User talk:Andy M. Wang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_M._Wang. |
| This is the user talk page for User:Andy M. Wang, where you can send messages and comments to Andy M. Wang. |
|
|
- Note: If you are talking about an article, it is best if you provide a link to the article. Also, if we started talking on this page, note that I will most likely respond here for continuity and visa versa (unless you state otherwise or you have rules on your own talk page). — Andy W. (talk/contrb.)
[edit] Happy Birthday!
I could leave you the standard template. But I won't. Your cake's not here, it's on facebook. Happy Birthday. Abeg92contribs 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mahler's Third Symphony
On the discussion page for Mahler's Third I noted that I participated in reading of the symphony that required combining two orchestras. Someone anonymously commented "The sixth movement is well...amazing!" to which you added "Yes, it definitely is, very sweeping and emotional."
Two days ago (November 2, 2007) the San Diego Symphony played Mahler's Third. I saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity so, even though I haven't been to a classical concert since the early 1980s, I made it a point to be there. I also promised myself that I would not get bored during the last movement. The final movement, to me, has always been the one that I must listen to because it belongs with the rest. I had trouble holing my concentration but finally got into it during the last third or so of the movement. Maybe I'm just not into slow movements. I rate Mahler's Third as right up there with Beethoven's Ninth as one of the greatest pieces of music ever written. I just wish I could wrap my mind around that last movement.
BTW, the concert started great. It sounded like the performance could rival the best recordings. However, about two thirds of the way through the first movement the musicians started to sound tired. Throughout the performance there were several missed notes by the brass and woodwinds. Even the flugelhorn flubbed once. On top of that, the PA amplifier decided to break into oscillation during the second movement (why was it on in the first place?) and someone's cell phone went off during the fourth movement (which is why the death penalty should never be abolished). By the end I had to down-rate the performance to "pretty good" but I wouldn't have missed it for the world. Rsduhamel 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Rsduhamel. I am not sure if I have even talked to you or met you, but thanks for your comment! Mahler's third is definitely not a symphony one sees all the time. I think that the last movement is slow, but it may be the most passionate movement. Yes, the 30-minute first movement can be tiring for the orchestra. Whoa! Cellphones are almost like a "death penalty". I'm glad you enjoyed it! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to read (or even clarify) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Symphony_No._3_%28Mahler%29 regarding the god/love business. Thanks Brontosaurus (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The Music Barnstar | |
| Awarded to Andy M. Wang for your exceptional effort and dedication to music-related articles. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
.
- Wow, thank you very much for the Music Barnstar! Hmm... I am not sure if I have seen this barnstar sometime before; it may be quite new. Anyway, thank you; I appreciate it! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome. It looked to me that it was long overdue. This particular star comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Claude-Paul Taffanel
While fleshing out the article on the Tchaikovsky Cello Concerto, I noticed there wasn't an article listed for flautist Claude-Paul Taffanel. Today I found another Wiki article for this artist under the entry Paul Taffanel. This article is not as substantial as mine but has some information not included in mine. How would you like to proceed? Jonyungk (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Hi. What exactly is the difference in this last change (18:30, January 28, 2008 Andy M. Wang (Talk | contribs) (14,056 bytes) (swl ap) (undo)) that you made in this article 80th Academy Awards nominees and winners? I am looking at the "difference" in versions, and I cannot see any difference. Please let me know. Thanks. Please reply at My Talk Page. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Atonement
Dear Andy, Thanks for correcting my date error on the Atonement (film) page. You may find of interest the list of winners of the Evening Standard British Film Awards for 2007.
As it happens, editor Melly had deleted the list, on the grounds that it was introducing new material not previously covered by the page! But I have restored the list (and its links to the many associated pages), since the absence of this essentially encyclopedic data would be a disservice to film researchers.
It is also my present intention to add to it on a year-by-year basis, in order to build a more complete picture of these important British Film awards. Would that we could now add retrospective information about the awards, but alas the information for previous years is not readily to hand. Best wishes John Thaxter (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dr.Patrick D. Finley
He's red-linked on the Bergen County Academies article. Does he deserve an article? (If so, we should be sure to include his as-yet-unsuccessful bid to have New Jersey, My Home made into the state song. -- f(x,y) (talk/contrb.) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's where we start: [1]. I'll try to get something done this week. -- f(x,y) (talk/contrb.) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a page for us to begin drafting User:Functionofxy/Desk/PDF. You are welcome to edit this page. It currently has basically nothing. -- f(x,y) (talk/contrb.) 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 80th Academy Awards article
The added spaces might have been useful under your screen, but it will not work for everybody. I hope you didn't mind that I deleted them. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the posting and for the information. I did not know that articles / pages appear differently to different people? Can you please explain? How / why would others see the page differently than I do ... and what exactly do they see? I never knew this before. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thank you very much. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Liszt
Don't worry about messing me up. I was able to remember what I'd lost. Besides, it was my fault for not putting up the "In Use" tag sooner. Thanks for the compliments. Nice to get a fresh start on something after all the Tchaikovsky business. Being partial to the piece also helps. (-: Jonyungk (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Miyokan, NPOV and Tchaikovsky
There seems to be what is becoming an ongoing tug-of-war with Moyokan] about what is or is not NPOV with Tchaikovsky. Could you please look over the revision history for the last few days and suggest how to proceed? I am footnoting everything questioned by him but don't how else too proceed and am concerned this situation may get worse before it gets better. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Repl on talk. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reassurance. This started when Miyokan used phrased like "sturring melodies" etc. in a rewrite of the intro paragraph—things which became an instant red flag in the peer review. I reversed that edit, then he came bak ith what you saw, so I was concerned. You're probably right, though; I'll leave the matter at that.
- I've noticed the difference in tone and detail as well. The difference in tone does not seem a fatal problem. Maybe some would prefer something drier or more overtly formal; others might not mind somehting a little less formal if the article is more readable or accessible as a result. The detail surorised me. At the same time, it answers many questions I (and other potential readers?) have had about why there was such a conflict with Tchaikovsky wrote in a more "Western" style and why he had a problem with it. Now I wish there were a little more detail with articles on Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, and so on. The only comparable one I've seen so fr has been Stravinsky. But this would be a huge task for anyone. Jonyungk (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- repl — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looked at Tchaikovsky today after staying away a while. You may want to look at Miyokan latest efforts. This is not an article; it's a shrine. I'm disgusted but am not planning to do any more about it. Jonyungk (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- repl — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Footnotes.
Hi, there. Surprise, I'm not talking about Tchaikovsky this time. (-:
Actually, I'm a litle confused about something more elementary, though some of the discussions with others on Tchaikovsky did bring it up. How often are we really supposed to footnote and cite sources, even on general facts. I've seen some aritles with practically no citatios, others which cite practically every line. Reading the WP lages on Footnoting and citations hasn't helped. To get some idea what I've been doing, check out Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stravinsky Piano Concerto edit
Andy - I can't find any other section of Wikipedia that provides links to recordings of this work. Numerous other wiki articles link to performances - these can't all be classified as self-promotion. Please refer me to some guidelines for linking to these recordings if you still feel this is a self-promotion.
Many thanks,
Willis Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgmilleriii (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mahler's Second Symphony
Hi, Andy W. Thanks for the kind words on my work on Mahler's Second Symphony. It looks as though the work is on several other persons' watch lists, as well as yours. I think, though, that I will leave further editing on this article to you and yours, as our views seem to conflict. To me, there is way too much musical technicalese, especially in describing the final movement, for the casual reder or musical listener. (Why, for instance, should I care about "rehearsal 3" in the first movement? I'm not a conductor or orchestral player. Most won't know what that term means.) However, all this information and more is back—in fact, nearly everything removed. Yes, I know Wiki editing is a collaborative process, but there is a very strong message which has been sent and goes beyond that process, and I am taking heed to follow it. Please don't worry about replying to this post. Jonyungk (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just curious
What brought you out to see the choral symphony article? Wasn't sure whether it showed up on your Mahler Meter or you found about it before hand. :) Jonyungk (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Advice from an expert Mahlerian
on two points on which I'm honestly unsure:
- The Oxford Companion to Music lists the Mahler 4th as a choral symphony, with the caveat there is a soprano instead of a choir. While I can agree with an explanation and yes, it's in overall layout a Beethoven Ninth for reduced forces, doesn't the term choral symphony mean thre is a choir somewhere in the composition?
- Oxford also lists Shostakovich's 14th as a choral symphony but not Das Lied von der Erde. They both follow the same loose general idea of a symphony as intended by their composers; the only diffference is the numbering complicatio with Mahler, since he did write a Ninth Symphony after Das Lied. If Das Lied were an actual (ninth) symphony, why not complete the job by making the next symphony the 10th. I know this is covered some in "Curse of the Ninth" but I'm still confused.
Thanks!
Jonyungk (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dvořák's symphonies
Hello Andy! I just expanded some articles you created... I've found it on classical music "to-do" list. Can you please check my english grammar and syntax in Symphony No. 3 (Dvořák), Symphony No. 4 (Dvořák) and Symphony No. 5 (Dvořák) articles? Thank you for your time and help. Best. Vejvančický (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that, I'm still new here and can't use all the tool correctly.. Thanks. Vejvančický (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
