User talk:Hyacinth/Music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This page is an archive. Please leave messages on the link directly above.
Contents |
[edit] Coltrane changes
Aloha. Please see my comments on Talk:Coltrane changes. Mahalo. --Viriditas | Talk 13:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Country Music
Thank you for the advice on the Country Music Discussion page. If I ever find out who actually made the edits I will pass it on to them. I believe their edit was NPOV, even if you think my support was not. Tiles 04:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Musicology
Hello, and thank you for the welcome message! I am writing mostly on the Swedish Wikipedia, but I watch and edit in some areas of interest here too. Regarding the article on musicology I was surprised to find it in such a state of (relative) confusion. When I started on a Swedish version sv:musikvetenskap I could not use much of the English version. I understand the article is a mix from different sources, with a bias towards ethnomusicology and criticism, and that it needs more work. Do you think it is a good idea if I translate the structure from my version and reorganise musicology? My idea is it has to be more strict, and define what and what not musicologists study. --Blondel 15:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"what and what not musicologists study"
Seems I made a stupid remark in the previous, that led you to a wrong conclusion... But, it's just so clear when I think of it on my own! Example of things musicologists do study: music theory, music history, music sociology, ethnomusicology, (sometimes, or, bits of the field of) music psychology, (history of and sometimes theory of) music pedagogics. Example of things musicologists do not (very often) study (within the humanities faculty, where they belong): practical music making (that's for music colleges), music acoustics (it's physics), bio-musicology (it's biology), (the greater part of) music psychology, dance history (it is about music, but is sorted under other departments), song texts (literature), etc. My idea is to point to those latter "help sciences" or "cross sciences" from the main article, but not include them. --Blondel 20:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yesterday I started on a stub article about musical acoustics. I choose to call it that instead of music acoustics. Reason: there was already a suggestion on the acoustics page for such an article. The article needed more text and specialist knowledge to be useful. In fact, the topic is better described in the article physics_of_music, which I found linked from music. So, when I found today that musical acoustics does not exist any longer, I don't mind... But it is weird - I can find it still, from my watch list! Advice?
Today I am planning to do the grand new frame for musicology. --Blondel 10:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the help with the redirect! I promise to be more careful with article naming in the future! --Blondel 17:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Zuni/Pueblo music
I see that you created Zuni music with a redirect to the nonexistent Pueblo music. Was this deliberate? Is an article on Pueblo music forthcoming? Software bug? Tuf-Kat 20:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lydian mode
I've forgotten all I learned about musical modes, and I recently referred to the article to identify a mode (Dorian as it happens). I was somewhat confused by the musical example [[Image:The eight modes.PNG]]. The sample given as Lydian looks like a major scale to me and hence Ionian (modern Lydian would have a B-natural, or alternatively it would start with the B-flat). Is this example intended to illustrate the church modes only, or am I falling into the error of confusing a scale with a mode?
In that case, as a musician who only knows mainstream concepts, I'd find it useful to have a similar illustration of the modern modes listed later in the article. I'm not touching it myself in the hope you still have the Sibelius file somewhere, and also because I'd be likely to get it wrong. David Brooks 18:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sheets of sound
Aloha. I'm not sure what you mean by your comments. The only change I've made recently is to move the quotes to Wikiquote and add a cat. Perhaps you can be more specific. If you feel the page needs work, feel free to help out. --Viriditas | Talk 20:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] H.F. Redlich
You refer to H.F. Redlich's analysis of the Berg Lyric Suite. Is this the Israeli violinist Hans Redlich? If so, I will write a brief biographical article on him - he was a friend with whom I occasionally played chamber music, and his music library is now in my house (he died a couple of years ago).
Thanks, User:Ravpapa
[edit] Art and visual art techniques
I noticed you created the subcategory Category:Visual art techniques within Category:Artistic techniques. It seems like the visual art ones are of the same calibre as artistic techniques. Also, since Music is in Category:Arts not Category:Art it seems sufficient to the musical techniques categorized as music. I'd like to merge visual art tech. and art. tech. and take out music. tech - sound OK? Clubmarx 21:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Hello. Thanks for the note. Unfortunately I didn't understand it all. However, I am writing to ask you to please provide justification for not categorizing music as an art. Hyacinth 23:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Dance, theater, etc. are in the Performing arts, which is in the category the Arts, just as music is in the performing arts. No dance techniques or acting techniques are in artistic techniques, mostly just painting techniques. Things inside and outside the category Art can have artistic merit or have 'an art to it.' But the category 'Art' is being using somewhat syonymously with the fine arts, especially painting. I'm trying to clean all this up. Clubmarx 00:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] category:aspects of music
Hi - I noticed you added this category (currently an "orphaned" category with no connection to the rest of the category structure). Did you know there's an existing category category:Music theory which might serve equally well as a category for the articles you've added to category:aspects of music? What would you think about moving the articles from the new category into category:Music theory and deleting category:aspects of music? -- Rick Block 15:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, noticed this discussion while leaving a note at Rick's talk. Until i read the lead of the article, i agreed with Rick (and also wondered why in the world you'd not instead want aspects to be the parent of "theory"!). (I also wonder if, to the extent it's justified at all, you aren't really claiming to be discussing "the aspects of music", rather than "aspects of music", which include contracts, architectural acoustics, file-sharing as piracy, drugs, groupies, the Mozart effect....)
There's every reason to delete the Cat if "the aspects of music" is your description of this concept, rather than the established terminology of music theory, i.e. if it's a working title not like The Enlightenment but like my Motif of harmful sensation, which it embarrassed me to see appear on "Did you know...?" on the Main page! ("Did you know that the Monty Python "Joke Warfare" skit is an example of the Motif of harmful sensation?" No, not until i thought that name up.) If it's even a reasonably well established term, IMO that needs to be made clearer in the article, and probably the Cat description.
My degreed, theory-heavy, long-professional classical-musician informant has never heard the term, so IMO documentation is needed to support the Cat, and to defend the article against any proposals to change the name. (Like Harmful Sensation, this may also be a potential original-research issue.)
--Jerzy(t) 19:50, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
Hi - I read your aspects of music article and I guess I still have the same question Jerzy asks above - i.e. is this a term of your own invention? It seems like there's a tremendous overlap between aspects of music and music theory. In this case, I'm not sure two articles are actually needed. If it's a term of your own invention, is there some specific reason you don't want to merge the content from aspects of music into music theory? I don't think music theory is necessarily intended to be Western or European centric. Just curious. -- Rick Block 01:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
