User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 11

Tritone

Hi Jerome, how do you like my recent edits? Recently, you posted in the talk page a sentence which I cannot fully understand:

"Carefully reading over the lede paragraphs, I have to admit they make my brain hurt. In addition, there is at least one statement that is flat wrong: a diatonic scale may well be said to contain only one tritone, but it is not necessarily an augmented fourth—it depends on which of the two notes you start from (e.g., in a C-major scale F up to B is an augmented fourth, but B up to F is a diminished fifth)."

Is there a diatonic scale in which the (ascending) d5 B up to F (for instance B₃-F₄) can be decomposed into three whole tones?

The descending interval B down to F (for instance B₄-F₃) is a descending A4, as it encompasses 4 notes, like its ascending version F up to B (for instance F₃-B₄). Paolo.dL (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paolo. I have been trying not to read the edits to the article on the tritone, because in such cases (when the edits are coming fast and furious) it is fruitless to make judgments until the dust has settled. In order to answer your question, it is necessary to look at the article as it appeared on 9 November (a month ago now, and a month is a long time on Wikipedia). At that time, the lede paragraph contained this sentence: "In a diatonic scale there is only one tritone, classified as an augmented fourth". The comma could be the crucial thing, but it is a poorly written sentence in any case, because it had not been made clear whether the word "tritone" can apply only to the augmented fourth, or to both it and the diminished fifth. According to the former definition, yes, there is only on tritone in a diatonic scale, and it is an augmented fourth. However, most people today (I am an exception, since I actually exist in many different times, simultaneously ;-) would be mystified by this statement, since they see no difference between an augmented fourth and a diminished fifth, and so there are obviously two tritones in every diatonic scale. Now that I have (cautiously) peeked at the revision, I see that this problem has been fixed.

Whether or not a diminished fifth can be "decomposed" into three whole tones depends entirely on your theoretical framework. In "twelve-tone thinking" (nothing at all to do with Schoenberg's compositional technique), a span of six semitones is equivalent to three whole tones, and so your average jazz pianist will say, "of course, a diminished fifth contains three whole tones". But in the kind of diatonic thinking that pervaded musical logic until about the middle of the 19th century, the concept of "interval species" (which I think is what you really mean when you use the word "decompose") still was in force, even if not very strongly after the 16th century. Within that framework, "tri" means "three" and "tone" means a "whole tone", and if a diatonic segment does not actually have three whole-tone steps in it, the interval cannot be described as a "tritone". Therefore, the interval containing the notes (for example) D–E♭–F–G–A♭ has got semitone-tone-tone-semitone, and not tone-tone-tone, and therefore must be called something else: "diminished fifth", "semidiapente", or something similar. This is a fine point, however, and is exactly the kind of thing that makes a simple concept hard to understand for the beginner, who has no inkling that semitones may come in different sizes and therefore cannot understand that the two semitones in my example, depending on the tuning system being used, may add up to more or less than each of the whole tones in the middle, therefore making a diminished fifth either larger or smaller than an augmented fourth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. However, there's something I cannot understand yet. As far as I know, even when we are in a diatonic context there's no way to divide a d5 into three whole tones. This is because, as far as I know:

1. a whole tone is not defined as "any interval spanning two semitones". It is defined as a major second, i.e a second spanning two semitones. This means that a diminished third is not a whole tone.
2. Also, we know that the composition of three seconds makes a fourth, not a fifth. So, there's no way to build a (diminished) fifth from three (major) seconds.

This means that the strict definition "a tritone is an interval composed of three whole tones" always implies, even in a chromatic context, that d5s are not tritones. Which implies that the broad definition "a tritone is any interval spanning six semitones" is never equivalent, not even in a chromatic context, to the above-mentioned strict definition. Do you agree? Is there something I am missing?

Paolo.dL (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are missing anything. All I am trying to say is that we (by which I mean "all readers except you and me") are so thoroughly accustomed to thinking in terms of a 12-tone piano keyboard that when we are given the notes D and A♭, as in my example above, we imagine our fingers touching one white key and one black key at a span of six semitones, and whether that black key is "really" A♭ or G♯ is somehow irrelevant. Further, even supposing we are aware of the difference, and are thinking of A♭, we do not flinch at the thought that some intervening scale notes might be, for example, E, F, and G♭, with an interval pattern of tone-semitone-semitone-tone—a pattern that is not, from a strict diatonic point of view, a diminished fifth at all, since a diminished fifth (according to a "strict diatonic interpretation" = "diatonic interval species") must have the semitones at the bottom and top of the pattern. In fact, this might just as well be read as D–E–E♯–F♯–G♯, which is a proper tritone (augmented fourth) with a chromatic filler-tone (the E♯). This is what I meant by "twelve-tone thinking", an expression that appears in English music theory a decade or so before Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique. We are so thoroughly saturated in this kind of thinking that "diatonic" is a concept that we must make an effort to recall and apply. I think we may take it for granted that the average Wikipedia reader will have difficulty understanding why A♭ and G♯ are not the same note, and therefore that there is any difference at all between a diminished fifth and an augmented fourth. For this reason we must be very careful in our explanation of these matters which are, in fact, completely "out of date", and yet still inherent to the terminology universally employed in music theory.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Your advice is always useful. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

History of music theory

Major thirds tuning had the fox paws confusing A♭ and G♯, which remains in an image (whose caption notes the correction).

Please recommend a "history of Western music for music theorists" or a "history of music theory" (preferably a rational reconstruction by a careful student of Charles Sanders Peirce, Alasdair MacIntyre, or Imre Lakatos).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, OK. This is the first I've heard of this article, but it looks interesting. Thanks for calling it to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A casual observation made here

Greetings Jerome Kohl. You said (not literally) that if I wrote {{:de:My third grandmother}} I would get a fake bluelink that behaves like an honest one when I float the cursor over it. I tried and it doesn't work for me. Watch. This is what I get: {{:de:My third grandmother}}. Have I misunderstood what you were saying? Lest you wonder, I'm not asking in order to perfect my fake bluelinking skills but to try and understand one more thing about the software. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(watching) are you sure that you don't mean [[:de:My third grandmother]], a de:My third grandmother blue link although there's no article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If I accidentally used braces instead of square brackets, that would explain the discrepancy. I meant (as Gerda says) double square brackets. That markup indeed produces a false bluelink, as Gerda also illustrates.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Intrigued

Hello Jerome Kohl, is there some reason why you opposed the inclusion of an infobox (and promoted the inclusion of a warning discouraging it) in the article Harry Partch, but are currently tolerating the opposite state of affairs? Thanks in advance for replying. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just biding my time, and hoping not to seem like the lone individual opposing the infobox. I haven't seen any sign of a discussion, let alone evidence of consensus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At present, it looks more like I am the lone individual trying one, if only to see what it might look like ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

About Parable of the Ten Virgins#Music and more

First of all, Happy Holidays from "down under" Doctor Professor JK. That said, from what I can see, Emily Freeman Brown (still a red-link) appears to be an eminent American conductor, and a composer of amongst other things an oratorio based on that parable. Could you possibly have a little look into this? Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A little less of the "Professor", if you don't mind. I have done a quick check on Emily Freeman[-]Brown and, from what I have found, it might be an uphill battle to justify a Wikipedia article on notability grounds. She is certainly well-established in the academy, and there are any number of websites promoting recordings and the like, but no article in the New Grove or similar reference works. If there are suitable third-party references, my quick search did not turn them up. If you believe she is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, you are welcome to try and find the necessary sources to support it, but I don't think I shall be spending my own time on this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't mind "Professor". Y'all can call me "Professor" anytime you please. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 18:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice taken and very much appreciated. Thank you indeed for your research and your reply to my question, Doctor Professor, er, ahem, Jeckers, old bean.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles

Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Septuple Meter stuff

Hi there! Thanks in general for your watchful eye on Septuple meter. As I look into the topic I'm starting to realize that there are more septuple meter songs than can realistically be listed, but obviously the lists are still useful to people or there wouldn't constantly be attempts to add to them.

Anyway you recently reverted an addition titled "Deduction (also called Speculation or Reasoning)" which had a source. The source did not mention "Deduction" but referred to the same song as "Speculation", and mentioned that the song was in 7/4 with a 3/4 bridge.

You also changed a description of "Meetings Along the Edge" in an attempt to make it match the description from the cited source. However, the description you inserted, "the chamber orchestra develops the theme in 4/8-6/8-7/8", is from the first track of the album. The proper section from the track cited is "1) a "Middle Eastern" sounding Shankar theme in 7; 2) a seconf theme also by Ravi and also in 7 but of a somewhat different lenght; 3) A Glass theme in 4." This is a bit long so I think the original wording is better.

Try and be more careful, specifically when removing someone's addition since that can be pretty discouraging.

Dranorter (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"More septuple meter songs than can realistically be listed", perhaps, but it gets much worse when "partly in septuple meter" is included. Realistically, the easiest way of dealing with this would be to list all the music composed since about 1900, and then start deleting the few pieces that fail to display at least one 7/4 or 7/8 bar, or use septuple patterns regardless of the notation. Thanks goodness for the requirement that a source be provided for every addition. Despite the fact that some musical circles still find 3/4 time unusual, it is a very insular view.

As for "Deduction", there was no actual evidence presented that it is known under other titles, and especially no such evidence in the cited source. Had it been listed under the correct title in the first place, I would not have failed to find it in the source. As for "Meeting Along the Edge", I did an electronic search of the text in the supplied source for "7/8", "7/4", "septuple", and "seven", which turned up only the citation about the chamber orchestra. I was disappointed and a little surprise, since septuple meter is quite common in Shankar's primary milieu of Indian Classical Music. I shall look again, but I think you can see that I was in fact quite careful in checking your sources. Perhaps not careful enough, for which I apologize.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The song can be found elsewhere titled "Deduction", and this source lists that as the US name, but the actual name of the track is in Japanese and different people handle it differently. Regarding Meetings Along the Edge, the problem is that the official site just says "7" in the track description, which you've probably noticed.

The division between being in septuple meter and being partially so is also a bit blurry, since having a brief intro or bridge in 4/4 probably shouldn't disqualify a piece. But anyway there are lots of people who want or expect a definitive list on Wikipedia; and maybe for pieces entirely or nearly entirely in septuple time that's not wholly impossible.

Thanks again and good talking with you. I sure do admire your level of contribution to Wikipedia.

Dranorter (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It would of course be possible to list that song as "Deduction", with cross-referencing to alternative titles, provided that a source is provided for this, as well as for the septuple meter. However, the simplest solution is the one I have adopted. The alternative names are not the important part. The only problem with the identification of "Meetings along the Edge" was that I didn't think to search for an isolated "7"! There is absolutely no reason to have a time signature of 7/4, 7/8, 7/256 or even 7/13 to identify a piece of music as being in septuple meter. Failing ever to write it down does not disqualify a piece, so long as we have got a reliable source that says it is "septuple", "in 7", or something equivalent. Thirdly, indeed a brief passage in a contrasting meter should not matter. In fact, there is one piece, now moved to the main text of the article that has one or two bars out of 300 or so that are not in 7/8 time. Much more problematic would be the inclusion of a half-hour symphonic poem (or something) with over 1,000 bars of nothing but 4/4 time, and a single insertion of 7/8. At this point I am more concerned about this "definitive list" attitude, which is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia articles. With a very small amount of effort, I could add a thousand or so examples of pieces containing a few bars of septuple meter. On the other hand, no one yet has begun a definitive list of all pieces of music in 4/4 time. What do you suppose the reaction might be to that?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the trivia guidelines are that clear on this topic. Those are predominantly against unorganized information, and lists of facts containing wildly varying content. The closest thing I know of is WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, guideline 7. Inasmuch as septuple meter is commonplace enough to no longer be a "culturally significant phenomenon", it does not need a list. However, I think it's still generally a culturally significant phenomenon, not an example of overcategorization. To my mind the issue is more that not every song is notable. For some reason my gut instinct is this: if an artist is notable, a song predominantly in 7 by them is sufficiently notable. But obviously as you say that wouldn't work for 4/4.

Dranorter (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How about 2/4, then? Maybe 3/4? Would you believe 6/8?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the rachenitsa edit, check with someone who has danced it, but also see http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ръченица. As for the Eleno Mome/Petrunino meter decomposition, listen to YouTube v=b_aCO3J4hJk to hear the typical 2+2+1+2 of this Petrunino. It is also played in 12=3+4+2+3, cf. YouTube v=ESGWuxnDbXs, which becomes 2+2+1+2 when rounded off (I have sheet music, if you so would like to have - send me email then). And хоро is normally transliterated as horo, see Bulgarian_language#Alphabet. Haberg (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is a мъжка ръченица on YouTube v=GVe3xNCxlyY, and its meter decomposition is the same as of every other rachenitsa. Haberg (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you know what you are talking about but, unfortunately, few of the things you are citing constitute a reliable source. "Someone who has danced it" will have to publish an explanation before it can be used; the Bulgarian Wikipedia article is unsourced, and Wikipedia cannot be used a s a source; interpreting the music by ear is original research (and the fine distinction between a sub-grouping in 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 as opposed to 2 + 3 + 2 or 2 + 2 + 3 is bound to be a point of disagreement among different authorities). On the other hand sheet music, if published, is exactly the sort of thing that is needed. Simply provide the editor/arranger's name, title, place, publisher, and date of the sheet-music edition. I do not have any experience of Bulgarian at all, and am happy to accept your word about the transliteration. However, Dora Buchanan, who wrote the New Grove article used as a source, uses the transliteration khoro not just once but thirty times in the course of the article. Interestingly, in her bibliography, she cites a 2006 article that uses horo in its title, and she is a co-author of that article, so the choice of transliteration may have to do with the editorial preferences of the New Grove.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your source does not seem reliable, which is common with music of the area; since you are a musicologist, I thought I might drop off some info to you, so you can make your own judgments. The music is mostly played by ear, so there are no reliable literary sources (in YouTube v=unhisk6EQFo, the audience clap hands in 4+3 - there is no need for a scholar in what everyone knows). The treatment of the Eleno Mome (Petrunino) meter varies: some play more like 2+2+3 rather than 2+2+1+2=2+2+(1+2) (the last 2 is weaker than the 1). In the Bulgarian sheet music I have, it is written as 4+4+2+3, or sometimes 3+4+2+4, as in the book by Манол Тодоров mentioned on Bulgarian dances; however, that is just his opinion. You can listen to "Eleno Mome" here: <http://www.dunav.org.il/balkan_music_index.html#bulgaria>; in my sheet music, this tune is notated in 4+4+2+3 (time signature 13/16). Transcription of Bulgarian is problematic, cf. Romanization of Bulgarian, so less common variants can be used but not imposed. (Please drop me a note if you reply.) Haberg (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the "New Grove" article, there is an Oxford transliteration scheme of Russian Romanization_of_Russian#Transliteration_table that uses "kh", which might then have been imposed onto the author. Haberg (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Enharmonic keyboard

I don't have another competent person here on the English Wikipedia list whom I can ask for collaboration. And I really need help of an experienced person (and of a colleague) like you. Despite your thoughtful notes on talk page of the dicussed article, my version of the article has been ruthlessy dumped by a user Commator without a single discussion remark. My references to recognized music dictionaries have been removed from a definition and replaced with citations from reviews of unknown significance. Is that called 'consensus'? Please help. Olorulus (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not; it's a violation of WP:RS. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Olorulus: I'm sorry for falling down on the job. I have kept that article on my Watchlist, but I hadn't noticed the new problems. I'll try to keep a closer watch in future.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I have reviewed the recent edit history of the "Enharmonic keyboard" article, I think I see the edit to which you are referring. It was made nearly two months ago (Commator's more recent edits have had nothing to do with the text—only the restoration of removed images, and I see no problems with those, as things currently stand at least), and concerned the replacement of a citation to the Harvard Dictionary of Music with a similar description taken from Jerkert's review of Barbieri's book. I would hardly call the Svensk Tidskrift för Musikforskning a "review of unknown significance", but I have to agree that characterizing the Harvard Dictionary entry as creating an "imbalance" is difficult to accept.On the other hand, I'm not at all sure I understand Commator's edit summary: "Liquidation of deliberate imbalance created by removing a well-substantiated point of view". That sounds like it could be assertion of a minority opinion over the orthodox view, and indeed this would be a violation of WP:RS. I note that the Harvard reference was added in response to a "Citation needed" tag, which seemed like a responsible action. I am inclined to restore the Harvard Dictionary citation and place a query on the Talk page of that article for clarification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Colleague, I'm pretty sure, you know, how reviews are written. Yes, a review to Barbieri's book (actually any review) is an encyclopedic source of unknown significance. The whole story is simple. In 2002 there was an article by Rasch (English-speaking scholar from Netherlands) who attempted to fix the term 'enharmonic keyboard'. Barbieri shared this term in his collection of articles dated 2008 (almost all of them have been published earlier, mainly in 1980s, in Italian, originally -- without any notice of 'enharmonic keyboard'). But this all is just a scholar discussion, an issue of recent polemics. My point is honest and quite lucid: WP should not support Barbieri's (or anyone's) side, all the more, with the positive reviews of 'interested party' (Rasch writes a positive review of a book, which supports his view, Commator cites this review as a 'source', don't you find it funny?). Olorulus (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you drop me your e-mail (mine is olorulusATmail.ru), I will gladly send you a scan of the above mentioned Rasch's 'conceptual' article of 2002 which gave rise to the whole story (by the way, my reference to exact pages of exactly this article in the WP article 'Enharmonic keyboard' has been suppressed by a user Commator twice in a row, so I don't have enough fun to add this reference infinitely). Olorulus (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought the cited review was by Jerkert, which does not quote Barbieri on the subject of what an enharmonic keyboard is supposed to be but rather gives the reviewer's own definition. Nevertheless, I agree that a standard dictionary is a better source, and I imagine that Jerkert is just paraphrasing such a definition anyway, so it is better to go to the Urquell. What is more, I believe that the New Grove also has an article on the enharmonic keyboard (probably by Mark Linley, but I will have to look it up), which should be substantially in agreement with the Harvard Dictionary.

Yes, I do know how reviews are written, though I think you meant to say "how reviews are often written", since what you are implying is not universally the case. In any event, what we should be trying to do here is to maintain a neutral point of view, as far as it is possible. If any editor is trying to promote a particular slant (and to be honest, I am not seeing what slant Commator is trying to promote with the definition of "enharmonic keyboard"), then of course that must be corrected. The easiest way of pursuing this course is to use standard references rather than less standard ones.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look more attentively at the definitive part of the article, you will see that Commator uses here citations of 2 reviewers of Barbieri's book namely Rasch (which he abbreviates as Rasch, 2009) and Jerkert (which he abbreviates as Jerkert, 2010). There is another review of the (famous) Mark Lindley which Commator omits because it's not so laudatory but rather restrained and ironic (therefore it was omitted).

As for a 'particular slant' of Commator, it is to advertise Barbieri's book and to develop Rasch's concept of 'enharmonic music' (supported by Barbieri) using WP as a tribune. Look, e.g., more attentively how a user composes hyperlink to the words 'enharmonic music' which he inserted in the article (I think, quite deliberately) - one hyperlink leads to 'enharmonic' (and has nothing to do with enharmonic genus), another leads to 'music' (which in this context is not necessary at all). What is 'enharmonic music', we do not know (there was no such term in the late Renaissance, neither Renaissance instruments have ever been named by their authors 'enharmonic'). For me, it seems to be a new term derived by Rasch from... the quantity of keys on some (in fact, very marginal and rare) historic keyboards. I wonder, if WP should support and promote original concepts like this? Olorulus (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a long, hard look at the edit history of this article from the very beginning on 24 October 2005, and in particular to the epic battle between yourself and Commator that erupted in early October 2012 and, thankfully, quieted down in time for the Christmas holidays. There were a lot of intemperate remarks and unjustified reversions, which neither of you should be proud of. Within this cloud of strife, I can see that there are some important differences of opinion, but the first thing has got to be to sort out the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. Amongst other things, the lede section should be nothing but a summary of the main points discussed in the body of the article itself. If it does this, it should not require any inline references at all. Second, the main body of the article should not begin with an announcement of widespread disagreement, but with a definition of the subject in as plain and uncontroversial a way as can be managed. (This is where those reliable sources, like the Harvard Dictionary or the New Grove should be cited.) Then (and only then) should any controversy be introduced. The differences of opinion should be clearly stated, and the arguments for each side should be briefly summarized, and documented. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our business to judge whether Rasch or Barbieri or anybody else is right or wrong but, if they are in conflict with each other or with the usual authorities, then we should explain these differences to readers as cogently as possible.

You may not be aware of this, but in amongst all the clatter and dust there is a conflict over referencing formats. This only adds to the general confusion, but fortunately can be sorted out separately, and with clearer Wikipedia guidelines than for the other issues. I have not yet determined what the first-established format for this article was but, according to WP:CITEVAR, it should be restored, until and unless consensus is obtained that it should be changed to something else. This includes replacement of manually formatted citations with templates, if adding those templates produced a change in format.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I should take the bulk of my comments over to Talk:Enharmonic keyboard, and that is precisely what I propose doing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No objection. The only thing I wanted you to do (since 4 months ago, see above), is to format the article according to WP rules, that's why I asked for your competent help. Olorulus (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I think you will agree that there is a little more to it than merely "formatting", but as you can see I have chosen trying to shape it according to Wikipedia guidelines as the fundamental principle.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do it (re-shaping article according to... etc.). If a further discussion would be necessary (of course, on a Talk page of the discussed article, not here), for me it is just normal practice. We both seem to adhere to the principle of 'consensus'. But unfortunately only my (and your) remarks are on there, no single remark of an alternate editor. Audiatur et altera pars, doesn't it? Olorulus (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Passepied

Hallo Jerome Kohl!!! Thank you very much for bringing the "passepied" entry to a well documented entity.

Yesterday night I was suddenly interested in the passepied because the Goldberg Variation number 4 which I was at the moment playing (with two eight note upbeats every measure). I have consulted the wiki and I have found a very poor entry. I could not edit some mistakes myself because I do speak english but very bad (as you can see).

Now you have made a perfect and well documented wiki-entry for that dance. Congratulations.

(I have written in the history of the article one important example for the 3/4). Maybe you do not have the time, and I have the "english problem", but the interesting point remains that somewhere in Brittany it was developed a dance (called "passepied" by Noël du Fail in 1548) which was later referred as the famous "Branle" of Brittany (Rabelais, for example). And the thing is that this dance doesn't have anything in common with the passepied which we know. It is a fast duple-metre dance (and without the characteristic upbeats and hemiolas) from which we have an example in M. Praetorius, Terpsichore (1616). Something happened which change the dance completely for its insertion in the Louis XIV court. I find that particularly interesting because in the "passepied" example from Debussy it is common to make the observation that his piano piece from the passepied has only the name (Debussy wrote before in his manuscript "pavanne" and then he changed the title). I prefer to imagine that Debussy was not thinking in Bach and Händel but rather in the old "Branle-passepied" (he knew what he was doing) and therefore the 4/4 and the other characteristics.

Very nice your reference to Stravinsky Symphony in C! (but in this case it is more like a "flirt" in the middle of an abstract elaboration of a "scherzo") Thank you very much again for your editing of the article! Pedro Alcalde 20:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (I never have used this pages and I do not have the smallest idea how this signature will present itself to you: in any case my name is Pedro Alcalde, and I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking to you!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimidalv vokoban (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have done something about the passepied article months ago (it has been on my Watchlist for a very long time), so I must thank you for finally removing that uncited claim dating back to 2008. It was your edit that brought the article back to my attention! It still needs some work, but I am glad that you find it substantially improved. The problem of the connection (if any) between the branle-passepied of the 16th century and the Baroque passepied probably cannot be solved (the New Grove article by Little says it is completely inexplicable), but there is the fact that the phrases of that particular type of branle are three bars long, and this might have evolved in a process of acceleration into a three-beat bar. The problem with this hypothesis is that one would expect to find examples of a transitional form, and there are none that I know of. On Wikipedia, there is the added burden of finding reliable sources that will make such a risky speculation. I agree that Debussy was certainly aware of the 16th-century dance, and this must also have been the case for Stravinsky who, after all, writes a suite of branles for part 3 of Agon (even if there is no branle passepied as such).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hollman's right hand

Heh, a slight case of overkill, methinks. I doubt that anyone, anywhere, would think that Hollmann's non-functioning right hand had its premiere in Prague in 1928 and gained considerable acclaim in the musical world. Carry on.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry, I always say. As it happens, I did read it that way, and it gave me quite a turn!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. What would the premiere of a hand look like? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't help thinking about that classic horror story (now what was the title?) about the severed hand with a mind of its own, that went creeping about on its fingertips in the dark.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Moment Form, Stockhausen 1963a quotation: translator?

Hi Jerome, I was just going over the Moment Form article. The huge quotation from Stockhausen 1963a is vital, thank you for adding it to the page. However, do you know who translated that? Was it you? I presume Texte zur Musik is in German, so the discrepancy piqued by curiosity. Phembree (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot now recall whether I added that large quotation myself but, yes, I expect the translation must be mine. Chunks of that article have appeared in English here and there (translated by various hands), and an English edition of the Texte has been in the works now for nearly fifteen years. It is often necessary on Wikipedia to quote from sources in a foreign language, and it would be unreasonable to expect readers of an article written in English to be able to understand quotations in, say, Korean, Latvian, and Nahuatl. When no published English edition is available, we editors are obliged to do our humble best.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation style in Atonality

Hi, I've seen you reverted my edits concerning the replacement of parenthetical references for sfn footnotes. I've added a new discussion about this. Thanks.--Fauban 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of notifying me. I have responded on the talk page of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Stoepel infobox

Wondering why you removed the infobox for Robert Stoepel. -- kosboot (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose because it did not add anything useful to the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It did not add anything, full stop. Sound reasons for not having infoboxes on composer articles are given at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes, and this subject has been discussed (at great length) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC, and earlier discussions archived on that talk page. I saw no discussion of infoboxes on Talk:Robert Stoepel, nor was there a request for an infobox there. Consequently, I assumed that there was no consensus for it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I predict that there will be an infobox for him in 2020, as I predicted that The Flying Dutchman will be moved to Der fliegende Holländer by then. Please forget {{Infobox classical composer}} as too limited, {{Infobox person}} is much more flexible, able to show |years_active=, known for, notable works, influences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct about flexibility and all the rest, but the classical-composer infobox was developed precisely in an attempt to address the arguments against infoboxes that were fomented in the first place by {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox musical artist}}, which in some respecs offer too much flexibility. However, if this line of discussion is to be pursued further, I suggest Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers as a better venue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I respect my fellow Wikipedians on WP:Classical, I feel they are very ignorant when it comes to infoboxes. Infoboxes are not about aesthetic or visual value. Infoboxes are about creating structured data so as to prepare Wikipedia to be compatible for the semantic web (and for current projects such as DBpedia and WikiData). If you follow the talk page for infoboxes you'll see they all make the assumption that all articles must have infoboxes, and the problem is trying to make an across-the-board decision when WP is so fragmented and that particular individuals still object to them. Gerda is right except for the year - it'll be well before 2020 that all articles will have infoboxes. -- kosboot (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that is a good thing, or just something inevitable?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is an essential thing - as essential as any part of an article -- and pretty soon it will be inevitable. -- kosboot (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is it essential?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated - it's essential to Wikidata & DBpedia and is the foundation for the semantic web. I've attended semantic web sessions where it was stated that, because of Wikipedia's open access, the data becomes crucial to so many organizations (NY Times, Google, and anyone else that links to Wikipedia for data). You might want to look at WP:INFOBOX and WT:INFOBOX - note that the Signpost is going to be doing an article on them. -- kosboot (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that rats are essential to the spread of bubonic plague, but that doesn't make it desirable. Still, thanks for the references. I'll look into it. Maybe it will change my mind about infoboxes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make things easily accessible to Internet bots and what not, stick to WP:PDT. There's no need to pollute articles with blocky, grey, pointless duplicates of a lead. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Query: Spacing in contractions, esp Italian

Hi Jerome-- I have a pretty silly question, but it's confusing to me, and I thought you might know the answer. It seems clear that you never space following the apostrophe where the contracted word is an article, such as with L'elisir d'amore, or in other situations where a word might be frequently contracted, such as, just for example, "Dov'è Angelotti?" or "Mario, consenti ch'io parli?". But then you sometimes get things that it's impossible to tell from the typography, but they look strange when they're not spaced, such as "Ho una casa nell' Honan" or "Nient' altro che denaro", "Quando me 'n vo soletta", "Sa dirmi, scusi, qual' è l'osteria?" etc. Are there rules for this? Thanks for any advice you can give. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not well-versed in such niceties—my Italian is fairly rough. I do know that treatment of spacing with contractions has changed over time. What you see routinely in 16th-century prints is quite different from more recent practice, but just what the rules are I do not know. Only one thing occurs to me: In your example "Quando me 'n vo soletta", I don't think you would ever close up the space when the elision is from the second word. I know what you mean about those other examples—they would simply look wrong the other way, but I can't say just why. (Maybe the capitalized proper noun in "casa nell' Honan" is a reason?) Perhaps someone at the Village Pump can tell you what the rules are. Why don't you try posting your question there?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, and the suggestion - I'll give that a try. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Prokofiev's 2nd violin sonata

Hi Jerome-- Might I impose on you to check whether Grove has any discussion of Violin Sonata No. 2 (Prokofiev)? I've posted a question on the talkpage there, concerning the confusion between Op. 94a and Op. 94bis. As always, thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing very important in New Grove—just a mention that he composed a Flute Sonata and made an arrangement of it for violin. The worklist basically duplicates this information, but adds the opus numbers: 94 and 94bis. I imagine that you are asking what the difference is. The answer is simple: a matter of linguistic preference. In such cases, Italian, German, and English sources prefer adding letters in alphabetic order, while French and Russian sources prefer "bis", "ter", and so on. In Prokofievistical sources, therefore, it is customary to use 94bis instad of 94a, but there are dissenters, of course. Consequently, there is no confusion, any more than there is confusion between naming the instrument "violino", "Geige", "violon", "violin", or "skripka".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha! No, I had no idea it was just linguistics; I thought they were sequential: a, bis, ter. Thanks very much! Milkunderwood (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. No, the word "bis" means "second" (it also can mean an "encore" or "repeat"), so there would be no point in marking an opus number with a "first", since the opus number by itself fulfills that function. Similarly, when adding letters to an opus, the simple number stands as the "original". I'm not sure why Italian sources prefer the letters, since "bis", "ter", "quater", and so on are actually Latin words, and so as applicable to Italian as they are to French. (I cannot recall ever seeing "quater" or "quinquiens" added to an opus number, though I have seen letters as far as at least "e".)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I figured out the "bis" and "ter", but thought they meant the 2nd and 3rd revision, with "a" being the 1st such, following the original. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, "a" is Latin, too, I suppose! However, the usual meaning of either system is not to do with revisions, but rather alternative versions. In some cases (just to keep things confusing) the letter abbreviations are used to squeeze in an extra work, chronologically, between two already-assigned works, as in the case of Beethoven's Op. 81a.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternate versions - that was what I meant, and had typed in "different versions" but then deleted the phrase before posting because it seemed I was making it too ambiguous. Thanks for the additional information. My cataloging job is a little strange because I not only can't read music, or play any instrument, I can't distinguish either instruments or melodies, and don't even hear harmonics. I can tell what sounds right to me; and I can easily hear the Russian accent of the Borodin Quartet's Shostakovich quartets as opposed to the strong English accent of the Fitzwilliam's set, for instance (although for all that they do succeed in doing a very skillful job of it). Or, it's easy enough to hear that Lydia Mordkovich is trying to channel David Oistrakh in her unaccompanied Bach, but that she doesn't have his subtlety or skill.

You've always been very patient with my naïveté, and kind and helpful, which I very much appreciate. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for helping with the Glazunov - I hate trying to edit something when I don't know what I'm talking about. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just trying to be a nonconformist!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

About Curtis String Quartet

Hi again.
I am completely out of my depth here. (And in this case, very much not just because all my C20 American classical music CDs are on Naxos.) The quartet appears to me to be somewhat significant. Related articles include Curtis Institute of Music and the new article New School of Music, Philadelphia. Could you possibly have a little look at the article and its corollaries?
Peter aka "I buy Naxos classical music CDs because they're cheap and I can't tell the difference" aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you know what you're doing, poking around in a hornets' nest with a stick like this. The Curtis Quartet was indeed a very high-profile ensemble in its day but, as my edits suggest, the data available about them is inconsistent and some of it not very reliable. You have come up with some interesting sources, from off the beaten track. This is refreshing, but I'm afraid that founding date of 1927 will not stand up to scrutiny, since Brodsky appears to have matriculated at Curtis only in 1930. More than likely, the Quartet's press agent at that time was being flexible with the truth in order to lend a little extra weight to the group's history. Undoubtedly there is more to be added (a discography would be nice, for example), but it is good to have an article at last on such a significant group.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Shhh, this is just between you and me, OK? I have no idea at all what kind of hornets' nest I might be be poking at. CD I am listening to while editing is Walter Piston's two violin concertos. On Naxos, of course. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, in general you will be stirring up trouble anytime you ask me to look at an article! That is a very commendable recording, BTW (even if it does not include the Curtis Quartet), if for no better reason than that it is the only one ever made of the marvelously thorny Second Concerto. The later works of Piston are fascinating for their adventurousness, in a composer usually regarded as being quite conservative.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

knowledge and modesty
Thank you for helping me consistently, from my second article on, and for adding your admirable knowledge to this project in almost an understatement, about Stockhausen in particular. You mentioned in Freundschaft: making joyous music together, perhaps something playful as this. In Freundschaft, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 40th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well temperament

Thank you for the correction of the mistake I made in the Well temperament article. It is page 200, not 220. I have also provided a page number for the paper published by Robinson.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. It was good to see those flaky sources put in their place at last, so it is I who should be thanking you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Semitritonus

Sorry about deleting "semitritonus" from Tritone.

Thank you for teaching us about the semidiatessaron, semidiapente, semitritonus, semihexachordum, semiheptachordum, and semidiapason.

Paolo.dL (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, but there is a lot of confusion (especially in the tuning-theory literature) over Greek and Latin music-theory terminology. This is not made any easier by the pretentious adoption of Greek and pseudo-Greek terms in medieval Latin music theory! "Semitritonus" for the diminished fifth is one of these, but the parallel usage of terms like "semiditone"/"minor third", "heptachordum minus"/"semiditonus cum diapente"/"pentatonus" throughout most of the 15th and 16th centuries only complicates matters further. The etymological problem still needs to be sorted out in the "Interval (music)" article, I think, and the discussion of "ditone" in that article directly contradicts what is said in the linked article, Ditone, largely because of the misleading appropriation of the term by J. Murray Barbour and John Chalmers to apply only to the (comma-redundant) Pythagorean ditone.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should move Latin nomenclature into the table "Alternative naming conventions". In "Main intervals" section, which is an introductory section (as its title and position in the article suggests), we should only list the most widely used English terms, which in my opinion include only semitone, half tone, half step, tone, whole tone, whole step, and tritone. I don't think that semidiapente and ditone are a commonly used names, for instance. For tritone (A4), we can explain with a note that it is sometimes used to refer to d5 as well. I would not risk using the adverb "often" or "rarely".
Are you sure about the name "semitonium maius cum diapente"? I believe it should be "semitonus maius cum diapente"...
Paolo.dL (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It did seem to me strange to include Latin terminology in that chart (and not, for example, to include Greek, or even German, Italian, French, etc.). I recall that there was a very strange claim in the sentence introducing the table, to the effect that the Latin terminology, unlike English, does not discriminate between (for example) the augmented fourth and the diminished fifth. I reversed that claim when I started adding the Latin terms. I agree with you that "Alternative naming conventions" is a better place for the Latin terms, though I think they should be kept in a column of their own, clearly marked. The Greek terms ought also to be given there, since they are historically very important, though this could become rather complicated. I disagree, however, that the English list should include only the intervals you enumerate. I think it should also include major and minor seconds, thirds, sixths, and sevenths, as well as (at least) the augmented second, fifth, and sixth, and the diminished third, fifth, and seventh, since these are all commonly used in basic music theory. By contrast, I agree that "diapente" and "ditone" are not commonly used in English, outside of the specialist literature. As for "semitonium" vs. "semitonus", here is the passage from Jacobus Leodiensis, Speculum musicae, Liber II (as found on the TML website), where Jacobus lists the various intervals in ascending order of size: "Ceterae vero simplices in superpartiente, ut comma, semitonia minus et maius, tonus minor et maximus, semiditonus, ditonus, semitritonus, tritonus, diesis cum diapente, semitonium maius cum diapente vel tetratonus, tonus cum diapente, semiditonus cum diapente, pentatonus, ditonus cum diapente." My Latin is too rudimentary to sort out any niceties of grammar, but it does appear to me that the form "semitonium" here is entirely consistent with the parallel forms of "semiditonus", "ditonus", and "tritonus". Of course, "semitonia" is plural, since it refers to two different sizes, small and large. I am a little perplexed by the comparable form of "tonus minor et maximus", but fortunately you are not asking me to sort those out!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course the columns about major, minor, perfect, augmented and diminished intervals should stay! I never meant to state the opposite. Sorry for not being clear.
Well, as you correctly observed, semitonia is plural, but plural for semitonium (or semitonius), not for semitonus. Which is inconsistent with tonus, ditonus, tritonus, tetratonus, semiditonus, semitritonus... And you wrote, in the second row of the main table, "semitonus", not "semitonium". So, we need to decide whether to use semitonus or semitonium, consistently throughout the table.
Not everybody in the literature agrees with Jacobus about "semitonium". See, for instance this page from Lexicon musicum Latinum.
Paolo.dL (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the greatest joys of music is the way it confounds the lexicographers with its inherent inconsistency. It would be foolish to expect the best theorists to fail to conform to this wayward character of their subject. Jacobus merely represents the spirit articulated centuries later by Walt Whitman: "Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself, / (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" (Song of Myself, 51).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Great ;-P. But I think most people used semitonus (plural semitoni), consistent with tonus (plural semitoni), rather than semitonium (plural semitonia). Paolo.dL (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Both forms are second-declension nouns. Tonus is masculine singular, tonium is neuter singular. The word is a loan-word, from the Greek τόνος, in that language also a second-declension masculine noun (the neuter, if it had existed, would have been τόνον—the relation to the Latin form is evident). In Classical Latin, the masculine is the only form found in Lewis & Short (the standard "big" Latin dictionary). A quick consultation with a Professor of Latin at my institution confirms my suspicion, however, that in daily use such variations in grammatical gender often occurred, even in the Classical period, and by the time of which we are speaking (6th to 15th century) such variants in medieval Latin are commonplace. What is less explicable, though, is why both masculine and neuter forms of the same stem should be mixed up in one sentence. The fact that Jacobus also uses the plural and singular in parallel constructions—"semitonia minus et maius", but "tonus minor et maximus"—and is inconsistent with the words describing the two sizes ("maius" = large, "maximus" = largest) may be down to sloppiness, but it is also possible that there is some consistent practice involved, at least throughout the Speculum musicae, but possibly also through a broader selection of the literature. This will require some time to sort out, unless I stumble upon a scholarly source that discusses these refinements. When you say "most people", I think you will have to concede this applies only to very select segments of today's English-speaking world, and historical (medieval) practice may be an entirely different matter. One solution for our present purpose might be to include both the masculine and neuter forms, where they can both be shown to occur in the literature. In any case, it would be an honest reflection of the practice of Latin music theory which, after all, is confined almost entirely to Late and Medieval Latin.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you like, but I think it is almost useless information. May be you can add a footnote... You decide. I'll abide.
Sure, semitonium is neuter. The second "i" in semitonium, however, is not needed to make it neuter. Neuter words in Latin end with -um (nominative, singular, second declension; plural: -a). Just a useless curiosity, though.
By the way, thank you for correcting the century up to which Pythagorean tuning was the most widely used tuning system.
Paolo.dL (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The information is useless to the extent that most readers will not care one way or the other, nor even if the terms are there or not. It becomes useful when a reader wants to know where the terms used in English originate, and why a semitone is not necessarily half of a tone (and, therefore, why "half-step" is not a good substitute for "semitone"). For this, of course, we can refer the curious reader to that arch-troublemaker, Boëthius. Fewer still will want to know about terms like "semidiapente" but, when the odd college student comes looking for this information, I think it is better that it be there than not. Nevertheless, it is important to keep it from getting in the way of the beginner who has no need of it, as you have already suggested.

You are very welcome for the correction about Pythagorean tuning, which begins to be a problem for performers as soon as thirds and sixths are admitted as consonances. Indeed, the first grumblings about this in Western European history begin already by the 13th century, but I chose 1510 as an approximate date because of a well-known discussion amongst Italian theorists (principally Giovanni Spataro and Pietro Aron) that show a general awareness of the unsatisfactory nature of Pythagorean tuning for the music of their time. The debate raged right through the 16th century, with perhaps the most spectacular results in the theories of Nicola Vicentino, but there is scarcely a theory treatise after Aron's that does not address this problem in one way or another.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Andor Földes

Re your question of December 2009, see Talk:Andor_Földes#Translation_as_per_request. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If the major part of his performing and especially his recording career dates from after the time he changed the spelling - presumably when he immigrated to America - wouldn't this be his more "common" name? Then the page should be moved to "Foldes", and the lead should say that "Földes" was his Hungarian surname.

Here's also this: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/19/arts/andor-foldes-pianist-dies-at-78-known-for-renditions-of-bartok.html

Milkunderwood (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is never a simple answer, is there? I wonder, though, whether he formally changed his name. English-language newspapers often do not have the type fonts to set accented characters (or at least, did not up until recently), and so just leave them out. Witness the NYT obituary you quote, which leaves the accents off of Bartók and Dohnányi. In most cases, this does not constitute a significant spelling change, and indeed many search engines today ignore the difference. Unlike the situation with German, it is not correct to substitute oe for ö in Hungarian, which at least saves us the awkwardness found in the case of Schö(oe)nberg's name, or the truly confusing problem with surnames that combine both orthographic variants, such as Oehlschlägel.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Schönberg himself, I thought, switched to Schoenberg when he went to live in an English-speaking world. I wonder if Földes did the same. (It's Foldes in German books.) "oe" is not correct for "ö" in German, it's no more than a substitute, "oe" often comes from Dutch where the added "e" indicates a long vowel "o", not "ö". [Gerda forgot to sign.] Milkunderwood (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"oe" is not correct for "ö" in German, it's no more than a substitute - I didn't know that. (Just like I didn't know that "ss" cannot properly be used for "ß".) Anyway, as Jerome says, Földes is Hungarian, and "oe" is just plain wrong for the Hungarian "ö". Some of his recordings give "Földes" and others give "Foldes"; I've never seen it rendered as "Foeldes". (And Sony, bless their miserable hearts and uncomprehending minds, when they bought the old Columbia catalog, sometimes credits someone called "Andor Farkas" as Joseph Szigeti's accompanist in pieces that were made by Szigeti and Andor Földes.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. This may be the answer to that Farkas problem. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added that remark, but would certainly like to see a source supporting the claim that "ö" in German does not originate from the practice of writing Umlaut as a small "e" superscripted on an "o" (similarly for "ü" and "ä") and, therefore, is merely a more compact way of writing "oe" (modern German typographical practice notwithstanding). I do not have training or extensive experience in palaeography, but have dealt with medieval manuscripts and Renaissance prints often enough to know a little about such things, and the orthographical variations in various dialects of German, French, Italian, and some other languages. In any case, I believe that substituting "oe" is regarded as preferable to just "o" in German, when the character "ö" is not available. Similarly, it is certainly not correct to write a single "s" in place of "ß", since that character is a ligature of "long" and "short" S, even though called "es-zet" (i.e., "sz") in German—it must be substituted by either "sz" or "ss", and of course there is no capital form, so when writing in full caps, it must be written "SZ".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. "oe" originates from substituting a missing "ö" but is not the same, as seen in Oehlschlägel (pronounced "o"). There is no capital "ß", and therefore it must be "SS" when capital (never SZ), as on ships, and thus we get to SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), which is nonsense in lowercase ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You are the native speaker and not I, but I believe you will find the character "ö" comes into use only around the 16th or 17th century (a brief discussion here). Of course, I myself introduced the name Oehlschlägel as an example that uses both "oe" and "ä", and so would be at least problematic in cases where the typographer had no umlaut characters available (and we must not omit Goethe from the list of examples, either). Hungarian, of course, uses the combination "oe" independently of "ö", and "ö" itself can be followed by "e" (as is also the case in some orthographies used for Swiss German), which is one reason why it is not possible to make the substitution in those cases. However, I am intrigued by your claim that Dutch loan-words in German result in "oe" becoming "ö", because the sound of Dutch "oe" is most like the sound of German "u", as in the cognates boek/Buch, zoeken/suchen, groep/Gruppe (but also groen/grün, groeten/grüßen). None of these are loan words, of course, but rather words descended from common ancestors. Could you give an example of a Dutch word with "oe" borrowed in German with the spelling changed to "ö"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What Harry Partch is best known for

I agree that Partch is at least as well known for his instruments as for his 43-tone scale, but the scale is certianly prominent, as the fact that somene went to the trouble of creating a page on it long before anyone created a page on his instruments. I don't know what kind of citation would satisfy you for the 43-tone scale. I haven't come across any statement along the lines of "Harry Partch is best known for his 43-tone scale", but at the same time, it would be unusual to read an article on him that doesn't mention it prominently—frequently before mentioning the instruments. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "known for", suggest something better, - it looks like an unusual achievement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is in the context of the "Known for" field of the infobox. Right now there's a {{citation needed}} slapped on the 43-tone scale there. The 43-tone scale is talked about in nearly every (maybe even every?) Partch overview you'll come across, but not in such a way that it's easy to cite as what he's best known for.

For instance, here are some sources that mention it more prominently than the instruments: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

However, none of them mention it in a way similar to: "Harry Partch, an American composer best known for his 43-tone scale and whacky instruments..." Citing fifty books that mention it in their opening paragraph on Partch is clearly not the solution, but what is? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My point is that the article does not support this claim in the infobox, and infoboxes are supposed to reflect the article content (this is why footnotes in inoboses, as in the lede section, should be unnecessary). The article merely mentions that Partch developed a 43-note scale—it does not say even that anyone ever noticed this fact, let alone that he is know for it. While I am sure that a point could be made that his scale is one of his great accomplishments, this needs to be done in the article (with appropriate referencing), before a summary statement is put either in the lede or in the infobox. On the other hand, there are extended descriptions of many of his instruments (and rightly so—they are things of beauty and a joy forever), and he is quoted as describing himself as a philosophically inclined musician "seduced into carpentry". As things stand, it would be more plausible to say he is known best as an instrument builder. The fact that one person created a page about that scale simply means that one person was interested, and any other editors who noticed did not object to it. This is hardly a groundswell of enthusiasm, let alone a demonstration that more than one person is actually aware of the scale. Gerda is perfectly correct that his tuning theories and the 43-tone scale constitute an "unusual achievement", but so do the zymo-xyl and the surrogate kithara, and the theories underlying the scale are probably more important than the scale itself. I have only twice had the pleasure of hearing the Partch instruments live in concert. On both occasions I heard a lot of "buzz" in the audience about the instruments, but not one person ever mentioned the 43-tone scale. The obvious question arises: If he is known for this scale, by whom is he so known? Music theorists with an interest in microtonalism? If so, does this really matter (and, as a music theorist with an interest in microtonalism myself, I fervently hope that it does), and how does it matter?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking again: it is in the infobox under "known for" because that seemed the closest. Would there be a better key word? Should it be dropped? - I see that both "known for" and "influenced" cause trouble and look for better, more factual terms, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(Another edit conflict) @Curly Turkey: What needs doing first is beefing up the substance about the 43-tone scale. The article barely mentions it at all at present. Second, something about the reception of this scale should be added (enough to clearly indicate that anyone has ever noticed it at all—this shouldn't be too difficult, since Herbert Brün composed at least one piece in homage to Partch that uses the scale, and Ben Johnston discusses it at some length in several articles, for a start). Third, some of the standard reference dictionaries (New Grove, MGG, Bakers, etc.) should be surveyed to see whether they give prominence to this scale in their discussion of Partch, or under subject headings such as "microtonal music". This should be sufficient to provide the necessary weight in the article proper to justify saying Partch is known for this scale. Whether or not he should also be cited as "known" for the instruments, his compositions, his writings, his film appearances, or other things is another question, of course.

@Gerda Arendt: Yes, these "known for" and "influenced" parameters in infoboxes almost always cause trouble, and this is one of the main reason that infoboxes are opposed by the Classical Music editorial group. Whenever a parameter is available in an infobox, someone is going to feel it ought to be used, but this is neither necessary nor, in many cases, desirable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed this problem so much with music - probably because infoboxes are discouraged - but it's rampant with writers. Take a look at William Faulkner, for instance:

• influences = Herman Melville, Sherwood Anderson, The Bible, Honoré de Balzac, Mark Twain, Emily Bronte, William Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, Gustave Flaubert
• influenced = Cormac McCarthy, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Jim Harrison, Toni Morrison, Ken Kesey, Flannery O' Connor, Don Delillo, Harper Lee, Mario Vargas Llosa, Mo Yan, Rabih Alameddine

Not one of these is referenced, as far as I can see. Those two parameters should be deleted from the form. This is all OR. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if they were all referenced, they're still inappropriate for an infobox—particularly "influenced", which is not what a reader would be looking for in an infobox in the first place (and gets automatically hidden, defeating any purpose it might have had). "Known for" is entirely different. Ralph Ellison is "known for" Invisible Man, and likely wouldn't have an article if it weren't for the book (the book is more prominent than the man). It gives the reader a point of reference and establishes the subject's notability. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether someone takes interest in the scale or the instruments depends, I think, on how they are introduced to them. I came across Partch for the first time in the mid-1990s, reading books about avant-garde composers—there was always a section on microtonality, and it always came around to Partch and his 43-tone scale. Hearing his music in concert, I can only imagine the buzz the instruments would cause—it's a rare experience, and who would waste the experience talking about scales? I'd love to have the experience myself, but I'm not aware of the instruments ever having made it to Japan. Anyways, given how rare an occasion it is, it can hardly be taken as a representative example of Partch's reception.

Gerda's taken the "known for" out of the infobox, and I don't object to that. The article certainly needs beefing up in a lot of areas, and not just the 43-tone scale. I do think the details of the scale are best handled on its own page, though, including its use by others, except in particularly prominent cases. I'm at best an amateur musician/musicologist, though, and won't be delving into that one. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the "known for" has been removed, this is now a moot point. However, your remark about the instruments never having been taken to Japan underlines an important problem in cases like this: any experience of Partch is bound to be a rare thing, including experience of his theories. Where you live, how old you are, and a dozen other things will profoundly influence what your experience can have been, and when the total population involved in such experiences drops below a certain threshold, it becomes meaningless to talk about what "most people" know of the subject. Returning to the question of the treatment of the scale, of course you are correct that this subject has its own article (it is certainly complicated enough to justify this), and this is cross-referenced. Nevertheless, it is an important enough aspect of Partch's work to warrant a little more than what is presently in the main biographical article. In the article on the scale itself, it would be nice to have something about Partch's compositional use of the scale. As it stands, it is a bit like having an article about the major scale without any discussion of scale-degree melodic function or tonic-dominant polarity.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree the article should have more on the scale—notice how I wrote, "The article certainly needs beefing up in a lot of areas, and not just the 43-tone scale." The whole article is far from being what it should be yet. I think the scale should be kept to an overview, though, and not be overly technical (a challenge)—people who want to deal with the nitty-gritties should click through to them. As I said already, I'm not volunteering for the job—it's beyond my understanding and abilities—notice how I've stuck mainly to biographical details, descriptions of instruments, and lists of works. Researching the main Partch article, though, has made it clear that there is more than enough source material out there for a knowledgeable editor to make a robust article out of the scale (and Partch's theories in general—I won't be starting that one, though).

"Known for" doesn't imply what "most people" know, only what the person is notable for ("known for" to people who know about the subject). Most people have never read Invisible Man, nor have ever heard of it, but it is undeniable that that book is what makes Ralph Ellison notable. Partch's scale and instruments are what make him notable (more than any of his actual works, unfortunate as that may be). They are definitional—they define his notability, and are why he is always given at least a brief mention in overviews of avant-garde music.

Anyways, without access to Gilmore's biography (over ￥7000 on amazon!) or Dunn's Harry Partch: An Anthology of Critical Perspectives (￥12,650 at amazon!), I'm running out of sources that I can make sense of, and my editing will likely become more sporadic. Back to comics articles for me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been doing such a good job on that article that I figured it was best just to stand bak and let you get on with it (apart from the odd prompt). Somehow I thought you would soon get around to some of the technical stuff, so it is good to know that you do not feel comfortable with that side of things. In any case, I agree that the scale stuff should not be allowed to get very technical in the biography article. The Gilmore and Dunn books are indeed not cheap, although there are previews available on Amazon—tantalizing enough to make me want to see the whole of Dunn (which is new to me) and revisit Gilmore (which I have not read as much of as I would like). Both are held by my university's library but, unfortunately, both are currently checked out—probably by the same person who, with a little luck, will turn out to be a Wikipedia editor keen to join the fray. I'll get to these books eventually but, for the time being, I have plenty of other projects to keep me busy.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity of terms semitone, tone, ditone, tritone

Hi Jerome, I need your expert advice again. In Interval (music), we say, in footnote 7, that "The terms tone, whole tone, and whole step refer only to major seconds (M2)". However, this might be a controversial statement. For instance, in the introduction of major second, there's evident ambiguity about that. Compare the first paragraph which says (..."a major second (whole tone)"...) with the third one... We need to fix this. What's the truth? Is this similar to "tritone"? Paolo.dL (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, the ambiguity of the word "tone" is only a part of a more general problem. As you wrote in the table on Interval (music)#Latin nomenclature,

• Semitonus = m2,
• Tonus = M2,
• Ditonus = M3,
• Tritonus = A4

So, in Latin there's no ambiguity whatsoever. Each of these names unambiguously refers to a single kind of interval.

However, most people (perhaps everybody?) nowadays use the word semitone to indicate both the m2 (or diatonic semitone) and A1 (or chromatic semitone). I also know that the term tritone is ambiguous, as it is used both ways (strict and broad definition). We have explained that cleary in the article. I am not sure, however, about tone and ditone. So, I have two questions for you:

1. Is there any reliable author who currently uses the term semitone only for minor seconds?
2. What about the terms tone and ditone? Are they as "ambiguous" as the term tritone?

Paolo.dL (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paolo. I assume you are asking about those pesky augmented and diminished intervals (like the augmented unison, also called a chromatic semitone) that span the same distance as other, "normal" intervals. For example, the augmented second, which is incorrect to describe as a minor third. Thinking about this on a case-by-case basis, I come to different opinions. For example, in modern, "chromatic" thinking, an augmented triad is commonly described as a succession of major thirds which continue to the octave. Although one of these intervals must be regarded as a diminished fourth, musical practice for about 200 years has treated this chord as symmetrical and ambiguous. This is also true of the diminished-seventh chord which, famously, can resolve into eight different keys. However, this really only begins to apply in music from the early 19th century onward. Music theory follows practice (usually), the problem today being that we still perform music from the distant past, while the stylistic norms of musical behaviour have continually changed. This applies even more strongly to the Latin terms which, after all, were devised at a time when the "chromatic" thinking common for the past century or two simply did not exist. Not only that, but the diminished and augmented intervals were only approximately the same size as the common diatonic intervals. This is why the word "semitritonus" was used for the diminished fifth, because in Pythagorean tuning it is smaller than the augmented fourth, which consists of four "major whole tones" (an alternative term for the Pythagorean whole tone of 9:8).

However, this gets worse, because Pythagorean tuning was not the only way of constructing intervals, even in Ancient Greece, where the term ditone was used for the 5:4 "just major third", as well as for the (larger) "Pythagorean ditone" of 81:64, and the (smaller) "comma-deficient ditone" of 100:81. On the one hand, the word "ditone" always implied an interval built of two major seconds (and never, for example, a semitone-tone-semitone pattern), but on the other, the sizes of those constituent tones were not necessarily the same. This becomes particularly important in Western music theory around the beginning of the 16th century when, driven by changes in musical style, the concept of just intonation (based on a revival of Ptolemy's ideas) replaces Pythagorean tuning as the standard for explaining intervals. The Latin and Greek names remained in use (though they were being gradually supplemented or even replaced by vernacular terms), but their meaning was being adapted to the new explanations of tuning. The term "ditone" therefore stands alongside "major third", both of which are usually defined as an interval of the proportion 5:4, divided by a major and minor whole tone or, in meantone tuning, by two equal whole tones that cannot be expressed as whole-number ratios.

A third level of complication happens if we go back to Ancient Greek theory (and this was of course revived also in the 16th century, and so to an extent influences the thinking of that time), which made a distinction between "composite" intervals (such as we are speaking of, when we describe a tritone as being built up of three whole tones, but a diminished fifth as consisting of a semitone-tone-semitone), and "incomposite intervals", which may be as wide as a ditone, but have no intervening note to divide them.

So, this is all probably more complicated than interesting, but to answer your specific questions: (1) no, I do not believe that anyone today restricts the word "semitone" to just the minor second (and indeed, I am not sure that even medieval theorists consistently did so), and (2) I do not believe that the terms "tone" and "ditone" are ambiguous in the same way as "tritone". The term "ditone" in particular seems to imply a "composite interval" made up of two whole tones, and is sometimes used even more narrowly (by Barbour, for example, in his famous book on tunings and temperaments) to refer specifically to the 81:64 Pythagorean ditone.

These complications are one reason why theorists for the past fifty years or so have increasingly turned to describing intervals in terms of their distance measured in (equal-tempered) semitones, so that both the augmented fourth and diminished fifth are simply "6", a diminished fourth is "4", and so not distinguished from a major third, and so on. This is particularly suited to describing atonal music, though it also makes good sense when dealing with chromatically saturated music of the late 19th century (e.g., Scriabin, Mahler, or Debussy). Musical training, however, stubbornly resists change, and so the traditional terminology is still taught—and with good reason, when we consider the fact that performers' repertories not only still include very old-fashioned music by composers such as Bach and Corelli, but have recently stretched backward increasingly to revive earlier music still, by the likes of Monteverdi, Josquin, Dufay, Machaut, Perotin, and even, occasionally, Ancient Greek music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you. Paolo.dL (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "beat"

Jerome, if I recall from a long-ago required high school course in Introduction to music, we were told that a "beat" is the audible interference between two held notes, or something like that, where the sine waves happen to coincide. Or am I simply thinking of the wrong term? Beat (music) (TL;DR) doesn't seem to discuss this phenomenon. A few minutes ago I edited Sarabande to delink "music" and "rhythm", and link to "beat", "quarter note" and "eighth note". I decided against "measure", not wanting to create a sea of blue. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Beat (acoustics) does discuss this phenomenon. Is it irrelevant to music? Milkunderwood (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the beating you are thinking of is Beat (acoustics), which is definitely not irrelevant to music—or at least, not irrelevant to tuning, which should be of concern to musicians. Unfortunately, the word "beat" is also used in that other sense ("The beat goes on"), which just goes to show, once again, that English is a language susceptible of improvement. Sometimes I think we should attach subscript numbers to words like this, in order to make clear which of several senses we intend: beat₁, beat₂, etc.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess the question now really is whether the acoustic phenomenon should even be mentioned at Beat (music), to disambiguate the confusion if nothing else. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a hatnote in Beat (music) for that purpose, but there is not a similar hatnote for Beat music which, to my great indignation, is not about the original beat music at all, but rather about some Johnny-come-lately UK namesake. Must have been written by some whippersnapper who knew nothing about the "beat scene" of the 1950s. Even more annoying, the latter name seems to have been pre-empted by an article about a nostalgia magazine founded in 1988. What is this world coming to?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your rant; but I don't think that hatnote really solves the issue adequately. Anyone's eye will just glaze over at the sight of the word "acoustics" and quickly move on. So a reader will never understand the other use of the term in relation to music. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The triumph of efficiency over adequacy? I see your point, but the problem becomes one of how to insert a useful statement that will not be immediately reverted by another editor, who points out that it is already covered in the hatnote.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Tito Gobbi

Hi Jerome-- Might you have a chance to look at this sentence in the 2nd paragraph?:

• "Nel 1937 debuttò come Giorgio Germont in La traviata di Giuseppe Verdi al Teatro Adriano di Roma."

Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at it. Why is it given in Italian instead of English? Apart from that, it doesn't end with a period. What exactly am I meant to do, translate it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just the way I found it - apparently put in by an Italian speaker. Can you translate it for the article? Milkunderwood (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Easily. It needs a source, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I understood that. I was thinking it could be translated but then also tagged, rather than deleting it. It didn't appear to be vandalism. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. As it was, it stuck out like a sore thumb. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It did rather, didn't it? You are very welcome.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Prof Dr JK
All kinds of unpleasantness going on there.
Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No professors here, but thanks for the notification all the same. I voiced my opinion on the proposal at the J. S. Bach talk page, and figured I had had my say. I have been only dimly aware of the ongoing discussion (the resurrection from closure, and so on), but not at all about the incivility issue. I shall have to read through this new discussion, which is almost as long now as the original that spawned it. This is something I do reluctantly, since these things give indigestion as well as distracting from more productive work, but it does seem necessary. All the best.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing

Thanks for your help with the parentetical referencing on Le marteau sans maître. I've been editing for some time now and am still learning every day. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  24 May 2024, 22:15 (UTC)

My pleasure. Your response is unusual and welcome. I am accustomed to being told that parenthetical referencing is not the way things are done on Wikipedia, or else that, because it is not used on the majority of articles, it should be changed to conform. Under those circumstances, I must point them to WP:CITEVAR and WP:INCITE, as well as the guideline article which you have linked.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Microtonalism in rock music

Dear Jerome: I noticed you removed a source I added to Microtonal music noting "removed claim with a source that cites Wikipedia as its authority (Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and may not be used as a source for itself)". I'm afraid the removed source is not Wikipedia. --Moon1965 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed that website is not Wikipedia, nor did I say in my edit summary that it is. What I said is that the source cites Wikipedia as its authority, which in fact is the case: "Salim Ghazi Saeedi op dit album experimenteert met microtonale muziek. Voor de lezers die (net als ik) nog nooit van deze soort muziek hebben gehoord, link ik even door naar het artikel op wikipedia". In English: "Salim Ghazi Saeedi experiments with microtonal music on this album. For those readers (just like me) who have never heard of this kind of music, I provide a link to this article on Wikipedia". While this can of course be interpreted in different ways, it is tainted by reliance on Wikipedia for a claim about which the author himself professes ignorance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks --Moon1965 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Guido notes

Loved the edit summary -- I think it would be really great to make a Wikipedia fork that described the world entirely according to the beliefs of some previous point in time. You know, we could have an article on Whale that described it as a ferocious monster (<ref>Jonah 2:1</ref>) and put it in Category:Fish. I'm tempted to call it Plinypedia, but I think that any pre-englightenment source would be fair game. Cheers, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think we should always offer the opportunity to the gullible of proposing a change to the Wikipedia policy of requiring reliable sources. Seriously, the shift in the last few decades away from scientific method back to the more subjective focus typical of the Middle Ages ought to be given a fair chance to be heard on Wikipedia, oughn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Perspectives of New Music may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:WTAF and WP:REDLINK

Hi, I'm not sure your reading of these two things is correct. To start with, REDLINK is a community-accepted guideline, whereas WTAF is only an essay. Furthermore, WTAF is not really arguing to suppress redlinks everywhere, but is more specifically concerned with lists (in which cases I also invoke it from time to time). WTAF actually states specifically that it is concerned with "list pages, disambiguation pages, or templates". In the case of Perspectives of New Music, WP:ACADEMIC states that editors-in-chief (but not lower level editors) are notable. So previous EICs should be redlinked (per WTAF and REDLINK). He needs a dab, because there is already an article on a different Andrew Mead. If he's not a musicologist but a music theorist (I didn't know there was a difference between those two), then just change the dab. The other previous EICs should also be redlinked, as should be Dibelius, who seems to be a notable person judging from the deWP article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether someone is notable or not; it is a question of whether redlinks contribute in any way toward prompting the writing of articles. Two or three years ago, there was a widespread belief on Wikipedia that this was so; more recently (as reflected in the essay WP:WTAF) this belief has weakened. The well-known "sea of blue" problem also has its Red Sea counterpart, even if this is most seriously a problem with lists (especially "see also" lists, where there is clearly no point in directing a reader to an article that does not exist). Personally, I have increasingly been annoyed by these "hopeful redlinks" which persist for years with no fulfillment of their promise of an eventual article. The key phrase in the guideline for me is, "Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article". For me, this also reflects the preference expressed in the same guideline that editors "write the article first" (with a link to the essay of the same title). As for the attribute of "musicologist" vs "music theorist", there is indeed a difference, especially in the American academy (in Europe this distinction is not so often observed). However, the Andrew Mead in question is first and foremost a composer, even if he is also highly regarded as a theorist (and I am certain he would be furious to find himself characterized in a Wikipedia article as a "musicologist"). Consequently, if an article were to be written about him, it would best be titled "Andrew Mead (composer)", since there is already an article on another Andrew Mead. However, if such an article were to be created, it would be best to re-title the current article something like "Andrew Mead (jurist)" or "Andrew Mead (lawyer)", and create a disambiguation page. It would also be possible to differentiate them by their middle initials, since they are different.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I think that you act against the spirit and the letter of both WTAF and REDLINK. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think so; I do not believe I do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

An aside

Regarding [6], we should have a contest at a local Wikiproject to see who can come up with the most without cracking a book ... (kidding, I think ...) Antandrus (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be unfair of me to agree while I am already so far in the lead ;-). Seriously, though, it would be much more compact to create a template titled "Music originated outside of Europe". Unless, of course, we wanted to get serious and fold all of those sub-sub-sub-genres under their proper categories. Of course that might imply breaking the Magnificent Enterprise into a dozen or so separate templates, and that would fail to conform to the Completist Agenda, wouldn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bacchanal

I take your point about the reference (though the article overall is very sparsely referenced, including the 'modern usage section,' where most of the entries are un-referenced), and I will find one - my main impetus in editing the article is that many more traditional universities use Greco-Roman terms to refer to ordinary events, such as university celebrations, as 'Bacchanal' - since the term was obscure to some, and I know it is in sufficient usage to be merited, I wanted to have it mentioned on the entry.

In terms of the 'Ancient Universities,' - I was referring, correctly, to Ancient university, and I suppose it should have been made clearer that these universities ARE in Europe, but New World universities which follow their traditions very closely are nevertheless not considered part of the term (nor should they be since the oldest, Harvard, is only founded 1636).

I will endeavor to find a reference, though I suspect these types of references could always be tricky - since there are so many usages of terms from classical antiquity in the old universities (or those that emulate them), perhaps it would be better to link out to a (new?) article which deals with the many specialized 'terms of art' if you will, used by these educational institutions.

I suppose there could be a notability issue, but I think the institutions are sufficiently large and involve sufficient numbers of people that notability should be present. Commissar Mo (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am surprised to learn of this peculiar usage of "ancient" to mean "medieval and Renaissance". I wonder what the British mean when they say "medieval universities" or "Renaissance universities", then? (I won't quibble with the fact that you used the word "college" instead of "university".) They are a bit presumptuous, it seems to me, given that the University of Bologna makes no claim to being "ancient", and yet was founded in 1088—eight years before even the oldest of these British/Irish upstarts and half a millennium before the youngest! That said, I have no doubt that the gist of what you say is true, and I am confident that you will find a source. My assumption was that there was some careless use of terms involved; it looks like this was not as loose as I surmised. I might suggest that, when you restore this material with a source, you also add a link to "Ancient universities" for those readers who, like me, assume in our ignorance that the word "ancient" refers to Antiquity. Scare quotes might be appropriate, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "ancient" has been progressively narrowing over the centuries - up to at least the 18th century it was a standard adjective (and also noun) used for old people, and anything medieval, or even Renaissance, or just old. "Ancient universities", like Ancient monument in UK law, is something of a relic of earlier usage, & you don't now see people using it much, except perhaps in Scotland. Ancient monument is not date limited and many things covered by the legislation are 18th or 19th century, probably even 20th century. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To the under-20 crowd, I am "ancient". I don't know about you ;-).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe also that the nature of the term is ambiguous - it's not so much a point of fact that the universities are 'old' per se (as mentioned there are older extant ones), but that their traditions and associated esoteric academic cultures date from a medieval era (which itself was supposed to serve as a hermetic vessel for the learning of Ancient Rome - Latin and Greek as the lingua franca for scholarship for example, as was required of all students at Cambridge at one time for admission). The OxBridge culture (and the Scottish/Irish affiliates) was copied by the original colleges/universities in the United States by those who had studied at them (Cambridge, MA is where Harvard is located after all...).

As such, I do think strongly that a page should be created which details this specific idiosyncratic culture, and thus gets away from the very vague notion of calling some things 'ancient' while what is really being referred to is 'traditional' or 'conservative' or even Greco-Roman-Medieval academic culture. I will attempt to find some sources to seed the page with, providing a similar one doesn't already exist in some form. Commissar Mo (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As you have pointed out, there is already an article on the "Ancient universities". Do you think a separate article on OxBridge culture is really necessary, or should the current Ancient universities article be expanded (and even possibly retitled) to cover this? In any case, I find this all very interesting, and applaud your efforts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hunh?

This (from the French WP) shows two examples of enharmonic modulation. The examples are ok, but in the last two lines the degrees in the old key (TP) and the new key (NT) of the transition chord (T) can't be correct, can they? The transition chord in the first example should be analyzed as V♮ (TP) and II♭ (NT) and and in the second example VII♯ (TP) and II♮ (NT), shouldn't they? (Unless "V" there doesn't mean what I think it means?)

Contact Basemetal here 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The application of Roman numerals does vary from one author to another, and so the dialect should be explained carefully before giving an example like this. Sometimes (and I believe this is particularly common in French theoretical writings) the symbols I, IV, and V are used to indicate chord function, rather than actual root tone (that is, they stand in for what might otherwise be abbreviated T[onic], P[re]D[ominant], D[dominant]). I cannot say whether that is actually the case here, but I notice that the figured-bass numerals bear all of the information regarding chromatic alteration, whereas the notation you are suggesting transfers at least some of this to the Roman-numeral part of the analysis. The first example could also render the "new key" chord with something representing it as an augmented-sixth chord (simply A6, or more exactly Ger6, for example). Many theorists would have a fit seeing such "nonexistent chords" so designated, and insist that their "true" root be specified instead, whereas jazz-oriented theorists might wonder what all the fuss is about: "if it walks like a dominant-seventh chord and talks like a dominant-seventh chord, then it is a dominant-seventh chord".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks! You are very certainly right! The same way one may label B-D-F in C major a dominant 7th with a "missing" root and so a "V" chord? Contact Basemetal here 20:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is a similar case. We too easily suppose that the methods of analysis we have been taught (and their associated labeling systems) are the only possible way of doing things. For example, most English-speaking musicians today seem to think that Roman numerals are used in both capital and lowercase, the former indicating major triads (or augmented if accompanied by a plus sign), the latter minor (or diminished if accompanied by a small raised circle). While this does appear to be the dominant practice now, this was not true fifty years ago, so it can come as a shock when reading "classics" of the literature such as Piston, Goetschius, or Schoenberg to see nothing but capitals and often no added figured-bass numerals to indicate inversions or the addition of sevenths to triads.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you mentioned Goetschius, I've just remembered something I saw in a book of his which seems to have some similarity to what you mentioned above. He was analyzing an F-A-C chord in C major not as a IV chord but as a II 7th chord (D-F-A-C) that dropped its root. I saw just one example. But was it something he did systematically? Or did he at times accept there's such a thing as a IV function? Contact Basemetal here 20:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really do not know the answer to your very good question. I have two of his books on my shelf, Theory and Practice of Tone Relations, and Applied Counterpoint, but I have not systematically investigated either book in order to discover possible tendencies such as this and, frankly, it has been a very long time since I have consulted Goetschius except on matters of very small detail.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Still help me please with expanding the template Music originated in Europe according with music genres, please thanks--Vvven (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In nomine

It's somewhere in my mind that you wanted to write the music of the "in nomine" chant, right? - My personal music for Pentecost is on my user, pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You must be thinking of someone else, Gerda. I have edited the In Nomine article, but I do not recall saying anything about the chant. Perhaps someone once asked to have a music example added to the article? It would certainly benefit from this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood this then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I remember this now. I think it might be better to say I once somewhat unenthusiastically said I might do this but, having now been reminded of my offer, I shall see what I can do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Tagging

I noticed you added a lot of tags on the article Tablature(for example here), so i'd like to invite your attention to Wikipedia's guideline WP:TMC, specifically the following:

• Avoid tagging articles if you can easily fix the problem. The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article.
• Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below
• Don’t insert tags that are similar or redundant. For example, most articles that read like essays have an inappropriate tone, and in fact they end up being automatically grouped in the same category, so it is unnecessary to tag with both {{tone}} and {{essay-like}}.
• If an article has many problems, tag only the highest priority issues. A lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. (See also: tag bombing andover-tagging)
• Don't add tags for trivial or minor problems, especially if an article needs a lot of work. For example, there is little point in polishing the grammar of a section that needs to be dramatically re-written to comply with content policies. Focus on the biggest one, two, or three problems.

have a nice day! Da Vynci (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble of calling my attention to all of these points. You obviously felt it necessary to do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixing typo and removing your warning

After fixing the typo in Talk:Semitone, I removed your warning, to facilitate readability for other editors. I consider this an example of mild refactoring (see WP:Refactoring talk pages). I hope you don't mind. If you do, just ask me and I'll immediately restore your warning. Paolo.dL (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Paolo. It seemed an apparent typo, but I never feel comfortable changing even the most obvious mistakes in someone else's message (which is, after all, a violation of Wikipedia policy). Thanks for notifying me, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It was my duty to notify you. Thanks you for warning me and accepting my refactoring. Paolo.dL (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neo-romanticism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Suderburg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Robert Suderburg''' (born 28 January 1936 in [[Spencer, Iowa]]; died 22 April 2013 in Williamstown, Mass. (Anon. 2013;
• * ''Chamber Music VII'' ("Ceremonies", and ''Chamber Music VIII'' (Sonata for trumpet in C and piano). ''Trumpet Works''.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Jill Purce article

Dear Jerome,

Thank you for your assistance and diligence in helping improve the article on Jill Purce that I submitted for creation. My background is that I am currently finishing a PhD in music at Cambridge focussing on chanting (from a psychological/anthropological perspective), and for the past 18 months I have been researching the work of Jill Purce. Regarding your most recent comment, I don't quite know how to respond because whilst there is no secondary source to confirm this claim it is nevertheless true; having said this I am aware that secondary sources are fundamental to the Wikipedia project.

Jill lived and worked with Stockhausen intimately between 1971, when she first moved into his house in Kuerten as his partner and collaborator, and 1974 when she finally moved back to the UK. When she joined Stockhausen she introduced him to her work on sound in general, and on Cymatics and the notion of the effect of sound on matter in particular, which he had been previously unaware of. Alphabet was a result of their creative relationship. However, the details of her interaction with him were never published.

How do you suggest we proceed? Might one possibility be to remove the word 'inspired' and leave in 'helped' as it had been before - although I would rather add "inspired" since not only is it accurate but would be interesting for posterity and all those studying Stockhausen to know what actually happened. Kurtz alludes to this of course by saying 'exchanged many ideas', but this doesn't tell the whole story.

Many thanks,

gh26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh26 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Gh26: I am aware of most of these facts, since I have been involved as a scholar with Stockhausen's music for a long time now, and have had many discussions with him and his immediate associates since 1984. On the other hand, I have never met or corresponded with Jill Purce. As you acknowledge, Wikipedia has very particular standards about the distinction between what we know to be true, and what we can verify with reliable sources. In this case, I do feel there is a problem with the word "inspired" on both counts. I have never actually heard anyone claim that Jill Purce gave Stockhausen the idea of composing Alphabet, although I would certainly not dismiss the idea out of hand. After all, ideas have got to come from somewhere, and with Purce's interests and expertise on hand, it certainly seems likely. The real problem is the lack of a source, for which reason I advise restoring the word "helped", which can at least be verified from Kurtz's biography. Perhaps when you dissertation is complete and accepted, it may be used as a source to change the word back again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jerome - I removed the word 'inspired' on your suggestion based on Kurtz text, which made it clear "helped" was valid. As this was resolved, I removed your initial comment expressing concern about the word 'inspired' from the source code of the article. Suddenly this week, user Pinkbeast put the comment back saying the issue hadn't been resolved - I explained to him (on his own talk page) that it had been resolved and so now he says that given that this is your subject he says you, not I, be the one to remove it - so I would be very grateful if you would do that, thank you.

Gh26 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)