Further reading, though I am astonished that one or two of them can have failed to be cited, since they are of such central importance to the subject of the article. I do not understand, however, what you mean about a citation about the boy singing. There is one, of course, at the end of that paragraph (to Decroupet and Ungeheuer 1998, 99–100). Do you mean instead a citation to the name of the boy singer, Josef Protschka? I do not see one, and certainly it should be provided. It will not be difficult to find. I shall see to it. Thanks for pointing this out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Those unused citations are pointed out by the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js, as explained at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Well worth installing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. Gerda pointed me in that direction some time ago. I am inclined to think that, in this case at least, ignorance is bliss.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Cornett
Yes, quite! As you say, the source ... either someone is very well-informed, and needs to bring along a new or supplementary source for that, or perhaps they are thinking more about the modern world of ABS resin (or whatever) instruments (like mine!) where things are different, but are not as described there by dear AB! Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for me to believe that every single (historical) cornetto ever made has both a brass ferrule ("collar") and an ornamental brass or silver mount. AB was obviously generalizing, but we are obliged to take him literally. I expect that the two editors who made those changes (if indeed they are not one and the same person) are well-informed, rather than thinking of Christopher Monk's ABS resin instruments or other modern reconstructions that may use other means. I possess, for example, an instrument made in the mid-1970s by Richard Hawkins, which has the brass ferrule but no ornamental mount.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Harv template family and page numbers
I saw your comment here "the established style here omits the abbreviations "p." and "pp." for "page" and "pages", respectively" (the usage here is indeed a page number). While I struggle to keep up with style evolutions in WP and the parallel real-life universe, I infer your meaning that Harvard (the real-life one) deprecates the "p" in this context. Maybe, but [harv ->] Template:Harvard_citation/doc is pretty clear that "loc" is reserved for anything other than a page number. Have I missed something? Would it better match your intent if you changed the template to harvcoltxt? Should sfn, which I've used a zillion times, also not use its "p" parameter, or does the footnote location make the difference? David Brooks (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi David. To start with, there is no "real-life" Harvard format. This is a general term for what (in real life) is called an "author-date" citation format, and there are several of them. The version advocated by the Chicago Manual of Style follows the form ([authorname] [year], [page number]), without using an abbreviation for the word "page". It is the variant used in the article on Eustache Deschamps. The template accommodates this variant by using the "loc" parameter in place of "page" or "pages". This becomes particularly tricky when the Chicago format for multivolume books is employed, where [pagenumber] is replaced by [volume]:[pagenumber] (with no space before or after the colon. The template does not accommodate some other variants (as far as I can tell), such as the one of the form ([authorname]: [year], p. [page number]), unless of course you manually insert the colon after the authorname. There is of course the variant with the abbreviation, as well, and sfn similarly can be used with both of these variants. If the template absolutely demands the abbreviations for "page" and "pages", then I shall have to remove the templates from a few hundred articles, which would be a pity since I like having the links to the reference list. Or perhaps harvcoltxt covers this? I am not familiar with it, but should investigate. Thanks for mentioning it. I hate being forced to break the rules ;-).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply, the appropriate edit summary. I don't actually know what the template itself demands; I was simply going on its documentation (and observed behavior in the ways I very occasionally use it). That's the longest template doc page I've seen! Anyway, it tells me "page" is an alias for "p", and "loc" cn be used with or without "p"/"pp". I understand your desire for a more academic approach, but as to usage I think we're basically on the same page, anyway. David Brooks (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't think we were in any serious disagreement, but you do misunderstand me in one respect: I do not desire a more (or less) "academic" approach. I merely observe that the Wikipedia policy embraces the widest possible variation in citation styles, and that the various templates do not always help in promoting that variety, for some reason. ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography on instrumentation
Hi! Of course, I respect your music education. And yet I have objections to your recent revision. --Cubanoid de Castro (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that Michael Bednarek addressed your concern on that talk page. You added a book to a list of musical compositions. Perhaps you meant to put it somewhere else?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I see that the item was added to a list of musical compositions indeed. I don’t know how it came to be there. I thought I was adding the bibliography to the "Further reading" section. In my humble opinion, Perone’s work can find its rightful place in the article on instrumentation (either “Further reading” or “Ext. links”). You write that you’re of Czech origin. So I’ve come to the conclusion that it is worth creating an article about Vlastimil Hála (mentioned by Perone) who was an outstanding Czech master in the field of instrumentation. --Cubanoid de Castro (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * By all means add Perone's book to the "Further reading" section. I am not familiar with the work of Vlastimil Hála, but I look forward to learning about him.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tritonic
See: Category:Tritonic musical scales and Category:Tritonic scales. Hyacinth (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename the categories so that neither intervals nor number of notes is specified by a technical term but instead in plain English. Instead of Category:Heptatonic scales we'd have something like "Category:Scales with seven notes"; instead of Category:Hemitonic scales we'd have something like "Category:Scales with semitones". Hyacinth (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is certainly confusing when there is a main article titled "Tritonic scale" that does not belong in the category "Tritonic scales". I gather that the term as you understand it means "scale containing at least one tritone", though that would seem to imply that "whole-tone scale" would mean "scale including at least one whole tone", which would be absurd. I am not myself accustomed to this use of the term, but I expect you have got a reliable source for it somewhere. Under these circumstances, I think your suggestion to rename the categories in plain English is a good one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you allow me my five cents, I never encountered the expression "tritonic scale" to mean a scale containing one or more tritones. I am not even sure the expression can be found in Wikipedia anywhere else than in Category:Tritonic scales that Hyacinth created yesterday. Tritonic musical scale redirects to Anhemitonic scale, once again since yesterday. Category:Tritonic scales includes the Tritone scale and many others, but no "tritonic" one, and I don't think any of the articles listed include the word "Tritonic" (I did not check all of them). There is a Category:Atritonic scales, also created yesterday by Hyacinth, obviously on the model "Hemitonic/Anhemitonic", but none of the articles listed in the category "Atritonic" (there are only two, one of them linked twice) includes the word "Atritonic". The tritonic and atritonic scales (in the sense of including or not including tritones) are mentioned in Anhemitonic scale in a way that is rather interesting, linking the presence or absence of tritones to that of semitones. But all references about this link to the same book, Howard Hanson, Harmonic Materials of Modern Music (1960), available on archive.org and which ... does not include the word "tritonic".
 * Hyacinth is right that the musical vocabulary is somewhat inconsistent. However, we cannot go against a documented usage. Curt Sachs, in The Rise of Music in the Ancient World (1943), speaks of one-tone, two-tone, three-tone melodies; but we cannot deny that these are also known as monotonic, bitonic, tritonic. Pentatonic often refers to anhemitonic pentatonism, and "five-note scale" might be considered more general. But this all was not really problematic before the creation (yesterday?) of the expression "tritonic scale" to denote a scale containing one or more tritone. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One problem that existed before yesterday was the etymology of these terms (tone, tonic, pentatonic, hemitonic, etc.) not being described by Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

See the pre-existing article, Anhemitonic scale, which contains mentions of "tritonic scales" that I did not write. I leave it to you to check the edit history and see how long a term you claim I made up in the last few days has been used in that article. Hyacinth (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a set of articles on "monotonic", "bitonic", "tritonic", and "tetratonic" scales was created on or about 21 June 2012 by User:MatthewVanitas. To judge from the citations, these terms (in contrast to "pentatonic", "heptatonic", and "octatonic") seem to be used mainly by Ethnomusicologists, in connection with cultures formerly known as "primitive". Assuming that Hyacinth is correct about the use of "tritonic" to describe scales containing tritones as well as scales with three tones to the octave, then it could be confusing to combine both senses in a single phrase, describing (for example) a "ditonic tetratonic scale", meaning a scale consisting of just two tone a tritone apart. Though this is only hypothetical, there are very real examples of "pentatonic tritonic" scales, more usually termed "hemitonic pentatonic". The real issue is whether both of these usages are widespread. It would seem that, from my own and Hucbald.SaintAmand's experience (and whose five-cents' worth is always welcome), at least, "tritonic" to describe scales containing tritones is not. Thank you, Hyacinth, for pinpointing the article that first introduced this odd usage, and thank you, Hucbald, for noting the failure of Hanson to verify the claim. Perhaps a little further investigation is indicated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't really have to deal with me being correct/incorrect about the use of "tritonic" to describe scales containing tritones as much as we have to deal with the article Anhemitonic scale being correct/incorrect.
 * We should be trying to prove positives, not negatives. Hyacinth (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, and I must apologize. The question is important and deserves more consideration. Let's provisionally forget about the article Anhemitonic scale, which was created on 21 April 2013 by a user identified as 173.172.210.42, already included then the term "tritonic" in the meaning of "including one or more tritones", but without reference to justify it.
 * About the term "Pentatonic", Constantin Brǎiloiu writes in "Sur une mélodie russe" (1953; my translation): "Our uncertain terminology denotes the scale that occupies us by the most varied denominations. One encounters 'scale of 5 notes' [Brǎloiu uses both échelle and gamme, distinct in French but which both translate as 'scale'], 'natural incomplete scale', 'diatonic scale without semitones' and, depending on the homeland to which one or the other assigns it, 'Chinese' or 'Mongolian' or 'Gaelic'. Today, however, one calls it generally either 'pentaphone' or 'pentaphonic' (Brenet's Dictionary, 1926) or 'pentatonic' (3d French edition of Riemann's Dictionary, 1931). Besides this, one also hears 'pentaphony' and 'pentaphone'. Gevaert imagined 'protodiatonic', which subsumes a whole thesis but did not prevail."
 * The 1931 French edition of Riemann's Dictionary (which is slightly more than a translation, it is "entirely recast and augmented") has a rather detailed article headed Pentatonique. The 11th German edition of 1929 under Pentatonik merely writes s. Fünfstufige Tonleitern ("See Five-tone musical scales"), and there is indeed an article fünfstufige (pentatonische) Tonleitern, similar but not identical with the French one. This article was not in the 5th edition of 1900.
 * Brǎiloiu discusses "pre-pentatonic" systems and refers among others to Jacques Handschin, Der Toncharakter (1948) who mentions musical systems that he names Pentatonik, Hexatonik, Oktatonik, but also Tetratonik and Tritonik. These terms are also found in the alphabetic index of the book, which may indicate that Handschin considered them established terms. Brǎiloiu makes these terms his own and describes tetratonic scales formed of three 4ths and 5ths (e.g. E–A–D–G) and tritonic scales made of two 4ths or 5ths (e.g. E–A–D). These are underlying scales and he describes melodies using, say, the notes four E, G, A and e as tetrachordal tritonic.
 * From this it appears that we should distinguish three meanings: tritonic, in particular, may concern a melody (or a scale) of three notes; or one based on three pitch classes but possibly including more than three notes (if some of them appear an octave apart); or one that includes a tritone – although, as I said, I did not yet find this third usage anywhere else than in Wikipedia. We must realize that when we say that a melody is pentatonic, we probably refer not so much to it having five notes, than to its having five pitch classes – that is, perhaps, that we refer to a pentatonic system rather than to a pentatonic scale.
 * Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I must add that the New Grove, 1st edition, implies that Brǎiloiu may be at the origin of the word "Pentatonic"; the second edition refers to Carl Engel, The Music of the Most Ancient Nations, 1864, which indeed uses the word (I checked the 2d edition, 1870). Brǎiloiu would have described a melody using the pitches E G A as trichordal tetratonic: three notes among four. Gevaert (1905) similarly spoke of diatonique pentaphone to denote the pentatonic scale: five notes among those of the diatonic scale. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Article Backun Musical Services
Hello Gerome_Kohl, Bearcat proposed the article for deletion because it does not contain enough independent sources. So I removed one of the original 4 sources and then added 17 new ones. The discussion about the possible deletion you find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Backun_Musical_Services. Could you perhaps enrich it with a small contribution, which of course should ensure that the article with now 20 references is preserved. Many thanks!--Gisel (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

History lost
You might be interested in this article about the sad state of affairs regarding the Studio for Electronic Music (WDR): "Eingemottet in Kellerräumen – Was wird aus dem WDR-Studio für elektronische Musik?" by Ida Hermes, Deutschlandfunk, 22 January 2020. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, Michael. I am interested.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Gesang der Jünglinge - 2
Gesang der Jünglinge is brought to attention on the Main page. The article looks at a glance like about medieval sculpture, but that's probably my personal bias ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling my attention to the Main Page feature. The medieval sculpture was the best image I could find of the three youths in the burning fiery furnace. Not many readers are likely to know that Stockhausen was very interested in and influenced by medieval art, so that particular point will be lost on them. Acousmatic music is by its very nature difficult to illustrate visually. If you know of a better image (from the readers' point of view), please do replace the current one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is fine, - I'd just frame it with a little box saying that it's music by Stockhausen, based on that story, first performed when and by whom, - for those in a rush who will not have patience for the (interesting!) prelude of a planned mass ;) - Once upon a time, The Rite of Spring looked like an article on a painting. I miss Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Thanks!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you ever follow the discussion on Talk:Robert Stoepel? - It was then that I though the unholy infobox wars were over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

see also sad work in progress --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I seem to have missed the infobox discussion on Talk:Robert Stoepel, though I did participate in the very next thread on that page. Gosh! That was seven years ago now!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, seven years ago that I thought this war could be put to peace if we forget a ten-year old idea about composers being different from other creative minds. I like Brian's approach for a compromise, as for (2013) and  (2017). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

More practical: could you please fix the "unused" messages for the further readings for Darmstadt School? ... and ref Kurtz 1982 seems unused as well? ... how about a better lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unused items commented out, and Kurtz (1992, rather than 1982) has been moved. I shall have to think about the lead. What in particular do you notice bout it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I notice that the lead is not a summary of the article, but some historical background details, which was fine while the Ferienkurse were a redirect, but now are not really needed. The uninitiated might also need a clarification that it's not a school with a building, but an artistic program, or however that might be called, like Düsseldorf School. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, thank you. The "Darmstadt School" article was originally more about the Ferienkurse than the group of composers associated with it, which explains why the lead is still oriented in that way. I presume the original editors were either not very familiar with the subjects, or regarded them as so closely intertwined that they did not require separate articles. I shall consult some of the other articles on such "schools" (Franco-Flemish School, Cologne School (music), Cologne School of Painting, Second Viennese School, etc.) to see what terms are used there to describe such a thing. There is no point in making up new terminology if there is an established pattern.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit at Double concerto
You are correct, of course, about the literal translation of "Concert à quatre". I had copy-pasted the translation from the actual Concert à quatre article without thinking about it. After you pointed out the error, I also changed the text in Concert à quatre in the first line to "Concerto for four". Thank you. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, though I must add that literal translations are not always the most accurate ones. The classic French example, of course, being "fried apples".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Shanghai Shuffle
I think an expert on music history can answer this. The article, Shanghai Shuffle looks very confusing. One piece of info says it is "composed by Fletcher Henderson" and the info box says "Composer(s) Larry Conley and Gene Rodemich" as of right now.

Exactly which one is correct? Thank you. --Komitsuki (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which "piece of info" says Fletcher Henderson was the composer? The only currently cited sources are very clear that Larry Conley and Gene Rodemich wrote it. In popular music, there is a strong tendency to associate a song with its best-known performer, rather than the composer. For example, mention "Hound Dog" and 99.99999% of people will respond "by Elvis Presley", but it was written by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, and had been recorded several times before Elvis made it a hit. There is of course also the question of "music and lyrics", which are usually by two different people. In the case of "Shanghai Shuffle" I cannot immediately say whether the music was jointly composed, or if one of the gentlemen in question was the lyricist and the other the composer. It should not be too difficult to find out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Linear counterpoint example in Symphony no. 9 (Mahler), 1st movement
Jerome,

Possibly I did not phrase my edit correctly.

The text in Symphony No. 9 (Mahler) is the following: Near the end of the movement is a remarkable example of Mahler's linear polyphony, in which piccolo, flute, oboe, and solo violin imitate bird-calls.

I listened to a recording, checked the score (p. 54 in the Dover edition). Don't you think that it is a reasonable example?

Sorry to trouble you Best Wishes Tomy TomyDuby (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, to begin with, the words "of Mahler's linear polyphony" were not present in the sentence I removed from the "Counterpoint" article. The main problem, though, is that listening to a recording and reading a score is what is called original research on Wikipedia. Original research is not allowed. Any interpretive observation like that requires a reliable source. Even with such a source, why should imitation of bird-calls make that passage a remarkable example of linear counterpoint? Do the bird-calls in the second movement of Beethoven's Sith Symphony make that movement a remarkable example of sonata-allegro form?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Modernist era
Hello Jerome; if your belief that the Modernist era unequivocally ended in 1930 is true, then several Wikipedia music articles and tables are in a bit of a mess. You're right that the 1980 date wasn't directly referenced, but this also seems to be the case for dates given for the start and end of most musical eras in this article and others. The 1980 date was meant to include the High modernist timespan as part of the Modernist era, but maybe it should be designated as a seperate era. The Wikipedia article about high modernism associates it mainly with the Cold War period which came well after 1930. The "Timeline of composers" section of this article places Shostakovich and several of his contempoaries clearly in the modern era, and most of their careers were just getting started around 1930 when modernism in music supposedly ended. If the 1930 end date is based solely on that same year being claimed as the beginning of postmodernism in music, then I have to make two comments: 1. The 1930 date for postmodernism isn't universally agreed to by all experts. 2. The end date for one era doesn't have to be the start date for the next. Eras can overlap. The modernist era is commonly claimed to have started around 1890, but the romantic era is equally commonly claimed to have continued until 1910, and both these dates are used in most applicable Wikipedia articles and tables, including "Classical music". After checking several articles, I have to conclude there's little or no consensus as to when the modernist era ended, or even IF it has fully ended. The main Wikipedia article about modernism offers several possible dates ranging from 1910 to the present day that all have support from various authorities. I'm not going to counter your revert at present; I don't want to get into any edit wars. However, if 1930 is to be the unequivocal date for the end of modernism in music, then I believe everything in the Classical music article has to line up with that, and maybe some other Wikipedia articles as well. That probably includes referencing a reliable and widely accepted source for the 1930 date if one can be found, and solving the problem of Shostakovich and his contemporaries in the timeline of composers. I think they will have to be reassigned to another era in all applicable parts of the article (and maybe other articles) or removed altogether for reasons of being too ambiguous to classify. Another possibility is to go with the 1930 date and tag it as "disputed" anywhere it appears.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris. As with everything else on Wikipedia, all that is required is a reliable source. Would you be so good as to remind me what edit it was I made that prompted this message?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question is the date range of 1890-1930 in the section of this article (Classical music) that covers the "Modernist era". For a short time it read 1890-1980 based on several composers identified as modernist in the section "Timeline of composers" and the 1980 date that appears elsewhere in this and other music articles. However, this date lacked a citation and I'm not sure I can find a suitable source at this time. Instead, I'm proposing that the 1930 date be replaced by a more general statement that several approximate dates have been put forward by various authorities as indicated by the Wikipedia article about modernism in music. I think that information is referenced but I'll have to make sure before making that change to this article ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I see that you have already made some good revisions along these lines, and the name Wolfgang Rihm jumps off the page. I must re-read Botstein to see if he really does describe Rihm as a modernist. After all, he is primarily associated with the Neoromantic arm of the New Simplicity movement. I also note your edit summary mentioning irony as a leading trait of the postmodern and, though I have not yet checked, wonder if Stravinsky and Prokofiev are now named in that category (doubtless with reliable sources to support the idea).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Infoxboxes of John Cage and Schumann
Hi! I remember we had talked about how Aaron Copland's page had had an infobox added without any consensus. It looks like John Cage (here) and Robert Schumann (here) had infoboxes also added without forming a consensus. It even seems that there were warnings for people not to add infoboxes on the pages, which the editors in question seemingly ignored, unless a consensus was formed that I'm missing. Would it make sense to remove these and add back the thing about not adding one without a consensus on the talk page? Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fairy certain that the John Cage article has already had infoboxes reverted on at least one earlier occasion. I don't know about Schumann, which evidently isn't on my watchlist, but if the addition is fairly recent and there was a cautionary note in place, then yes, I would revert it. I will take a look at Cage myself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like I was wrong. Both of those article infoboxes have been in place for quite a while now. I think it is probably best to leave them be. Any challenge should have been made sooner after they were added, so it could easily be argued that they are now the status quo.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That seems like a good approach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context: an opera about imagination in battle with thought control, - and Darmstädter Ferienkurse in a short while --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ... so now together, with thanks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Darmstädter Ferienkurse
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Greensleeves
Hi. I'd be interested in your take on the recent discussion on Henry VIII in the talk page on Greensleeves- "Just wanted to ask ...." onwards. Am I on the wrong track here? Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi David. I have been following that discussion, and I think you are on exactly the right track. Apart from the question of the bass sequence, keep in mind that the earliest known source for the melody is mighty late for Henry to have composed it and, if it were written for Ann Boleyn, surely it would have come equipped with words (probably in French) in the first instance, and only later have become an instrumental "folk song".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Let's see what materialises. David T Tokyo (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Files for deletion
Any interest in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.png or Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 5? Hyacinth (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first link you give produces the message "This page does not currently exist." The second is confusing. I presume this has to do with copyvio issues?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first link should be:
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.png
 * rather than
 * Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.png . Hyacinth (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that works a lot better! I'm afraid I am out of my depth here. Not only am I no lawyer, but I don't know the song in question. All that I do know is that music copyright is full of complications, and "common elements" (like chord progressions or stereotyped rhythmic patterns) tend to be thrown out by the courts in lawsuit cases. I find it hard to believe that the bare chord succession resembles anything like what the band actually plays, but I could be wrong. FWIW, the audio track seems to de-emphasize the thirds of the chords (perhaps this is the result of cheap speakers on the computer I am using to listen). The parallel fifths dominate so overwhelmingly that it took me three tries to hear the change from major to minor in the last two chords.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See: Deletion review/Log/2020 May 11. Hyacinth (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I am confused again. Is Michael Byron somehow associated with that song? I see no mention of it, or of Radiohead, or of bare chord progressions in that discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I was asking, again, if you had, "any interest in," the discussion or its topic. The three things are mostly unrelated, except that two of them regard "riffs" (but they aren't even on the same namespace). Hyacinth (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Sorry, but I have no interest in the Michael Byron article. I have no idea who he is.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

New version of the article Basset clarinet
Hello Jerome Kohl, I have partially revised the content of the article, but above all the appearance. For the time being, the changed article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gisel/basset_clarinet. I would be grateful if you would review it for errors (especially linguistic ones) and correct them if necessary before I put the article in the namespace. Thank you very much! Gisel (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gisel, thank you for asking. I have made a pass through the text, correcting a few things and requesting clarification of others. I have not gone through the footnotes, but notice a lot of capitalisation irregularities in titles of English-language articles there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerome, Thank you very much for your helpful review of the article. I have tried to correct the criticisms. Gisel (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Mozart Jupiter symphony
Hi Jerome, I see you reverted my edit on Mozart's Symphony No. 41 on the perfectly reasonable grounds that I had provided no reference. I now have a reference; http://www.mozart.com/en/timeline/work/jupiter-symphony/. My understanding was that the term "Symphony with the Final Fugue" has been a commonly used term on the European Continent for many years, and that the Jupiter nickname is confined to Britain where it was coined. Wanted to check with you to see if you had any conflicting information before making an edit to restore this. Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. The expression "Symphony with the Final Fugue" (or similar) used to be a common epithet in continental Europe. The German, French, Italian, Spanish Portuguese, and other Wikipedias confirm this, and also acknowledge that the epithet "Jupiter" is now the usual one applied to this symphony in those languages. I look forward to seeing your evidence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Having spent my time in continental Europe for now more than three quarters of a century (and intending to spend some more), I never heard the expression "Symphony with the Final Fugue" (or its equivalent in any European language that I know) and always heard (and used) "Jupiter". The WP page in German indicates that Eitner (1937) is responsible for the surname Sinfonie mit der Schlussfuge, while "Jupiter" (probably due to Johann Peter Salomon) dates from the early 19th century at the latest. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for the additional information. The "Final Fugue" title was noted in Tovey's Essays in Musical Analysis (1935) as being in common use in Germany then, so this usage was earlier than Eitner. And it's also mentioned in the link I gave above. However, evidently things have changed since 1935 and the "Jupiter" title is now universal - useful to have this feedback from people more multilingual than I!  I could reword my edit to make the change in usage clear, mirroring the other European Wikipedias - but there may not be much point in doing this now that you have explained the current situation. Hyperman 42 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Eitner died in 1905, I think it is safe to say that any publication from as late as 1937 bearing his name would have to be a late edition. Nonetheless, checking the German Wikipedia, I find no reference to Eitner, but there is an 1846 anonymous review whose title refers to the "Schlussfuge" nickname.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Pythagoras History and vii Harmonic Progression
Hello Mr. Kohl: I see you reverted my edits on the history of the circle of fifths, and the vii Harmonic Progression expansion I was adding to the table, and I was wondering what the reasons for the revert were. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F573:BA00:444A:8489:D2F0:5336 (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for simply assuming vandalism (which is what my edit summary, "rvv" means). Since your edits were in good faith, I should explain that the chord built on the seventh scale degree in major keys is neither major or minor (as the heading to the table states), but diminished. Second, we do not capitalize common nouns and adjectives in English (such as "major" and "minor"). Third, the word "chord" is spelled with an H following the C. Fourth, reliable sources are required to verify claims, such as the paragraph you inserted about Pythagoras that incorrectly states that he (1) discovered pitch frequencies, (2) created a chromatic circle diagram, and (3) invented equal temperament. I hope this makes things clearer for you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

-- I understand. The reason I included, what I thought, was correct information on Pythagoras was that I had looked at many musical sites on the internet (perhaps 20 or more sites) claiming, in some shape or form, that he had created a chromatic circle diagram, so I assumed that this information was just missed by accident, so I added it in. From further research on Pythagoras, as far as I can tell, not only did he not create the chromatic circle diagram (as you say), but he did not even invent the Pythagorean Theorem for right angle triangles, for which he has become famous. I am surprised about the first, and shocked about the second.

So now I am wondering. Do you know if we have any idea where Diletsky got his ideas from, and, do you think there should be a small note in the history section explaining that while many sources on the internet claim that Pythagoras invented a chromatic circle, he most certainly did not.

Thanks for all your information, much appreciated, and very enlightening.

2001:56A:F573:BA00:C191:2A:289D:54D2 (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC) ---
 * Who is Diletsky?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nikolay Diletsky is an Ukrainian music theorist who published what probably is the first circular representation of the chromatic circle of fifths, in his Идея грамматики музикийской ("Idea of a grammar of music"), Moscow, 1679, with a possible earlier version in 1677, predating Heinichen's circle by 32 or 34 years. Diletsky's circle is reproduced in Diletsky circle.jpg. The staff shows minor triads, beginning with A–F–D–A–D, clockwise from the top, continuing with D–B♭–G–D–G, etc. The first series is also labelled in solmization: la–fa–re–la–re. In the following triads only the initial is marked la – which shows that all triads should be minor. But Diletsky apparently got things mixed up when he began writing enharmonies, E♭–B♯–G♯, A♭–E♯–C♯ and D♭–A♯–F♯ (major triads), under nos 7, 8 and 9. This circle is discussed in Claudia R. Jensen, "A Theoretical Work of Late Seventeenth-Century Muscovy: Nikolai Diletskii's 'Grammatika' and the Earliest Circle of Fifths", JAMS 45/2 (1992), pp. 305-331. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Thank you, Hucbald, I remember now. I still don't see what this has to do with claims of Pythagoras inventing a chromatic circle diagram (as opposed to a circle of fifths), discovering pitch frequencies (unless he lived until the 17th century, which few scholars seem to believe possible), and inventing equal temperament. Does Diletsky claim any of these things?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason why 56A:F573:BA00:C191:2A:289D:54D2 (what a strange name!) asked is that which he gave, "Do you know if we have any idea where Diletsky got his ideas from?" Obviously, somebody must have been the first to have the idea, and it certainly was not Pythagoras. There are many interesting questions about Diletsky, among which why he presented the triads as descending arpeggios, always taking of one triad as  of the following. This is the normal direction of tonal progressions, but not so many are aware of this, even today. Heinichen's circle is much less inviting to pacing down, if I may say so. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I got sniped
I had been editing that section on Triad (music) and had decided to move it over to the appropriate article... then I got an edit conflict there and on the destination page. Imagine my laffs when I saw that you had already done the exact same thing a minute before! Good eye!!! :^) { $\mathbb{JPG}$ } 01:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, if you know what any of the bizarre trichords in that expanded list happen to be, that'd be nice, because I had to stop labeling them when I got to the weird stuff like... diminished suspended flat sevenths? Is that even a thing? { $\mathbb{JPG}$ } 01:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Great minds run in the same channel! Most of those "goofy" chords can be given several different traditional (jazz) names, but it depends entirely on their voicing. Since we are talking pitch classes, voicing is irrelevant. The usual way of naming them is shown in the main part of the article. The more pretentious is to use Forte numbers (in the way that music snobs will refer to Beethoven works by opus number alone, assuming that everyone in their audience has memorized the list), the kinder way is to use numerical set types.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Orchestra: Onstrumentation charts late baroque, classical and early romantic
This issue will not be resolved by sources, that give a chart for "the late baroque orchestra" or "the classical orchestra".

These sources do not exist, for a good reason: It is questionable by itself if there can be a single list, conveying relevant and not confusing information about the core instrumentation of the typical orchestra of those times. This is also the reason, why f.e. the german page does not even try to do this.

I for myself do believe that it is possible and preferable to show some meaningful instrumentation standards of the past in this way.

But this cannot be achieved if, like it has happened, someone comes along and changes the somewhat reasonable old instrumentation charts to something else just because he knows his Bach cantatas or Mozart operas, and thus introduces "germanocentric" and ultimatly random changes to the older and more scarce lists.

As i wrote, this issue can not be resolved by a source delivering a single correct core instrumentation for the periods considered. I could invest some time in searching sources for specific changes to the current state of the article, but in many cases...it's just common sense. That's a problem. I know.

In other cases, it will be easy to point out inconsistencies, but there will be sources for every single claim for every single instrument. But (!) there are also obvious faults in the status quo charts, fe. introducing bassett horns to the early romantic orchestra because of Beethoven, who did not use them and is not a romantic composer.

There also are issues, that are not wrong, but introduce unnecessary quaries, such as the changes made to emphasize the "fact" that classical and early romantic orchestras used ATB Trombones- again germanocentric and pedantic, cause they are just 3 Trombones and historically it was in no way a given that these were played on real ATB trombones. Instead of TTB or TTT like it was in France.

These issues, newly introduced to the orchestra charts, have in common that they are pedantic (emphasizing trivial differences), germanocentric and lack consideration for the general direction of change in the setup of the orchestra.

Yet, whoever made these changes, overcomplicating and colouring the charts with a Bach/Mozart bias, did get it through. My changes on the other hand, have been rejected.

2A01:598:918B:435A:1:1:E8E9:D31A (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the excellent case you make for the need for reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, I give up. No changes to the charts. Could I persuade you in any way to remove the Questionbooks? We obviously do not agree. You wrote on the discussion page that the sections are full of contentious claims- that is not the issue and they are not so very bad, especially the late baroque, classical and early romantic are comparably ok. The main issue I see is not that the facts are wrong, they are not (except for 2 3  minor faults which can be corrected without a conflict)
 * There are overall too many relatively unimportant instruments mentioned if it is possible to misread these lists as typical orchestra schemes of those eras. It reads like a list of instruments that existed at that time, complete with a usual section size but not like an existing orchestra standard- see my comment on the discussion page on the problem of mentioning the viola da gamba without any remarks on how and how often it may be used- people that do not already know a lot about orchestras may easily misunderstand this to say: There normally/mostly was a Viola da Gamba in the baroque orchestra. Ok, as soon as they see the keytar listed in the strangely named "modern/postmodern" orchestra it might dawn on them that these are just lists of possible instrument choices, which are all instruments that exist currently. Shall we all add them to the chart? I want less instruments mentioned and I targeted only the baroque, calssical and early romantic orchestra because I know the earlier music stuff better.


 * Sources will not be very helpful- many tries to name standard orchestras just in the form of a instrumentation list for a certain time period are worse then wikipedias. 79.232.64.35 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia depends on reliable sources to support all claims. If there are no such sources, then the wild, inaccurate claims should be deleted. I am willing to give other editors a certain amount of time to find such sources but, if they cannot be found, then the claims must be regarded as the fevered imaginings of original researchers, and be deleted. Please join me in searching for some evidence for or against these many disparate claims.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So please tell me, what claims do you want to source? What do you mean by "many disparate claims"? What do you want to delete? Which claims are wild and inaccurate? The question "Which orchestration charts should we include in a lexicon article about the orchestra" is not a research topic! The question, for example, "is the viola da gamba in the late baroque orchestra" can only be answered by "sometimes" or perhaps "rarely". Like with every other instrument except the very very common violins, violas, harpsichords and bass strings and perhaps oboes. That's obvious but it does not give a clue about if we should mention it. I don't get what you want to do.  2A01:598:918C:CDF5:1:1:342:1D89 (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious but, as you ask, all of these claims in the "Baroque orchestra" section need sources:
 * 2–3 oboes (oboe d'amore and oboe da caccia) [Three oboes? Really? How normal are oboe d'amore and oboe da caccie?]
 * bassoon (several players in large orchestras) [Who says more than one player?]
 * (sometimes will have a corno da tirarsi) [How often is "sometimes"?]
 * harpsichord, pipe organ, theorbo [but not harp, regal, archlute?]
 * violoncello da spalla [Oh, really?]
 * (or rather violone/basso a viola da braccio) [Why are these not the same thing as "contrabasso"?]
 * viola da gamba [Which sizes, and how commonly are they used?]
 * —Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3 Oboes: Brandenburg Concerto 1, Handel Music for the royal fireworks, well over a douzen Bach Cantatas, orchestral suites, "BWV" 246;
 * Bassoons: More then 1 player was common in large orchestras, f.e.Quantz traversiere school, or this plan here: http://andrewhugill.com/manuals/orchbaroque.html; oboes too and sometimes other winds were doubled, tripled and more; very frequently also 2x2 Trumpets and 2x2 Timpani on either side of the orchestra, if it was a really big orchestra
 * Tirarsi: I have no idea. Nobody exactly knows what this even is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHWZwznm4fE this is a hypothetical reconstruction based on logical and practical considerations. I do not know if it was used by other composers
 * Archlute perhaps a good addition, Handel seems to have used it instead of therobo, regale out of fashion after 1700.
 * Spalla: Yes, they did exist- but my argument would be that they are just cellos.
 * violone: This is not so obvious, many if not most parts called violone might have been executed on 8 foot instruments or 12 foot bass-gamba-like "german basses". 16 foot instruments not to be taken for granted.
 * I can try to find sources for some of those. But I do not find the same things questionable as you do- the "questionable" things are not obvious. 79.228.109.159 (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Posting about music compositions without citations.
How am I supposed to give a citation for a music composition using the Phyrgian Mode? I can hear with my music talent. What am I supposed to vote as a good reference? The sheet music? Cegguitar (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the sheet music may not be sufficient, if it does not specify the key center. A key signature of one sharp, for example, does not automatically demonstrate B Phrygian. Take a look at some of the citations in the various mode articles, including the one on Phrygian mode. They should give you some idea of what is required.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

False tones, false reference
Hi, saw you reverted my edit on Tuba, where I removed a citation that I felt did not relate to anything in the current text. Did you read the article? I did, found it here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753660. It is an acoustic comparison of Wagner tuben to other similar instruments, as the title says. It may be reliable but it does not make any mention of false tones, let alone provide an explanation of their production supporting the text on wikipedia. Do you have a suggestion for a source that does?

Wiskei (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you are correct. I had misread your edit summary as saying the source was "unreliable", whereas in fact you said "irrelevant". I had not checked the source (since the Galpin Society Journal is about as reliable a source as may be found), but have done so now, and you are perfectly right: the subject of false tones is not mentioned, nor is the claimed "most plausible explanation" found there in any indirect way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow up. Would you happen to know of any comprehensive scientific discussion on the acoustics of false (or privileged) tones? —Wiskei (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, unless you include the mysterious (but perfectly familiar to anyone who has ever played the instrument) "subtones" of the crumhorn, and even there, a "comprehensive scientific" discussion is unknown to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, after reading the crumhorn article, I am definitely interested in any discussion on the acoustics of these subtones. If the resonances of a crumhorn are those of an ideal cylindrical tube (1f, 3f, 5f etc.), it seems that the subtone a fifth below f (having a frequency of 2/3 f) would not have any harmonics that correspond to any of the resonances.
 * For brass instruments, f would be the second harmonic, and the resonances are at approximately 1f, 1.5f, 2f, 2.5f, 3f etc. Taking F = 2/3f as the frequency of the false tone, there are now resonances at 3F=2f, 6F=4f, 9F=6f etc. These resonances are also the harmonic series of 2f, but if the vibration of the lips is sustained at 2/3f a false tone should be heard.
 * —Wiskei (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I am surprised that there has been no investigation of the acoustics of the phenomenon of crumhorn undertones. The playing technique itself was described as long ago as 1529, by Martin Agricola, in Musica instrumentalis deudsch. I might add that the interval of the underblown tones varies according to the reed used. I spoke about this with the instrument maker John Hanchet (well-known for his crumhorns, amongst other things), many years ago now, and he told me that the throat of the reed should be kept as perfectly cylindrical as possible. As any reedmaker will tell you, insisting on this is the best way to ensure cracking the reed before you can get it into a playable condition, which is why many players cheat, allowing the throat to deform somewhat into an elliptical shape. From experience, I can tell you that this will cause the subtone to rise in pitch, to a tritone or even a perfect fourth (on a particularly badly made reed) below the fundamental. It also causes the sound to weaken, and makes playing in tune more difficult. Barra Boydell, the leading authority on the subject, describes the technique in his New Grove article on the crumhorn, and at somewhat greater length in his dissertation, published in 1982 as The Crumhorn and Other Renaissance Windcap Instruments: A Contribution to Renaissance Organology (Buren: F. Knuf, ISBN 9789060274248) but, as far as I remember, he does not attempt to explain the acoustics.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You will excuse me, I hope, for intervening in this discussion which I allowed me to follow above your shoulders. You are aware that there exists no such thing as "undertones", if by that is meant subharmonics. The fundamental of a wind instrument usually can be estimated from the length of its tube. A modern B♭ trumpet, for instance, has a tube of about 1m30, in which a sound wave of velocity about 340m/sec can travel about 260 times in a second (340/1.3 = 262) – producing a pitch of about 260 Hz. This is only slightly lower than C4 at modern pitch, but the calculation is approximate. And we all know that the trumpet cannot play this partial 1, that the lowest sound that it can produce is partial 2. A narrower bore (such as in the hunting horn) makes the three or four lower partials unplayable – unless for a much experienced player, because her/his lips can force the pipe into anormal vibration.
 * However, a crumhorn is cylindrical for most or all of its length, and in this respect it might function like a clarinet, the reed closing at the first return of the wave. This does not happen in a oboe for two reasons: (1) the conical bore makes that the returning depression looses its intensity; (2) the shape of the reed is such that it cannot completely close. In a clarinet, the total path of the wave in the tube is twice its length because the first return of the wave is sort of "refused": for the same length, a clarinet plays an octave lower than other wind instruments, and it cannot play its even partials.
 * A first simple verification would therefore be to compare the lowest pitch normally played by a crumhorn with its length. At first consideration, I think that it sounds one octave below what "it should" considering its length (it might be difficult to judge the octave, which depends on timbre). A partial lower that the nominal playable one might become audible, particularly if under certain conditions the reed did not close – resulting in a functioning closer to that of an oboe rather than of a clarinet. In other words, what arises in a crumhorn might be that its functioning oscillates between a clarinet-like one and an oboe-like one. As a clarinet, the first playable pitch would be partial 3; as a oboe, it would be partial 1 but one octave higher than the previous one. The difference would be a fifth, if I am not mistaken. But I am not an acoustician.
 * Best, Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You are always welcome here, Hucbald. Thank you for your thoughts. There is no question of "undertones" here, don't worry. Your observation about the difference between oboe and clarinet behavior on a cylindrical bore is promising, and should be followed up by an acoustician (which I am not, either). The octave of a crumhorn tone is not difficult to judge, and can in any case be measured. The overtone spectrum is unusually rich, as shown by László Ujházy, "Acoustical Data on the Curve of the Crumhorn", Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 24, Nos. 1 and 2 (1982), pp. 233–245. On p. 237, Ujházy offers a spectrogram of a (modern reproduction by Moeck) tenor crumhorn's low C, with a fundamental frequency of 270 Hz, and observes that "As Figure 4 shows, the sharp, rustling sound of the instrument even contains measurable harmonics above 10 kHz." Ujházy's research is focussed entirely on the directionality of the sound, which is not of much use for our purposes here, but I had not previously noticed that his diagram shows two secondary, lower peaks at about half the amplitude of the fundamental, at about 250 and 220Hz. The lowest of these is something short of a fourth below the fundamental, of course, but Moeck crumhorn reeds are amongst the ones I mention above under the category "particularly badly made". They will not underblow at a perfect fifth, but, rather, about a perfect fourth. I cannot explain why, but this is my experience. Another factor to keep in mind is that the crumhorn is a wind-cap reed instrument, which means that the reed is "free", like that of a bagpipe chanter. The Renaissance racket is another cylindrical-bore double-reed instrument, but the reed is held between the player's lips, as on the oboe or bassoon. Like the crumhorn, it sounds at a very deep pitch, relative to the length of its bore (and that bore is turned back on itself many time inside the cylindrical body of the instrument). I have never been able to coax a racket into playing subtones like the ones that come quite easily on the larger crumhorns, though my experience with rackets is less extensive than with crumhorns.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

LaMonte Young
Hello! I saw you tagged the "jazz and classical composition" claim in the lede of this article. I was watching the article since I had tread the huge profile in the New York Times this week. I managed to add several decent sources to the early life section. The Jazz/classical thing seems to be true based on sources but I did not expand the body to include that as musicians are not really my area of expertise. It would have been in his late high school years or a little bit into City College LA, so it's perhaps not that important. Anyway just a note to let you know I added some sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I was aware that he played jazz when he was in high school, but there was no source for him as a composer in that field. If it was confined to those years, then I would agree with you that it is not a very important thing, and probably would not qualify as a notable fact. Nevertheless, I shall look with interest at the sources you have found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I have checked your edits, I see that my tag in the lead had to do not with jazz, but with "classical composition" not being verified in the body of the article. The phrase "jazz and classical composition" is in any case ambiguous. Is it meant to say he studied jazz composition as well as "classical" composition (whatever that might be), or that he studied jazz (performance), and also composition? It seems to me that the easy resolution is simply to remove the word "classical", which renders the phrase consistent with the body of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I leave it to your good judgment. Just wanted to let you know about the improved sourcing. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Music in July
Mixed questions, if you don't mind.
 * 1) I came across the tempo marking "geschwind" and wonder if "fast" (as given in a source) is the best translation.
 * 2) The move of List of important operas is still unresolved, and I could imagine that your name might carry weight in a move review, no?
 * 3) I wonder if you could leave infoboxes that follow Brian's example in Percy Grainger in place, instead of initiating a discussion which - as Iridescent noted - "is never going to end well for anyone". Grainger hasn't attracted trivia, fan cruft etc., not in years ;)

I hope you can enjoy music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mixed answers, then, if you please.

I enjoy music every day, thank you. I hope you can, too!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is difficult to say what the best translation might be for "geschwind", since both German and English have a number of different words with approximately this same meaning (rasch, schnell, geschwind, rasant,  etc. vs. rapid, quick, fast, swift, etc.). The English "fast" is doubtless the most common, but for that reason least colorful variant. Though perfectly accurate, I tend to associated it most closely with the German schnell. As a result, depending on context, I might prefer "rapid" or "swift".
 * 2) I do not see any particular advantage to the choice of adjectives for the "List of prominent/important operas". It seems to me that there is little or no difference in the sense, but the real problem is with judging which operas are prominent or important enough for the list. Criteria are at least stated, which is a lot better than is the case for many other such lists (both stand-alone and within articles, such as the one currently attracting attention at Talk:Romantic music).
 * 3) I think the Percy Grainger infobox is far more innocuous than the one proposed for Fanny Mendelssohn (which I think is the one to which you are referring). In any case, I feel that any newly added infobox should be discussed by the editors involved in work on the article before being accepted. That is, after all, the position of the WikiProject Composers, so it is not just my own personal opinion.


 * Thank you, fast and efficient and helpful.
 * I guess for this one, I'll propose "swift" as it's about a dance, and "rapid" (which came to my mind) seems almost too fast ;)
 * As far as I remember, it was less the adjective than the style of a move per supervote while the normal reaction in case of no consensus is leave as is.
 * Sorry that I wasn't clear about Fanny Hensel. (As a composer, I believe her name is clearly Hensel, per the published music.) No, I meant these others, such as latest Franco Donatoni. The fewer infobox discussions, the more peace, is my practical math. If nobody else cares why not let an infobox be, - often the creation by someone new to the field who may not even know that there is a problem, and a governing project? The guideline dates from 10 years ago, and - to my understanding - has even been replaced by the arbitration ruling from 2013, about consensus on each article's talk page (regardless of which project), which - again to my understanding - only applies if there IS disagreement. If all editors watching an article think an infobox is harmless, no discussion - with its tendency to open old wounds - seems necessary.
 * Yes, I do enjoy music every day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: Number 2. You have jogged my memory with that word "supervote". I believe I did finally chime in on that discussion, which was left unresolved more than a week ago now. Clearly, there was no consensus for the move that was made, and it should be reverted. How is a move review initiated, and why do you suppose no one has done so yet, in this particular case?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about move review, but would assume if it was kicked off it would somehow show on the article talk. Now that I look, it seems complex, and first requests to talk to the closer, which I had done right away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking further: the closer hasn't edited since. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The supervote by the closer was definitely improper. However, the original name isn't really all that much better, so a lack of enthusiasm to move it back there might be understandable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So the issue is really one of correct process, rather than a question of whether anyone really cares one way or the other? Should procedure be ignored in this case, or should it be followed as a matter of correctness?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care much about correctness of process. How about waiting if the closer returns in a few weeks, and perhaps reverts. If not, I think someone with authority - like one of you two - could unceremoniously move it back. What we don't need is another discussion, there - or for Donatoni, Sibelius, you name it, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel a little stronger about correctness of process because the closer seems to have form in this area. On the other hand, I can't work up the energy to get into another wikilawyering exercise. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I understand that right as if the closer doesn't return in August to rectify the mistake, you could unceremoniously move it back? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Ars nova and Subtilior
Thanks for your correction on P. des Molins, I am trying to sort out the nav boxes and categories Ars nova and Ars subtilior composers and it is admittedly a tricky task – I have a feeling that I may have been lighting up your watchlist :) Anyways, my assumption on P. des Molins was from his contribution to Chantilly Codex? However, the specificites for these movements may be more subtle than I realize... and of course then there's trecento music which I still need to make a template for. Aza24 (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. You have in fact been lighting up my watchlist like a Christmas tree, mostly in a highly satisfactory way. Despite the inclusion of P. de Molins in the Chantilly Codex, his two surviving compositions are both solidly within the ars nova style. There is no trace of the complex rhythms or chromaticism that characterizes the ars subtilior. I have know these pieces very well for a long time now, so I have no difficulty making that assessment. One problem of course with any historical period is that composers may have evolved, and so some compositions may be in an earlier style, and others in a later one. It is also possible that composers at one and the same time may compose for different patrons whose tastes may vary. Both of P. de Molins's surviving pieces seem to have been extraordinarily well-known in the later 14th century, and it may well be that they survived in the repertory long after they were originally written. We know nothing at all about the composer's life, which is not unusual for that period of history. I am pleased that you have taken up this task of sorting out some navboxes. While I agree that it is probably best to have a separate "trecento" category, this does of course raise certain problems since many writers equate "ars nova" with "trecento", whereas the Italian term literally means "the 1300s", which may be taken to mean style has nothing to do with it. Some trecento composers show considerable French influence at this period (Landini, for example) while a few Italians from the late 14th century clearly had a taste for the ars subtilior.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So I see you italicize ars subtilior, ars nova and presumably ars antiqua as well, is this the standard for these terms? I only ask since if so I'll probably go through and change the articles for these movements would to reflect this. Re Trecento, indeed I originally thought about combining Ars Nova and Trecento but given that they are separate articles here I figured separate templates would make more sense. Although I can see that like you say, quite a few Italians fit better in ars subtilior, so that template is rather mixed already. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Danses concertantes
Greetings and thank you for your corrections. Very appreciated. I wasn't sure if the work belonged in "Ballets" or "Other" as the work was a concert commission from Janssen. Stravinsky's correspondence with Balanchine would suggest that he had envisioned choreography for the score prior to its commission. Bit of a tangle, but glad for your insight. Thanks again. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Deprecate parenthetical citations
There's a length discussion at Village pump (proposals). I don't think it will lead to anything, but you might be interested, or not per tl;dr. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic virtual edition 2020
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.