User talk:Matt.kaner/Archive 1

Nice work
Nice work on the fugue and false relation articles. WikiProject Classical music seems right up your alley if you haven't already seen it. Graham 87 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fugue
Hi, thanks for the compliments and congratulations on your job on the Fugue article - well done! I've been trying to rewrite the article for months, but the material just wouldn't render itself in words (English is my second language..).

One thing I noticed about the article in its present form is that episodes need to be explained (ie. its not clear from the text that a fugue consists of an exposition, sections with entries of the subject and episodes - subject-free sections). Also, I'm not sure, but someone once explained to me that a counter-exposition occurs only if the voices enter in different order or on different scale degrees compared to the original exposition. Ie, if the original exposition was soprano-tonic, alto-dominant, tenor-tonic, then a simple additional exposition occurs whenever all three voices state the subject successively, and a counter-exposition if the entries go either soprano-dominant, alto-tonic, tenor-dominant OR tenor-tonic, alto-dominant, soprano-tonic. There's no way I can think of to explain this well, and anyway I'm not sure about it and New Grove seems unclear on the matter, I just thought I'd mention it here. Also, I believe "free counterpoint" isn't a fugue-specific term but simply, well, free counterpoint :)

I'm afraid I don't have enough time for the article right now, but in case you want to go further with it, I've long ago uploaded a nice example of a short stretto fugue, given here: Talk:Fugue, and a very interesting example of subject transormations for the Goldberg Variations article, found here: Goldberg Variations along with an explanation beneath the image. I was also thinking about giving examples from Pachelbel's Magnificat fugues (they're short and to the point, perfect examples of simple fugues, and maybe we can coax a whole piece in the article since they're all short), Bach's C minor fugue from WTC1 (good example of a countersubject), perhaps a passage from Barber's fugue from his piano sonata (for the history section, good example of a modern fugue), and Bach's 5voice stretto from the B-flat minor fugue of WTC1 (to illustrate how far stretto can go). I even have a few of these ready in Sibelius format, just some minor editing needed.

Best wishes, Jashiin 13:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

William Lawes
Hi Matt, Just thought I'd leave a paragraph here to let you know why I've modified some of what you added to William Lawes and invite you to revert my changes if you disagree strongly enough.
 * When I read the edit I saw that it could be misinterpreted as saying that Lawes was Charles' kinsman, so I added a bit about Bernard Stuart to make it clear that they weren't kinsmen.
 * One author of an epitaph used on the occasion implies that there were other epitaphs used on the occasion, which I don't think was the case. I reverted it, but I'm not a music scholar, so if there were others, please re-instate it.

Regards, Ecb 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pachelbel
Hello Matt, I did respond on the talk page of the article, much earlier in fact, you must've missed it. I guess I wasn't in a very good mood, maybe the comment should be toned down a little.. anyway, I'll try to add some citations later today. Its just that there are almost no books on Pachelbel and only one general book (the Welter one. I don't have access to it, rather unfortunately since I absolutely love Pachelbel. Anyway) Thanks for messaging me though, I'd forgotten all about this already. Jashiin 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu
I'm not sure about your recent copy edit on this page. The opening now reads very ambiguously "Tōru Takemitsu (武満 徹 Takemitsu Tōru, October 8, 1930 – February 20, 1996) was a Japanese, largely self-taught composer of contemporary- and classical music" - It doesn't make any sense to say Takemitsu WAS a composer of contemporary music, it's an oxymoron. Furthermore the use of 'classical' music when refering to Takemitsu's work is entirely ambiguous and perhaps a little misleading. Also now you have moved the opening biographical information to the section headed 'music', the whole article reads very badly - if you look at the Messiaen page - (which is featured) you can see that this sort of general information BELONGS in the opening, and then further more detailed data belongs in the body. A single sentence to open the article is totally useless, especially when it conveys so little useful information.

I haven't reverted it but I do think it reads badly now and needs reorganising.

Matt.kaner 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah, it was erroneously saved by someone trying to be helpful...then i forgot all about it. it had some really big problems with hyper-referencing to start with, but i'll just revert and start over again. thanks for the reminder. --emerson7 | Talk 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic
Hi Matt. I noticed some comments of yours at Talk:Harmony, and found my way to your page. I agree with you that many Wikipedia music theory articles are really bad. My favourite to dislike is Diatonic function. (See especially the first paragraph of this section.) I am particularly interested in the vicissitudes of the terms diatonic and chromatic, each of which has many meanings, yielding enormous confusion around the place. For this reason I initiated the article Diatonic and chromatic. There is still quite a bit to do there, but we have made a pretty sound start, I think you'll agree. (I'm rather pleased with the first endnote, dealing with the etymology of diatonic. There's more to add, but I'm confident that there is no better account of the details and uncertainties anywhere on the web, or readily accessible anywhere at all.) The talk has been somewhat heated, since there are one or two hard-care dogmatists who refuse to acknowledge that usage differs. My own idea is that we have to face the fact of this diversity, rather than pretend it doesn't exist. Only then can we usefully make recommendations for some clear standard use of these terms – at Manual_of_Style_(music), perhaps. Anyway, I hope you will have a look at the new article, browse through the discussion, and join in!

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note at my page, Matt. I am not an expert on such recent music, and I will be tied up with other things for a few days. But I will look over the page you refer me to, and contribute what I can as a competent music editor. As for the fugue article, I'd be more confident about that. Give me time, and I'll get to it.
 * I'm not very optimistic about the music theory articles at the moment. See Talk:Augmented sixth chord and Talk:Interval (music), for example. I think I'll cut down on my Wikipedia involvement. Life's too short!
 * All the best to you.–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu
Hi Matt! Yes, I've noticed you working on his page; it's on my watchlist, and I've not interfered because I think you're doing a great job. He's one of my favorite contemporary composers, even though every once in a while there's a piece I hear I just bounce off of (sometimes it takes multiple listenings). He has an astonishing ear, especially for color; there's no one quite like him. At any rate, I'll definitely read the article and have a closer look. This is high profile, you know ( -- isn't it fun to have the first google hit? That's one of the things I love about working on Wikipedia, but it can be terrifying at times). Keep up the great work! Antandrus (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

takemitsu
i'm not quite sure i understand your objections to edits on the takemitsu article. i moved the works because it is a sprawling list that de-clutters the main page and make it much more accessible. moreover, the works of each of the other composers is handled in just this fashion. --emerson7 | Talk 00:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * of course i have no problem with a 'most notable' list. creating a new 'main article' was by no means an attempt to 'exile' the entire list from the article. re the 'further reading' section, WP:LAYOUT indicates it should be placed 'after' references. cheers --emerson7 | Talk 13:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

'notes and references' is fine...actually my preference is just simply 'references.' re the ordering of the 'further reading' section, though i lean slightly toward adherence with the mos, in the spirit of detente, i could live with it. --emerson7 | Talk 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu article Review
The article looks pretty good to me. You might want to a submit it for a Peer Review on WikiProject Biography. Oneworld25 14:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

More on Takemitsu
Thanks for your note at my page, Matt. Yes, I have copyedited some of the article. No time for more just now: I'll get back to it one day soon. You want it to be consistently American? Hmmm... I'd rather make it consistently British. All the same to you? And the references need regularising... Later! Yes, get a reference for Sea of tonality. (A work, or the composer's poetic way of expressing his launching into his new tonal adventures?)

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fugue
Hi Matt,

I was merely trying to tidy up the article, and was attempting to do so without changing the sence of it. As to music theory, do I know any? Well, yes I do, through playing music myself on piano and guitar for years. Have I studied it? No. Therefore, I was trying to keep the very good work that was already there while tidying up the text.

If I have made any changes which make a nonsence of established music theory and history, then I appologise. They were done in good faith.

The article can, and should, be improved. I did find it enlightening in the main, although there were far too many brackets within sentences (and in one instance brackets within brackets), sub-clauses and in at least one instance the same idea repeated within a paragraph consisting of a couple of lines.

Please keep up the good work! I can see how much great stuff has already been done on this page.

Major Bloodnok 20:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu chef and crime fiction writer
Hi Matt. Although the reference is perfectly legitimate and the edits are certainly not vandalism, perhaps that bit about Takemitsu does not belong in the heading, as these do not seem to be his primary occupation. Perhaps they can be mentioned somewhere in the biography section. --Atavi 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu FAC
Hello, Matt. Very nice work on the Takemitsu article: I have conditionally supported its promotion to featured status at the FAC. I know what it's like shepherding composer articles through FA: so good luck! Let me know if you need assistance (or just a shoulder to cry on). Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 11:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fugue
Hello Matt, I'm sorry for the delay in my reply, I sort of quit Wikipedia back then and only returned now. If you still need those examples (I haven't read the current version Fugue yet) of small fugues, let me know on my talk page and we'll discuss it further.

And once again, my apologies for the late reply. Jashiin 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Takemitsu 02 Water Music.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Takemitsu 02 Water Music.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Takemitsu flock descends aleatory.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Takemitsu flock descends aleatory.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Takemitsu litany excerpt.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Takemitsu litany excerpt.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Takemitsu requiem.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Takemitsu requiem.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)