User talk:MarkBuckles/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hi Mark, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nice work on Canticum Sacrum, which I just stumbled on this morning. It's pleasing to see someone else who knows this stuff. There's some other late Stravinsky that needs writing still (Threni, Requiem Canticles...) Hey, we're glad to have you. Again, welcome. Antandrus (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks! Jump right in and start writing ... there's an enormous amount yet to be done, especially with 20th century composers, choral lit, ... it's a huge amount.  Every time I open the New Grove at random I see something else we need to do.


 * You're right about the community: it's there, but it is fragmented and, like many internet communities, often factious and incivil, but I think you will find that the "classical music" editors are a pretty decent bunch (look at talk pages for various composers, and on my own talk page, for some of the names).  You'll enjoy meeting them.  Overall though it is amazing just how well Wikipedia works in spite of its internal rifts.  Thanks again for Canticum Sacrum; I sometimes think I'm one of few people in the world who likes that piece.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
There are measures available to deal with chronic abusers, but mostly it's a matter of reverting it when you see it. More at Cleaning up vandalism. Happy editing, Tom Harrison Talk 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Orff
Hello! I couldn't help "overhearing" your edit to Antandrus' talk page; may I butt in? In my opinion you can just go ahead and create the article: for a title, my preference would be Carmina Burana (Orff). As an aside, can I add my admiration for your work on the Canticum Sacrum article, and extend a very warm (if slightly belated) welcome? Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 15:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I just happened to check my watchlist once while at work; good timing.  (And by all means make the acquaintance of RobertG! :-)  )


 * I also vote for Carmina Burana (Orff). Carmina Burana (cantata) is another title for which there is precedent, but I think the one with Orff is best.  It will be good to have a separate article.  Happy editing! Antandrus  (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What a nice article, marvellous! I notice you're a choral conductor: you don't fancy having a go at Cinq rechants do you?  Spem in alium and Geographical Fugue are in want of some work, and the Bach Motets have no entry at all.  Just suggestions!  Whatever you do, keep up the good work.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 13:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yay!
Hey Mark! You're doing such a great job in your Wiki endeavors! I must say, I think you've got me hooked...I've already got a long list of articles I want to edit. Thank you! See you when you get back from the wedding :-) ~Sarabi1701 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the page on userboxes? With a simple command, you can put something like this in your profile:

user composition

Pretty cool, huh?

~Sarabi1701 (Talk | contribs) 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ogres are cool.MarkBuckles 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
What is the procedure when I find an article like this one, Philippine Ballet Theater that is clearly not written from a NPOV and is plagarized directly from this site http://www.culturalcenter.gov.ph/res-PBT.htm? -MarkBuckles 06:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, NPOV and plagiarism are two different problems - the latter is far more serious. Please see Copyright problems for information on how to deal with copyright violations. I've tagged this article as a copyvio of the website you specified. As for NPOV, you can choose to rewrite it from a Neutral Point of View, or you can flag it with an appropriate template message, such as POV and POV-check. Please see Template messages/Disputes for a comprehensive list. — Tangot a ngo 07:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You Deserve It!
My good friend, I can't believe how much you've accomplished in the short time you have been part of the Wiki community. I'm so proud of you! Your dilegence and enthusiam are admirable, and the quality of your work is superb!

For your many contributions, and for being such an inspiration, I hearby present to you the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Keep up the good work!

~ Sarabi1701 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey...
Hey...why don't you turn on your instant messanger so we can chat a little while you work on this Reqium article of yours? Moo! :-)

~ Sarabi1701 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question
Greetings Mark! While I'm not an expert at copyright, I believe you can use the image. I'd use one of the tags under the PD section of Image_copyright_tags, for example PD-old-50 or PD-old-70. It seems reasonable to me that this would apply to a scan of a music manuscript. Since there's nothing particularly "creative" in making a scan, it's just a two-dimensional reproduction of a two-dimensional object, the reasoning on the Template:PD-art would apply. But... IANAL. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the cookie Mark, it's much appreciated, but I'm wondering - what were you specifically referring to. Another thing, how did you trip across me :) Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC).

Neumes
Hey, thanks! That's an award I really like! Take care and have a great holiday. :-) Antandrus  (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too! :) Mak (talk)  23:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"The community"
Hello, Mark. I think your questions about "the Wikipedia community" are actually very deep! I'm not sure any of us are quite sure what is going on in the big picture!!! Seriously, I sometimes find the global communal effort required to keep Wikipedia together hard to conceive!

There are Wikipedians who have helped me through some rough patches and crises of confidence. I think this amounts to real friendship: so if you need help, don't be afraid to ask! We all need reassurance sometimes. On the other hand, I have also found that the community here can be remarkably loose: there have been times when I have felt that I am editing my own personal Wikipedia backwater! While many of us admire each other's work, I think the same disconnection might be felt occasionally by most contributors; but I suspect most of us find this project initially enticing precisely because there is no pressure, no deadline, no formal commitment, and it is possible to focus on areas of personal interest.

Moving on to the detail of your questions, I'm not sure there is a single focal point for musicians, and I don't know why that is - perhaps the body of musicians on Wikipedia has not yet reached the critical mass required to need one! Or perhaps there are so many gaps and deficiencies that it is not yet necessary to co-ordinate a search to find them! In any case, if you need to feel connected, my talk page is always open (although I'm not always "at home").

Esperanza's aims are laudable: I tend to use it to watch for fellow Wikipedians under stress - a few calming or appreciative words on a floundering or undervalued contributor's talk page often work wonders. With Esperanza I think you just need to sign up on the members' list, and if you see something that ought to be done then suggest it!

Like you, I also often feel that being more connected would be a good thing! If someone would show me how to connect to the IRC channel(s) I might find that helped (I work in software, but this technology has passed me by and I need an idiots' guide :-) ). Anything I can do to make you feel more connected, please let me know.  And I hope it reassures you to know that someone who's been here more than a year is still grappling (albeit not very profoundly) with the same questions!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Govi
"removed speedy deletion - see talk page"
 * What can I tell you - it happens. There was lots of talk page activity, but he kept putting it back on. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First it was a copyvio. Then he reposted it in this cleaned-up version, and I didn't tag for repost, but the same admin re-zapped it for A7. Now he reposted the same thing again, and to this I had to add repost. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW!!!
I love what you're doing with your user page! Those boxes at the top are GREAT! I also really like how you're using pipes instead of commas to separate articles...I might steal that idea :-p

Congrats on your second DYK acceptance!

Hope all is well in MI. ~ Sarabi1701 14:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikiwikiwikiwikiwikiwikiwikiwikiwikiwikiwikiwiki!
 * ~ Sarabi1701 12:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Dream of Gerontius
Thank you for the kind words. I did enjoy writing the article. Did you notice the companion pieces on Apostles and Kingdom, and also Belshazzar's Feast (Walton)? I still think Gerontius was my best ab initio effort.

BU, eh? During my 15 years in Boston I was in the Boston Civic orchestra, which was based at BU. I was also in the Dedham Choral Society, under Brian Jones, where I sang Gerontius. The first time I sung it was in King's College Chapel, in 1971, with Britten conducting (bragging points there, surely).

My wikibreak has been extended by a vacation in England, which was itself extended by illness. Back home now, and perhaps from my enforced bedrest I'll get wikiactive again; your comment is a great encouragement. David Brooks 14:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Judson Laipply
I'm not breaking any Wikipedia policy by removing things posted on my talk page. Talk page vandalism "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion"

My edits which you have removed have verifiability They have been sourced from AP & SMH If i'm reading it correctly then saying that something is popular is not encyclopedic. So wouldnt that be the same for the World Cup etc? Feedyourfeet 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah i agree Feedyourfeet 12:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi! I've run across your name on some of the early music Wikipedians' talk pages, and wanted to introduce myself. I've been adding pages on some of the plainchant traditions (Beneventan chant, Celtic chant, Gallican chant, Ambrosian chant, Mozarabic chant, Old Roman chant) and I've just finished a major overhaul of Gregorian chant. If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look and giving some feedback? Thanks! Peirigill 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize Reciting tone was just a stub... I'll definitely add it to my to-do list. Thanks! Peirigill 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've expanded Reciting tone, and created a redirect to that page from "Psalm tone," since there didn't seem to be any point to making "Psalm tone" a separate article. Any suggestions?  Think it's worth nominating for DYK? The Yemenite/Qur'anic tie-ins might make for a good sound bite.  Peirigill 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: psalm tones vs. reciting tones... psalm tones are a form of reciting tones, and they include reciting tones, since "reciting tone" can refer to the repeated pitch in isolation or to the entire melodic formula for which that pitch is a structural note. I don't see a good way around that ambiguity.  To explain how the recitation pitch is used, I have to explain the structure of the psalm tone, but then there's not much more to say about psalm tones that isn't already in the reciting tone article already.  I could specify which reciting tone is used for each mode, but is that genuinely informative?  The best solution would be to reproduce Hoppin's realization of the psalm tones in modern staff notation, but I don't know how to do that on Wikipedia... and even if I could, doesn't that border on plagiarism? Peirigill 06:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted Gregorian chant for Peer review/Gregorian chant/archive1. If you get a chance, please comment! Thanks - Peirigill 04:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
&hellip;for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I indefinitely blocked a sockpuppet of that account earlier as a vandal account, and s/he seems to have taken umbrage that s/he isn't given a free reign to contribute rubbish. Heigh ho! --RobertG &#9836; talk 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit
Yes I wanted to say thanks for copyedit. You say it better that I but I feel you understand and leave in what I was saying. good skill -- RoddyYoung

Watchlist
Isn't a person's watchlist supposed to list all changes to pages they choose to watch? I just checked out the phoenix page's history, and there's a bunch more edits on there then what has been showing up on my watchlist. I didn't realize the watchlists were selective... :-/

Wikiwikiwiki, ~ Sarabi1701 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I attempted to answer this person's question, and noticed you stole my picture :) Completely kidding. Keep up the good work. Mak (talk)  15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just used that exact picture for my WP:RFA thanks . Cheers, Mak (talk)  16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey there...thanks for copyeditting what I've got so far for the phoenix. Give me a call if you want to have a wikiparty ;-) ~ Sarabi1701 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wanna talk on AIM while you wiki? ~ Sarabi1701 23:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on Authentic Performance
I was disappointed that you deleted my recent addition. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please make allowances if I went about it in the wrong way. I felt that a qualification needed to be added, since the term "authentic" is a pariah nowadays amongst early music specialists. Early music performers these days (and I've interviewed quite a few) are very careful to avoid using the term in speech and print--it just doesn't jibe with the general goals of the HIP movement, which are to make music, not to make some kind of historical statement.

Ideally, your otherwise fine article should be re-titled "Period Instrument Performance" or "Historically-Informed Performance". This would have the most relevance for people likely to use Wikipedia.

It would be nice, too, if you added some mention of the "mechanics" of HIP, such as phrasing, articulation, ornamentation, etc.

Thanks, --Cbrodersen 12:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note
Thanks for the note! I'm pleased to see yet another early music specialist around. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Falsobordone and its similarly-named kin
Hi, sorry, that was me who made the erroneous redirect to Fauxbourdon; I was trying to clear out some of the Music encyclopedia topics and made some assumptions, it seems...looking in the Harvard music dictionary, I see there may be small differences between some of the series of very similar words, some of which I rashly redirected there too (which include Faberdon (German), faberdón (Spanish), faburden (English; this one is mentioned on fauxbourdon), and possibly others). I'm not sure if they're enough to justify separate pages, but perhaps you know enough about all of these to make either separate pages or clarify the distinction on whichever page is relevant, and remove the haze of confusion from editors like me. Also, the dictionary cites an article which has a possible explanation of the derivation of the term falsobordone and its relationship with fauxbourdon: by E. Trumble in the Journal of the American Musicological Society viii, 71. If you have access to a university library (I don't) maybe you could check that out and provide a clear explanation here...some explanation of all this crazy etymology seems due. In any case, thanks for correcting my mistake. Rigadoun 21:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Chien-Cheng Circle
Hi, thanks for reminding me about the Chien-Cheng Circle night market article. I'm not sure if the building will be demolished since one news source states that it will be demolished while another doestn't even mention it and states that the building will be reopened as a "delicacies promotion center". I've updated the article though. — Nrtm81 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Charpentier
Hey Mark, yeah, I'm still in the process of writing that article. I was hoping to get to the synopsis later on the day I wrote it, then I intended to comment ( out the section, but just forgot. So yes, it's better to leave out section headings for sections which aren't actually writting yet, or to leave them unviewable in case, as in this instance, you're not actually able to immediately go back and write them. Cheers, Mak  (talk)  14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ggarraggebbanndd
(Stupid reverb...) Thanks! I'm so unfamiliar with this software that I was lucky to figure out how to create even the simple sound files I did manage to produce. Peirigill 00:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for your kind and helpful feedback to my questions about POV. I've only been in Wikiworld since September 05 and in that time have done mostly minor (a few not quite major, maybe some diminished) edits. "Rejoice" was the first article I wrote from scratch, and I'm obviously not very good at it yet, and may never really get the hang of it. "Objectivity" isn't really my forte (still less my fortissimo). The reason the article sounded like liner notes was because it quoted heavily from those of the cited CD; perhaps I should have mentioned that as a source attribution. I'm sure there is voluminous literature on Bennie, and I confess I haven't read a word of it (except Wiki articles). I also confess I stand in some awe of someone who has done the work you've done in slightly more than 2 months. How do you find time to do any work at Boss U?

Thanks again for your help. Ranthlee 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar! --Violncello 17:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RILM (and all others)
Thanks for creating a RILM page and for all the other work on musicology and classical music. Great contribs! --Myke Cuthbert 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude
Dude, you are like totally stalking my talk page :-) I just realised you might know a prof I know. Anyway, after I posted on that AfD, I realised you might possibly not know what I'm talking about, so here's a link. Cheers, Mak (talk)  10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure it's absolutely clear, because text-based communication can sometimes be confusing, I don't mind you watching my talk page at all, and I don't at all mind that you think the guy's notable enough to be kept. Mak (talk)  00:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The new FAR/FARC process
Hi Mark

I noticed your excellent contributions to Roy of the Rovers on the FAC page, and wondered whether you'd be interested in dropping into WP:FAR occasionally (or often) to encourage, prod, critique, and—when the crunch comes—to declare "Keep" or "Remove".

The new FAR process is now being swamped with nominations (currently 23 in FAR and 13 in FARC), and the four or five regulars are finding it difficult to service the needs of such a large process. The ideal is to encourage the guardians of the many substandard FAs to fix them; sometimes this happens, but all too often, a nomination is met with disinterest by those you'd have thought would be keen.

The contribution of more good reviewers there, particularly those who are focused on good writing, would have a powerful impact on the FA culture in WP.

PS I like your musical tastes!

Tony 08:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Trobairitz
Thanks Mark, those are really helpful. I think I'll start with something on Chansonniers, since it's been bugging me that they don't have an article. I'll probably do the more nitty-gritty stuff tomorrow. A brief explanation of why the article is how it is - I started out by writing stubs on the individual trobairitz, but there is so little information available, and I felt like I was repeating myself so much, I thought it would be more informative to group them together in one article, so I did. A later editor decided to write articles on the individuals... and another editor decided to add a completely blinding list, so I did my best to incorporate that stuff, but at the moment I see how it could be a bit patchy. I'd rather have real criticisms than nit-picking about links, though. Cheers, and thanks again, Mak (talk)  05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Mark. So, I see you don't like my BM template :P (lol, I know, it's really dumb, but I get enjoyment out of it... it's a long story). Do you have the new NAWM? I don't remember "A chantar" being on the old one (well, the last edition). If you know who performed it I might be able to tell you why it's a step down. I'm actually on the new recording, as part of a chorus, but I still haven't hear it (I suspect the bit I'm on is awful). Anyway, just blathering, thanks for your notes on "Trobairitz", Cheers, Mak (talk)  05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the help with the spinet image. We'll see if this works! Cheers, Opus33 23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir
Hi Mark

The authority? Nah, I see people improving my prose, which means that my obsession is having an impact.

I think the style guide is fine WRT this issue. Not in titles, and go easy on it in the main text. I've always been suspicious, if not downright contemptuous, of bells and whistles that are awarded arbitrarily and, of course, corruptly. These include the "Sir" label, which has been handed out to generous donors to conservative political parties in Commonwealth countries as a matter of course. But I accept that might be reasonable to mention the label (perhaps just once in an article?) when olden times are at issue. Tony 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Trobairitz
Hello Mark! Trobairitz can be pronounced [truβajˈɾits] in both Old and Modern Occitan.--Aubadaurada 21:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mozart not a romantic
I don't mind being corrected. Obviously I was given bad information. What I do mind is being flamed for making good faith edits. And I stand by my statement that "Classical" is an impossibly vague term applied to music ranging from baroque to neo-classical. It is a genus, not a species. Of course Mozart is a classical composer. I was trying to make the article more precise by giving the species of his music. If I was misinformed, then of course I regret the edits. Thank you for your courtesy, apparently rare in this community when someone makes an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvaphdman (talk • contribs)

Thanks
for updating the Music Noticeboard! Hopefully it'll become more widely used as time goes on. Cleaning it up is critical if people are going to take it seriously, so thank you.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Choir
I've been meaning to do something like that for some time, but have never found the time. David Underdown 09:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Your comments on "Trobairitz" were so helpful, I was wondering if you'd do me the favor of looking at Concerto delle donne. If you do, if you'd leave any comments at Peer review/Concerto delle donne/archive1 that would be very helpful. Thanks Mak (talk)  18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiMe
Mark -- thanks for starting my user page. Now help me continue it! I'm applying the wiki principle to my own user page, hoping that the Wikipedia community that knows me will offer their insights, experience and knowledge. The goal is humor. ANYTHING goes. Please enjoy and tell your friends. Ztrawhcs 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit confict on Concert delle donne
Yep, we've got a nasty edit conflict going... I was trying to reinsert your changes on top of mine, and it's become a mess. Just revert to your last version, and I'll add my changes back in later tonight. I've got to stop editing right now anyway. Peirigill 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhythmic mode
Ah, yes, I remember that. It was one of those "oy, that will require some research, I think I'll put it off until later" moments, and now it looks like a whole year has gone by, LOL. If only it were Pokemon or Star Trek ... :-) Antandrus  (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings again! User preferences, click on "raw signature", then paste in this MarkBuckles  (talk) to the signature box, and save preferences. Antandrus  (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, strange. Are you sure you checked the "raw signature" box?  Mine begins with a double bracket, which I think you don't need unless you have that box checked.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Invited to participate
Mark, I'd be interested in your thoughts over at the man page. Ztrawhcs 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Blenheim
Hello MarkBuckles. I have rewritten the article. It is now a much better and clearer and is now also fully sourced. If you the time and/or inclination, I would be interested to see if you think it has improved, is less Anglo-centric, and deserving of FA status. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Featured article candidates/Battle of Blenheim

Voice instrumental music
Hi MarkBuckles,

I just realized that the article Voice instrumental music (though a collage) now practically ceases to exist. You have actually removed a lot of matter by calling it "cruft". I think there was a lot of matter that only needed a re-writing instead of being deleted. I think I need to revert the article to include the massive text removed as "cruft". Vocal music as you rightly pointed out on the talk page of user:Hyacinth, is not mentioned in grove. May be thats why we have a WIKIPEDIA. I just realized. :)) Robin klein 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear MarkBuckles,

The concept of "Voice Instrumental music" is not OR. How could it be. The "Vocal instrumental concerto" is one of the oldest conceptions of Classical music. refer to this link from Britannica encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9075629 I used the term "voice instrumental music" as an umbrella term over two years ago, so that I may not confuse it with the "Vocal-instrumental concerto". Just because I used an umbrella term does not make the concept OR (original research). In that case the suggestion of user:Hyacinth over a year ago to rename Classical music as "European inspired classical music" which later on ended up being termed as "European classical music" should be considered as OR (ORIGINAL RESEARCH). you would not find most encyclopedias using the term EUROPEAN CLASSICAL MUSIC. Does that make the article is OR (original research)?? ......NO.

Because what Hyacinth was doing was to broaden the scope of the term "classical music" to make it more inclusive to refer to all the musics around the world which are systematized and has formal training. In like manner "Voice Instrumantal music" is NOT original research.

What is needed is to revive the page Voice instrumental music and have new structue to the page. I have decided to have four major sections as structure for the page based on your query

i) voice music that employed vocal techniques different from singing

ii) voice music that do not use text

iii) music where in the voice emulated the style of instruments

iv) music in which voice was integrated into an instrumental texture

on this structure we could re-write the page on voice instrumental music.

If the concept of VIM (Voice instrumental music) is original research, then it would not have survived for over two years. especially when the wikipedia is full of composers and musicologists from around the world.

Instead it only shows that there are a few people who think they are the only ones who have knowledge and insight into music from around the world and they take drastic decisions of redirecting pages that people have written over two years by condemning it as OR. Robin klein 05:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Old concept

 * Hi MarkBuckles,


 * With all good regards,


 * This exchange of ideas is an important one, though it has taken its toll on me and you. Like you, I am also experiencing high stress.

I will never to my knowledge be able to give you a source for the term "Voice instrumental music" just as people would not be able to give source for the term "European classical music" amongst old masters. However, The masters of European classical music have "IMPLIED" the "CONCEPT" of "Voice instrumental music" though definitely NOT the "TERM". see Sprechstimme, sprechgesang. The distinction by German composers of MUSIK v/s LIEDER and GESANG is a great musical idea but most people who are not familiar with "EUROPEAN classical music" are not EXPLICITLY familiar with the distinction, though they do engage in it. For example: the thriving tradition of South Indian voice instrumental called Thillana. I have strongly stressed on having an article on VIM (voice instrumental music), because the simple idea of the voice as an instrument is not an idea that is consciously understood by most people "EVEN" though it is actually used as one. Most people actually reduce music to LYRICS. See cognitive research and Ludwig Wittgenstein and the problems of the philosophy of language.

Apart from the idea that the "term" given by me is an umbrella expression, the concept is NEVER original. Think about the music of the Russian saxophonist Vladimir Chekasin called 'Concerto for Voice and Orchestra', which used the voice of Datevik Hovhannessian as a soloist instrument, or the music of Henryk Górecki (symphony no 3), of course it has text but that is just ornamental like mahler song cycles, or Orffschulwerk or the Jewish nigun which is exactly what I call as VOICE INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. I repeat, only the term is new, the concept I should insist is most rudimentary and an age old one. An idea is (original research) only if the concept is new, a term should never be confused for a concept. If there is a new term for an age old concept, then there is nothing original about it. Instead it is only an attempt to have more light thrown on something that has been overlooked. Not for not being important but because the idea is so pervasive and important that it has been implicit and underlying and therefor overlooked.

I hope we would not get rigid and trapped in the problems of linguistic traditions, rather we may just use a NEW term for an idea that is extremely elementary and basic and ever prevalent across various forms of music across the ages.

The stress that I face is about the concern for a resolution and about getting my view across without it being distorted.

My biggest concern however in almost anything, is to never get trapped by the tool called as Language. Have you ever wondered why the history of human conflict is as old as the history of human language. :)) refer to Ludwig Wittgenstein. thanks, your wikipedian friend Robin klein 11:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful suggestions
Hi MarkBuckles,

you have left very beautiful suggestions on my talk page. Yes VIM means vocal music where the primary purpose is music not text or lyrics. Yes thats the composer's point of view.

Yes we need to put all the contents in a page where people could easily reach. We may solve this by:

i) using the umbrella term VIM as a section in the page "Instrumental music" and then have four subsections under the umbrella term. The page Instrumental music is an extremely neglected one and may be it would be a nice point to begin at.

ii) by actually having a page called "Voice instrumental music" and then linking it to the page instrumental music or European classical music.

iii) use the umbrella term VIM as a section in the page "Vocal music" and then have four subsections under the umbrella term.

The lack of text does not seem to be an extended technique.

with regard to category IV you wrote "the integration of voice into "traditionally instrumental textures", like the orchestra, would make this a little easier. Maybe that's what you mean anyway?"

yes indeed, thats exactly what I meant.

thanks Robin klein 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LA Childrens Chorus
Hey Mark, thanks for reminding me about the citation for the quote. I was looking around, and I actually can't find that LA times article that I needed to cite. Oh well, we can just remove that quote. I guess it uses, as Wikipedia calls it, “weasel words”. Anyway, thanks for heping the article. I'm really new to Wikipedia, and I'm not entirely sure about the formatitting.

Natanyel 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Toledo War FAC
Hello, I would just like to let you know that Toledo War is now a FAC. Thank you very much for the support and help, I appreciate it! FAC page Hotstreets 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

TOO COOL!
Mark, check out the marquetry article! YAY!

~ Sarabi1701 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Much belated reply
Hi Mark! Finally getting around to the backlog on my talk page. Looking at the history, it seems that the conflict was solved amicably: is that correct? If not I'll be happy to take a closer look. Best, Antandrus (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CMAA

 * I just responded to your thoughts on including the CMAA link on the Gregorian chant talk page. I can't help wondering whether User:Cmaa would approve of the Proper chants I composed for a votive Gregorian Mass for a gay marriage.  It's all very musically authentic, I assure you.  ;?)
 * The CMAA article itself looks pretty good to me. The current Board membership should be omitted or at least qualified with a time marker such as "As of August, 2006, the Treasurer was Foo."  The main problems are the commercial, POV aspects of the article.  For example, the Seventeenth Colloquium sounds like an advertisement.  (It also speculates on future performance, and Wikipedia shouldn't predict the future.)  There's no criticism of the organization, its aims or efficacy.  I'm concerned that "fixing" these problems with the article will come across as attacking the organization, and unwelcoming to User:Cmaa.  How would you propose addressing this?  Peirigill 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just left a lengthy essay on the CMAA talk page. I tried to be friendly but candid about my concerns with the article.  I'd appreciate it if you'd weigh in on my comments there; if I'm right, I could use the reinforcement, and if I was too critical, another more measured opinion will help put my comments in perspective.  Peirigill 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian chant lede dispute
User:SCCC and I are having a fundamental disagreement over the lede to the Gregorian chant article. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over our discussion at Talk:Gregorian_chant and give your input? Thanks! Peirigill 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Dan Tucker
Hey, Mark. Thanks again for your help on Dixie (song). I was hoping you could give me hand with another article, Old Dan Tucker. Two of my sources seem to be in disagreement, but my musicologese isn't good enough to really tell. Would you mind putting a word in at Talk:Old Dan Tucker when you get a chance? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a

proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Michigan Glee Club
Hi, I am making a concerted effort to improve the articles on the major US glee clubs (Harvard, Cornell, Rutgers, etc.) particularly relating to adding sources and trimming "promo" material and text that seems like it might have been lifted from brochures. I notice that you have contributed a lot to the Michigan article, which I think is quite well written, but I would love to see sources and citations added to make it really up to "good article" status (see Harvard Glee Club for an example, it took a long time and is somewhat thankless but it greatly improved the article.) Thanks! --Dmz5 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After you are back from your break, of course.--Dmz5 18:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)