Talk:Concerto for Free Bass Accordion

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to John Serry, Sr..

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Rationale?[edit]

I'm curious to know what the rationale was for splitting this article off from John Serry, Sr.. It was only just last April merged with the composer article, as a result of consensus to do this rather than delete it entirely. Is the debate to delete now to be resumed?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jerome Kohl - In reply to the above question kindly note that the article was indeed merged into the composer's parent article as a result of a final decision in a deletion review debate. Subsequent discussions within the Wikipedia Project on musicians in Contemporary Music led to questions as to whether the entire contents of the article should be retained within the body of the parent article. The composer's article has since been removed from the Wikipedia musicians Project in Contemporary Music and reassigned into the Wikipedia Classical music project as per a member of that project- User:Kleinzach(See User talk: Kleinzach). User:Kleinzach has elected to retain the contents of this article as a sub-article to the parent article within the Wikipedia Project on Classical music. As far as I can determine the article has not been re-established as a stand alone article or split off from the parent artilce so the question of resuming a deletion debate is mute. It is my understanding that it is entirely proper to retain the contents of the article as a sub-article within the composer's article since this arrangement is consistent with the final decision in the deletion review debate to retain the contents of the article through merging. An additional debate is evidently not required since the deletion review has been closed. I suspect that further inquiries should be directed to the Wikipedia Project on Classical music since the composer's article was flagged for final categorization by an editor with expert knowledge in musicology within that project. Thanks for your inquiry --Meliora User:pjs012915--Pjs012915 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I do not understand what constitutes a "sub-article", but it really doesn't matter. As long as someone has a reason for taking this out of the biographical article, that's good enough for me. Oh, yes: I think you meant to say it is a "moot" issue, rather than a "mute" one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jerome Kohl - Many thanks for your input--I apologize about the spelling error. Evidently the description of the composition was extracted from the composer's article by the editors of the Wikipedia Classical Music Project in order to preserve the overall integrity and composition of the main article. The rationale was to create a separate "sub-article" window which could be accessed from within the main article in order to reveal the relevant musicological details for the benefit of students and musicologists. The ultimate objective was to expedite the "clean-up" of the main article without sacrificing the details associated with the description of the composition. Thanks again for your interest and your expert analysis during the process of perfecting the article. It is greatly appreciated. Meliora!-- --Pjs012915 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915[reply]

This makes perfect sense to me, but I do not read the Classical Music Project page, so I was ignorant of the discussion there. It might have been a good idea to put a brief notice on this Talk page about this, with a link to the relevant discussion, especially since the consensus to merge had been so recent.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keys?[edit]

I'm not familiar with the piece myself so am not fit to make edits, but I notice that the discussion of the first movement includes mention of some very outlandish keys like D-flat minor, D-sharp major, and F-flat major, all of which, while touched on occasionally in fleeting chromatic passages, are very unlikely to be a piece's true modulatory goal. I suspect that someone who thought it would be funny has added these in. If I am wrong in this suspicion and the piece really does go to all those unnecessarily heavy keys, ignore this comment.

76.118.3.9 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=Reply to Keys[edit]

Dear 76.118.3.9: Thank you for your insights regarding the key change modulations. The references to these key changes are indeed related to chromatic passage changes within the evolutuion of the composition and were included within the description of the composition in the interests of accuracy and completness. Any attempt to inject humor into the descriptive passage was not intended. The composition does in fact include chromatic changes which incorporate these key signatures in order to demonstrate the acccordion's robust virtuosic/orchestral potential. Thanks once again for your thoughtful insights. Respectfully pjs012915--Pjs012915 (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]