User talk:Shteblin

"Date of Scoring" and User:Willi Gers07
Hello, sorry for the confusion. The unconstructive part of User::Willi Gers07's edits is the "Date of Scoring" nonsense. He doesn't want the section named that way either and he expects other editors to come and clean up after him when he does that. I'm not a big fan of merging the "Date of Composition" and "Scoring" sections either and I've been fixing most of those as I'm finding them, but I've been slow to change the Paris articles because I don't know what to do with that part. I've been debating whether I should just scrap it and put it into the lede.DavidRF (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks for explaining. I didn't notice that at first.  I guess I played right into his game.  Sorry about that.  Shteblin (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did it occur to you that maybe Dave played into my game? He showed his Eusebean side. Or that maybe I played into Dave's game? If that's the case, I don't know what he's gained.
 * If you want to continue editing the kinds of articles you've been editing, you can never disagree with David on anything. Ever. Again. You'll find yourself unofficially blocked from editing. People will assume that your edits are worthless without actually looking at what you actually did. Also, you need to denounce me. Big time. Agreeing with me on just one thing might poison people against you.
 * Happy Memorial Day, wikiwarriors. You live to fight another day. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you two ever fight about factual accuracy or is it petty surface details all the time? I don't care to get into your politics.  I'm only here to quintuple-check my facts.  That won't be affected by the outcome of this or any other silly conflict of which there are so many on Wikipedia.  Shteblin (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the talk pages for Haydn's 27th. Check archive 16 at WP::CM discussion page [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 16 here].  If you care at all, you can come up with your own conclusions by reading those.  In the past, he's actually called me [sensible and reasonable] but nobody else tries to communicate with him anymore, so he's turned on me.  Sorry you've witnessed this bit of wiki-ugliness.  Perhaps I too should just tune him out and silently clean up his edits for him when he leaves articles in a disruptive state.


 * Anyhow, I'm all about the facts. Welcome.  We need more editors who possess the facts that you have shown that you have access to.  Feel free to disagree with me all you'd like.  I'm actually quite inclusive when it comes to inclusion of facts.  I only get grumpy if I think you're trying to make me angry for your own personal entertainment.  And if you read the above threads, you'll see how much patience I have before I snap.  Apologies again and Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd care about that conflict if either of you was a famous composer or performer. You might be in the future, or were in the past, I don't know.  Willi certainly isn't and won't be, though without the detail of the Haydn 27th he'd seem like the kind of dilettante who's content to limit himself to the standard repertoire.  Even if I'm wrong in reading you two, there's way too much data for me to look at and I already have plenty of other data to go through.  Shteblin (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got me pegged just right. I'm not "a famous composer or performer," I wasn't and I will not be. And you did it right so easily, unlike David, who's trying to pin all sorts of sophistications on me. I'm not one bit sophisticated. You see me at the concert intermission (or interval if Dave prefers), I'll be drinking the MGD instead of the Cabernet Sauvignon. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't care "who's side" you take in any of those discussions.  The disputes end up being rather trivial content-wise, I just feel like I get strung along into disputes I don't want to be in just by replying and explaining.  Anyhow, I just didn't want to frighten you away from interacting with me on talk pages about details as you've done before.  That's all.  The rest of the editors are at WP:CM and WP:Composers and WikiProject Haydn and Mozart.  Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... I'd appreciate it if you let me know when you come across some book or journal dissecting the structural rhythm of minuets and their trios.  My focus so far has been on harmonic constrasts betweeen the two.  Shteblin (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me now that calling me a diletante was your mild attempt to denounce me. You need to do better than that. Take a page from DavidRF and use profanity to denounce me. Because if you don't denounce me strongly enough, you'll find yourself getting reverted for half-baked reasons, even when you cite a thousand books. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so there is a semi-organized group effort to nullify your contributions indiscriminately, and there is also a selective enforcement of rules against you. It doesn't matter.  Do you realize you're fighting for permanence in a sandbox?  You might have more fun rolling a boulder up a hill.  Every single bit of text in Wikipedia will be erased and overwritten sooner or later, and often for no better reason than the sake of change.  Shteblin (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Minuet form
I'm not sure what you mean by "structural rhythm", but there's quite a bit written on minuet form. Those references should help. Those books have reference sections themselves.
 * "Sonata Forms", Charles Rosen, p. 18, 30, 112-120.
 * "Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven", William E. Caplin, around p. 220
 * "Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata", James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, OUP,

I'm not sure which angle you are interested in, how did the ternary classical minuet evolve out of the baroque dance suites (Minuet I, Minuet II, Minuet I da capo) which Rosen touches a little bit on... or the nuts and bolts of the phrasings of the most basic minuets: ABA with minuet-A and trio-B each both in |:A:||:B A':| form with the repeats dropped in the da capo minuet... or the complex extensions to the form made in the late 18th century by composers looking to add variety to the most predictable of symphonic movements. Even so, its usually the movement of a symphony that usually generates the least amount of discussion.

Generally, I find the trio doesn't vary in rhythm but it often more lyrical, lighter in character and orchestration (the name came because the earliest of "middle-minuets" were scored for only three instruments) and often contain woodwind solos. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied at your talk page. Shteblin (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)