User talk:Willi Gers07/Archive01

There should be an automatic link to the current talk page, and that's where any new messages should be directed to.

This is my first talk page archive and there is no welcome message. There never was a welcome message. Not even the canned welcome message from the template. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Chromatic trumpet
I remember reading something in the ITG journals that mentioned earlier pieces for chromatic trumpet. I'll have to look up the source.

I wouldn't qualify as an expert but I did write the paper I think you are referring to (see list of articles). --dbolton (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaun 1 op 22 "An mein vaterland" (D minor? D major?)
There's a worklist at de:Hugo-Kaun-Werkverzeichnis. It claims, anyway, that his three symphonies are in D minor (op. 22, An Mein Vaterland), E minor and C minor. It does come down to a disagreement between the two sources. There's a couple of worldcat-entries for the op. 22 which all say D minor, if I remember, but ultimately would be good to look at the score.

A page about Kahn's music and the symphony specifically anyway, with an mp3 of the opening of the first symphony is here. Still, that would just establish that it opens there, not what key it's in - symphonies in D minor that open in major, and vice versa, are not unknown and are common, respectively. This seems to be a modern performance, though I can't tell how modern, so at first glance the answer would be yes (though not often)? (The mp3, an interesting-to-me sounding bit in minor, seems to end just on the dominant chord right before the opening of the main section, too, so it's hard to say just from that. I seem to recall from browsing the Musical Times or the Neue Zeitschrift - probably the latter - as I used to do in the library, that in the year of its premiere, Kaun's 3rd symphony received quite a few performances in many cities across Germany, incidentally; its name kept turning up in concert programs that year in issues of that magazine... made me curious about the piece. A few of his chamber works and one piano concerto (no 2, op 115 in C minor), I think, are at IMSLP? On CD apparently his 2nd piano trio and 1st symphony can both be heard, again according to that webpage (which has a substantial description of the symphony, in German, seeming - if my German is ok?... to meet the description D minor - finale ending in major...), and a new CD with his first piano concerto in E♭ minor is also announced. Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seven, you
Haydn and Koglmann. What do you get when you take 6 times 9 and divide it by 2? Think about it. Gulp.seven up (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you clarify? Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You get it. You don't need it quite so spelled out as some people. Gulp.seven up (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think. Willi Gers07 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarinet Concerto K 622
I started a discussion on the trivia section on the article's talk page. Themfromspace (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well,...
... I like Vaughan Williams Oboe Concerto. And yes I play the oboe, cheers OboeCrack (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Careful
You are lucky that I personally don't give a shit. But if this is how you typically engage editors here you are going to have issues when you encounter editors who may, in fact, take umbrage at this kind of juvenile outburst and meretricious accusation-mongering. If you are really so outraged, go read the trivia link that other editors kindly pointed to you, reopen the discussion, change the consensus at WP:CM and then you can exalt in the restoration of your Belmondo trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really didn't give a s---, you wouldn't use such language. Regardless, the Belmondo so-called "trivia" doesn't belong to me, and if it did, it would also belong to Belvdme, Themfromspace and DavidRF, the reporter for the interview, etc. Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Commentary for any lurkers there might be out there: See, what Eusebeus has done here is brilliant. By warning me, his retaliation won't have the element of surprise, and thus will be all the more powerful and inevitable. Though I do suppose there will be some surprise in which WP: he uses. Will he go for an old chestnut, or use a new one? Remember, it doesn't have to have any basis in truth, because no one would dare question if the policy is really relevant for him to execute his revenge. Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

reply
Hello. I think you should calm down. You use far too much sarcasm and let arguments about one article spill into other discussions where editors could reasonably be confused. I mean, what is JackofOz supposed to make of this edit without checking your edit history? And you think insulting me for not having seen Breathless is supposed to endear me to your cause? I had actually already added a note on the talk page there (Talk:Breathless_(1960_film)) for the editors there who might be interested. Your grudge against Eusebeus is just as bad as the grudge you "bulliness" that you perceive from him. Eusebeus is a bit draconian on the pop culture rules and often he reverts before he thinks, but these are content disputes and you have to deal with them on a case by case basis. I disagree with him all the time. Don't make it so personal. Ranting on the wikiproject page of an unrelated discussion is going to scare other editors away from you.

As for "KK", he was only here a week. I'm not sure how he could have that strong feelings against Eusebeus about a relatively minor issue with the discography section of a single article. Maybe he was lurking as an anon for a while?

As for the 27th symphony, I fought to put the nickname anecdote in and its in, but the Koglmann bit I don't particularly care about. Check the history. My old version that you cite as being the "consensus" didn't have that bit in there. That actually is trivia as far as I'm concerned. I don't even see an article for that other piece, or it listed in Koglmann's lists of works. Sorry. Get in the habit of disagreeing more agreeably. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I hope you aren't thinking that because Shostakovich was a master of sarcasm that its a reasonable way to communicate with wikipedia editors when dealing with editorial minutia.  I mean, in the real world, I enjoy sarcasm/satire more than most, but on these talk pages it just makes it more challenging to separate sarcasm from strawman arguments and other debate tactics.  I'd also be paranoid that that excess sarcasm would turn off other editors.  Those are the people that you'd need to build consensuses if you're going to tip an edit-revert debate in your favor.


 * I hadn't noticed the flute note in the 30th was removed. I'll put that back.  Hodgson rambled speculatively a bit too much in his explanation... not sure if I'd put the full rambling back (instruments are silent in movement all the time, its notable but certainly not out of the ordinary).  Anyhow, I gotta go, but take it easy.  This is just a hobby for me, so I try not to take things too seriously. DavidRF (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the flute bit back in the article. The use of the flute at all is certainly variable in the symphonies of the 1760s and 1770s.  I haven't counted, but my guess its less than 30%.  The movement where the winds is silent is usually the slow movement and not the opening movement.DavidRF (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just noticed. Had to refresh the browser. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm certainly not of the opinion that we need to undo all edits made by the dmetric sockpuppets because many useful facts about instrumentation, premiere dates and the like were added by this person. But, in no way do I condone sockpuppetry.  The whole sockpuppet concept adds an unnecessary level of paranoia to the process and leads me to believe that I cannot trust anything that this person says.  Your excessive antagonism and sarcasm about this particular issue along with edits to non-english-language versions of the articles in question is actually making me very paranoid about *you*.  I mean, are you a sockpuppet of dmetric?  Its gotten to the point where I'd almost want regular editors of Haydn articles to *all* submit to regular checkuser tests so we can all be clear that we're debating real people. DavidRF (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a sockpuppet of the dmented dmetric. I would like to pee in the cup, but how do I know that Eusebeus won't falsify the result? Even if he can't falsify the result, whatever I do would still play into Eusebeus' fear tactic. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So the first major attack against me failed. The attacker meant it to fail, why else would he have chosen such an unoriginal, lazy, greedy tactic? I'm supposed to be lulled into a false sense of security. The future attack that does succeed against me, I can only hope it will be so brilliant, so original that I can say, "Damn, he's a total bastard, but is he a genius!" Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quitting
Well, indeed, yes... and thank you very much for the note. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, me too! Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)