Talk:Arnold Schoenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Arnold Schoenberg is related to the Composers WikiProject which has been provided as a place for editors of biographical articles of music Composers and Songwriters to discuss common issues, discover neglected composer articles and exchange ideas. All who are interested are invited to comment and contribute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] mention students in the intro?

Shouldn't there also be a list of his students in the introduction? His devoted students (Webern, Berg, Adorno), as well as those who reacted against him while still acknowledging his impact (Weill, Cage) -- are tremendous forces in more recent music history, and that's an important aspect of Schoenberg's legacy.

Neither Adorno nor Weill ever took lessons from Schoenberg, if I'm not mistaken. And Schoenberg didn't particularly care for Adorno (not that that necessarily matters). Adorno was Berg's student briefly. As for the rest, Schoenberg's legacy is important, but perhaps you could find a good way to mention it concisely (that is, in a manner appropriate for an introduction). The list of names was a bit unwieldy, wasn't it? Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks...

[edit] "atonal motivic development"?

What's "atonal motivic development"? *All* 11 of the google entries on that exact phrase (there are only 11), are derived from the same sentence, popping up all over the web. Is this someone's original research, then? I don't find references to it the books I have in front of me, but that doesn't mean it's not imporant...I just want some help here.

The advances in motivic development for which Schoenberg is responsible are not limited to his atonal music. The innovation that most distinguishes him in this area is the treatment of the differences between steps in a developmental process as objects in and of themselves, so that the subject in Schoenberg's music is decentered. (See writings by Ferneyhough, Dahlhaus, etc)...I'll look up specific citations later, but for the moment I'm just curious what the author means by "atonal motivic development." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.240.121 (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

These Wikipedia articles are often plagiarized versions of other documents. It looks, however, as though you get the gist of this phrase's meaning. Maybe you should render it in a more precise way. It's Wikipedia, after all. Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


The gist of the phrase's meaning contradicts what I know of Schoenberg's approach to motive, and I corrected it earlier. The author (or someone) put things back the way I found them before my edit. So I wanted to ask for that someone's collaboration, rather than getting into a back-and-forth. I thought if someone could tell me what s/he meant by "atonal motivic development," then we'd have a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.240.121 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, here. The word "atonal" is irrelevant and misleading in that phrase. - Rainwarrior (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


OK, issue is resolved.

[edit] Worklist

the list of works woo, organised by medium, seems much friendlier than the list by opus numbers;should they be merged? in any event, Von Heute auf Morgen needs to be identified as a stage work, and one for four singers with a single spoken line for the child.Sparafucil 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Also, I'm tempted to delete "selected compositions" there being no obvious criterion (not all or famous or representative). The categories:compositions page is under utilized; maybe everything needs to be merged into one list? Sparafucil 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article history, but I assume the separate categories of "Selected works", "Works with opus numbers", etc. are a product of different people working at different times. I wholeheartedly agree that "Selected works" is a pointless category next to the complete lists and, although it is the habit of some specialist writers to refer to Schoenberg's works by opus number alone (where they exist), I don't see why a merged list of with-and-without opus numbers would be a handicap to anyone. I'd say, "go for it!"--Jerome Kohl 06:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I being Tom-Sawyered? Did the vocal works already, w/o attempting chronological order. Sparafucil 07:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Tom-Sawyered"? I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about. I thought you were volunteering to do what you saw as some much-needed cleanup ;-) Certainly your efforts are much appreciated.--Jerome Kohl 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem now is that the list by genre is woefully incomplete because many of the works w/ opus numbers now aren't classified properly. I will get chamber music done now, but this type of change needs to (basically) be done all at once or not at all if we want to be a reliable reference. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Schönberg redirects to Arnold Schoenberg. ...... Why? I can understand 'Arnold Schönberg' redirecting here perfectly, but not just the last name. He may be the most famous person with that name, but he's certainly far from the only one - see Claude-Michel Schönberg too. --Lobby

Sounds like you want to start a Schönberg disambig page, ala Kennedy or Miller or something like that. Go for it! --Ds13 18:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Hyacinth 20:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I just wanted to check here first to make sure I wasn't missing something, some reason for it being the way it currently is, before making the disambig page. (Actually, I wanted someone else to do the work for me; damn your mere helpfulness!.. So, yeah, I'll go do that now.) --Lobby/Silence 18:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to call "Schoenberg" the anglicized version of "Schönberg"; it is exactly how a German speaker would type or write the name without the letter "ö". I also doubt very many English speakers would be helped by the change. More than likely, the composer got a lot of SHOWN-bergs or even SHOW-en-bergs. Without any text to the contrary, my guess would be the change was a matter of typographical ease of use. Ben L. 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ben L. Chris 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phobia

The article claims that Schoenberg "feared turning 76, because its digits add up to thirteen." Did he also fear turning 49, 58, and 67? —Caesura 21:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though you pose a good question, a phobia is an irrational fear and there is nothing strange if he did not fear those similar numbers. Hyacinth 21:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Schoenberg was not afraid of turning 76 until just prior to his birthday, when an astrologer acquaintance sent him a warning that the year was ominous. Prior to that, he had only been afraid of ages that were multiples of 13, 65 in particular.
Humph01 12:45, 1 April 2005 (UTC)
That's fascinating, genuinely...such logical music but illogical phobias! Fatboy06 21:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

He technically died in his 77th year, he had lived for 76 full years and died in the 10th month of his 77th.

That makes it 77 - 10 = 67 (6 + 7 = 13) Bad luck ! --Shandristhe azylean 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. Subtracting the years will give you the number 77, but if you notice, july comes before september, therefore he had not quite reached his 77th year.--Psydude 19:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've spent some time searching and can't find any corroborating information for the claim of his specific time of death, saying "harmony" etc only that he died on that day. Could we get an external link? I am interested to confirm this because not only is it a very strange coincidence but it seems rather odd that his wife would be telling him to "wake up and quit this nonsense" just before midnight as not only would normal people be sleeping, but the day would have been over shortly anyway. Sounds very dubious to me. 203.97.162.200 06:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have heard many tellings of the story in many places... if it's not true it's at least a very widespread rumour. (But it would be nice to know the truth.) I can't seem to find reference to this on schoenberg.at, which gives me at least a little bit of suspicion about it. Rainwarrior 04:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, i've only found the phobia story here. And its only in the article about Triskaidekaphobia, its not even in his main article. Can someone verify this outside, perhaps by a published biography? Until it can be verified one way or the other, i've added in the story about his death into the main article, because, true or not, it is pretty creepy. --Psydude 19:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


While I don't really care to make the change in this article myself (due mostly to my wiki-ignorance), this triskaidekaphobia thing is actually documented in a book by Malcolm MacDonald called "Schoenberg," London: J.M. Deat and Sons Ltd., 1986, pg.50, or there roundabouts. If that's enough evidence to keep that in the main article, go ahead and throw it back in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.230.115.32 (talk • contribs).
Then add this to article, why there's no telling of his death nor his strange grave?
The composer Arnold Schoenberg (ironically born on the 13th) suffered from triskaidekaphobia. He was convinced that he would die aged 76 (because 7+6 = 13). Not only did his premonition come true, he also died on Friday 13 July 1951 (another 13: Friday is the sixth day of the week - beginning on Sunday - and July is the seventh month, making 6 + 7 = 13; 1951: 19 - 5 - 1 = 13) at 11:47 PM - 13 minutes to midnight. Also, adding the numbers 1, 1, 4, and 7 brings up a total of 13.

--Shandristhe azylean 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extramusical interests

Maybe his triskaidekaphobia should be placed under a different title, as I'm not sure how a phobia can be an extramusical interest. I presume interest refers to Schoenberg himself and not the reader. thedarkestclear 13:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I've removed the triskaedekaphobio bit for lack of references. When references are found, it can be re-added. Mak (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that it has been re-added, but the "reference" cited is [[1]], which is merely a website telling this story, not what could reasonably be called a reliable source. I have just checked a few biographies (certainly not all of them) and find it extraordinary that none of them mentions this at all, even though one or two go into excruciating detail about Schoenberg's final months. It seems to me that, unless a more convincing citation can be found, that this triskaidekaphobia business should be removed again.--Jerome Kohl 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
His trisodekophobia is documented pretty well, and is also mentioned on page 148 of Alan Shawn's book Arnold Schoenberg's Journey, if that legitimizes the claim at all. --Adam P! 23:03, 9 Nov 2007
I think you are a little behind the times. A lot of triskaidekaphobia (not "trisodekophobia") water has flowed under the bridge sibnce last June. If you look at the article itself, you will find it is adequately covered here, though perhaps you would like to add the Shawn reference. On the other hand, the unsubstantiated legend about Schoenberg's death certificate has been removed, owing to no one having come forward with any better evidence than Gertrude Schoenberg's testimony.--Jerome Kohl 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did Schoenberg Travel To Berlin?

I have read elsewhere how Schoenberg was pretty much rejected by the Vienna scene, wife and kids to feed, totally down on his luck with only enough money for a train ticket, and he spent that money to travel to Berlin (1911?) where he was immediately hailed as a genius and accepted into the musical society, and the rest, as they say, is history.

But what I cannot uncover is why did he travel to Berlin?

he'd been there before, briefly, but why did he suddenly go back? Even the Official Schoenberg site simply has him talking to Kandinsky one moment, the next he's in a new apartment in Berlin. But why did he go there? Was he invited? Was he taking up an appointment or a commission? Was there someone he hoped to meet (as when John Cage, also penniless, travelled to NYC hoping to meet Max Ernst) Or did he have reason to expect they would be friendlier to his un-pretty music?

It puzzles me greatly, it has become my Why did the Bodhisattva travel to China? life-koan -- I can find no reasons given in any references, only as we find here, one day he's in Vienna, the next sentence he's in Berlin, and if they later appointed him head of the music academy, it would seem they really did appreciate his talents.

Does anyone know why Schoenberg risked his savings on Berlin?

Or is the whole story just a myth?

Teledyn 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you not find the explanation in New Grove sufficient? His financial position in Vienna had deteriorated badly. "In 1910 he offered his services to the Kaiserliche-Königliche Akademie für Musik und Darstellende Kunst as an external lecturer in theory and composition. His application was successful, but his hopes that this might lead to a professorship were thwarted. A question was asked in parliament, and he was subjected to virulent attacks on racial grounds. By the end of the academic year his circumstances had so far deteriorated that he decided to try his luck once again in Berlin, and moved there with his family in the autumn of 1911." So, he went there on spec, as it were. He managed to obtain a lectureship at the Stern Conservatory, though his lectures were poorly attended at first. New Grove does not say how he managed that post, but does mention hostile comments in the Berlin press upon his arrival, which might account for the poor attendance.--Jerome Kohl 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian-American

Does living in the U.S. after he was 59 make him an Austrian-American? Atavi 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It does if he took American citizenship. CRCulver 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Which he did. OK. Atavi 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Mathilde Schoenberg

I do not know the details of her death offhand, but it was Gerstl who committed suicide after she returned to Schoenberg. The Schoenberg Centre Biography says that she died much later in 1923, but doesn't give the details. (I seem to recall cancer as the reason in the back of my mind, but I can't find a reference offhand to back it up.) - Rainwarrior 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should not be in the category

Category:Compositions by composer - perhaps someone put in the line [[Category:Compositions by composer]] (without initial colon after the bracketpair) instead somewhere? Since there is a category Category:Compositions by Arnold Schoenberg which does belong. Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(fixed already, or something. Though the category Category:Compositions by Arnold Schoenberg lists Arnold Schönberg as the main article, which I hope isn't intentional, planning to change that in a bit just to be slightly picky. Thanks. Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article contains a list of compositions by Arnold Schönberg. Why wouldn't it belong in this category? (It is indeed the main article for his compositions). - Rainwarrior 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The category I pointed to is a list of categories and pages. The pages are all of the form "List of works by ----" - specifically, not mixed with biography etc., and also importantly, so named. (It was, when I wrote that, (edit - almost!!) the only page in that category in fact that wasn't of the form "List of compositions by x", and tended to stand out. It's not there anymore. Hrm. RobertG's recent edit might account for that. Ok, didn't imagine that- non-trivial I sometimes think...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schoenberg's political views

I know Schoenberg was a communist, or at least held communist/socialist views and leaned far to the left. It directly relates to one of the principles of of atonal theory (the destruction of tonal heirarchy). Does anyone have a source for this? I think it should definitely be added to the article. A quick Google search didn't reveal much, and I don't have my library card with me, so I can't access my library's online databases like Grove and JSTOR; but if someone has a biography or something of the like, it'd save some time. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 10:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that many of the postwar composers interested in serialism are/were communists. Luigi Nono springs very quickly to mind, but there are many others.
Schoenberg, however, was not a communist. He was also opposed to the term "atonal", and the phrase "destruction of tonal heirarchy" doesn't really fit with the way he described what he was doing (he considered it more of an extension beyond tonality, not the destruction of it). Even in his writings on music (published as "Style and Idea") you can see right wing tendencies; his argument for stronger copyright, for instance; his view of the composer as a privileged expert; etc, and there are articles more directly related to his political views in journals out there (sorry, I can't come up with a citation offhand), and these views also correlate directly with his religious beliefs. - Rainwarrior 14:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, let me say that I completely unsure of Schoenberg's political views. However, I do not think there is any contradiction between having Communist sympathies and arguments for strong copyright or the composer as a superior being. To me such views are variations on authoritarianism, and Russian Communism, at least, certainly had no problem with that. Chris 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hans Eisler wrote of his trepidation in introducing AS to Brecht, on account of the formers conservative politics.Sparafucil 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Schoenberg himself wrote, in a short essay titled "My Attitude toward Politics" (1950), published on pp. 551–52 of H. H. Stuckenschmidt's Schoenberg: His Life, World and Work (New York: Schirmer Books, 1977), that "before I was twenty-five, I had already discovered the difference betwen me and a labourer; I then found out that I was a bourgeois and turned away from all political contacts." He goes on to say that his experience during World War I turned him into a monarchist, and remained a quiet monarchist for many years, "though the chance for a restoration was at zero." The essay ends with the flat statement, "I was never a communist."--Jerome Kohl 03:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From Schoenberg's letters at http://www.schoenberg.at/4_exhibits/asc/Kandinsky/letters_e.htm#

-"What have I to do with communism? I’m not one and never was one!"
-"Trotsky and Lenin spilt rivers of blood (which, by the way, no revolution in the history of the world could ever avoid doing!), in order to turn a theory – false, it goes without saying (but which, like those of the philanthropists who brought about previous revolutions, was well meant) – into reality. It is a thing to be cursed and a thing that shall be punished, for he who sets his hand to such things must not make mistakes!"
-"The anti-Semites are, after all, world-reforming busybodies with no more perspicacity and with just as little insight as the communists."

If there is still anyone unconvinced, expect him to show us stronger evidence. User: kansallinenkokoomus

[edit] Citations?

Some Schoenberg expert should really substantiate this article with citations... I've never seen an article with so many unreferenced claims.[This unsigned entry was made on 23 May 2007 by 128.135.96.6]

As the person responsible for the majority of the calls for verification now peppering this article, I couldn't agree with you more, though it would hardly take a "Schoenberg expert" to fill many of the gaps. I notice that a few of these calls have been answered, though in at least one case the "citation" is to a website opinion/rumor page which itself is unverifiable. Care needs to be taken to cite only credible sources.--Jerome Kohl 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a great many statements in the article that are marked as requiring citations, but do not in fact require any, except perhaps the most general ones. For example, it is certainly the case that around the turn of the twentieth century many intellectuals felt that thought had been developed as far as it could go; there is no need to find an instance of an historian saying it in another source. Another example is the sentence about the second string quartet; the music is the source, and may be examined by anyone. There are, on the other hand, other statements for which citations would be entirely appropriate, though I am generally disturbed by the citation mania that has overtaken the Wikipedia project in recent months. Such a thing as common knowledge exists, and to deny it is rather silly.Vaux 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Vaux. Of course we could include a reference to an easily accessible edition of the 2nd string quartet and many more references. The question is however: will this really improve the article? Wouldn't anyone interested in the musical text of that quartet be able to find the score without any problems? Matthias Röder 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I was the one who put in that call for a citation about the Second String Quartet, and I should perhaps clarify my intent. Of course there is no need for a citation to establish that there is a soprano singer, nor for the characterizations of the harmonies in the various movements. The issue is to do with the use of a soprano vocalist "breaking with several decades of string-quartet practice". I was astounded to learn of an earlier practice of adding voices to string quartets, abandoned for twenty or thirty years until Schoenberg revived it in 1908; indeed, I suspect this statement is erroneous, but would be a lot easier to demonstrate its truth (cite a score or two, or a book or article describing these works) than its untruth.--Jerome Kohl 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I should have realized that, Jerome; the request for a citation is after the clause in question, after all. I'm intrigued by this earlier practice of quartets with voices, as I've never seen reference to it anywhere. I just checked the latest Grove, and in it Paul Griffiths implies that Schoenberg's introduction of the voice is the first instance that he knows of, for example. Do you remember where you found out about it?Vaux 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I always figured it was sort of an homage to Beethoven bringing in a chorus to end the Ninth. - Rainwarrior 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I do indeed remember exactly where I first found out about this practice, Vaux: right here in the Wikipedia Schoenberg article! As I said, it astounded me and I suspect it is an error, but demonstrating a nonexistence is much more difficult than demonstrating an existence. I imagine that Paul Griffiths is likely correct, and perhaps that reference should be inserted as a counterfoil, until and unless someone can find a reference for the claim that there was once a flourishing practice of this nature. I would say that Rainwarrior's speculation sounds plausible, too, but I suspect that Wikipedia policies would prevent us from inserting such observations without documentiation, since it would consititute "original research", would it not?--Jerome Kohl 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Original research, and just an offhand guess as well. But anyhow... we can't prove that a previous string quartet featuring a soprano doesn't exist, so we can't prove that it's the first. It's seems reasonable though for a well researched published source to suggest that it is the first. However, if we can't attribute a source that's willing to suggest this, is it so important that we have to mention it? I mean, might it be just as good to say that it was unusual in its use of a soprano and leave it at that? Why settle for an unattributed statement that's just "probably" true? - Rainwarrior 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Can someone add a pronunciation for his name? Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done my best, though I am not expert in the use of the IPA. Perhaps other, more adept editors will refine this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twelve Tone Technique

Schoenberg used the phrase system of composing with twelve tones to identify his "technique". Slonimsky's Music Since 1900 can be used as a reference. Should we add this in parenthetically or replace Twelve Tone Technique?--Roivas (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, the phrase Schoenberg actually used was Methode der Komponierens mit zwölf nur aufeinander bezogenen Tönen. It really is no wonder that this has been boiled down to "Zwölftontechnik" or, in English, "twelve-tone technique" (mainly American usage) or "twelve-note technique" (mainly UK usage). (Slonimsky's version must be an intermediate form, changing "method" to "system" and omitting the phrase "related only to each other".) The interested reader can follow the link to the article "Twelve-tone music", where this is discussed at some length, and the other common term "dodecaphony" is also mentioned. If other editors think this is important enough to warrant a separate notice here, it seems to me that a parenthetical addition—with a citation perhaps to Style and Idea, p. 218, as in the article on the technique—would be far preferable to altering the familiar and usual term.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"System" is my mistake. I don't think adding in a brief mention regarding Schoenberg's preferred name for his own composition technique would be overly pedantic. I have no interest in challenging a commonly used word. I gave the wrong impression. Parenthetical is best. I'm sure many readers will find the little piece of info interesting.--Roivas (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it is mentioned in the Twelve-tone music article you linked for me, I'm not all that inclined to change the present article.

--Roivas (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vienna Academy of Music

It says here that in 1912 he was appointed Professor of Music Theory at the Vienna Academy of Music. Is this correct. It's not in the article and I've been unable to verify this on the internet.--Atavi (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 12 > twelve

This is the ultimate nitpik: User:Jerome Kohl changed the numeral 12 to the word "twelve" in his last edit. It has been a long time since I read style manuals, but as I recall, the Chicago, McGraw Hill and Associated Press style manuals all agreed that numbers up to 10 should be written out, numbers 10 or greater should be written as numerals. Does Wikipedia have a different opinion on this? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, numbers up to twenty are commonly written as words. In any case, whenever we refer to the twelve tones in the twelve tone technique we should use the word. Str1977 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I made this change based on Str1977's previous alteration. There are as it happens two standards for treatment of numbers: the "one through ten" standard, and the "one through ninety-nine" standard. You will find both of these discussed in the Chicago Manual, sections 8.3 and following. (I don't happen to have the McGraw Hill or AP manuals to hand, but I believe they will confirm this dichotomy). In any case, Str1977 was correct, in that this article has inconsistencies in the application of this rule, and the majority of cases seems to favor the "one through ninety-nine" standard. Hence, the change.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And I know of a one to twenty standard. But my actual point was that the twelve in twelve-tone technique should be spelled out as a word. Str1977 (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style

I don't see why anyone could object to using the citation style commonly used in WP, using footnotes etc. Is there any reason for it? Str1977 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not replying on talk.
Using footnotes makes the article much more readable and avoids repeating similar information again and again.
And aah ... Sailor Moon? Str1977 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there are many citation styles "commonly used in WP". The changes that you have been attempting to impose on this article (without discussion up to now) actually involve two distinct format changes: (1) replacing author-date citations with short-title citations, and (2) replacing intext citations with footnotes.
If no one objected to your proposed style, it would be Wikipedia policy (or at least, preference), but this is not the case. Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style states: "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia." Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles says: "There are a number of citation styles and systems used in different fields, all including the same information, with different punctuation use, and with the order of appearance varying for the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected" (emphases added).
This article has for a long time used Chicago-format citations, which shares the author-date referencing style with several other similar formats widely used on Wikipedia (such as the Harvard Referencing system followed by the APA and Oxford University Press). The Chicago Manual of Style gives its reasons for preferring this system in section 15.4: "The system of documentation generally most economical in space, in time (for author, editor, and typesetter), and in cost (to publisher and public)—in short, the most practical—is the author-date system."
For me, personally, using Chicago intext citations with author-date format has the advantage of making the article "much more readable and avoids repeating similar information again and again" (in other words, precisely the same reason you give for changing the system). However, author-date intext citations particularly are advantagious because footnote references (which on Wikipedia, as with all HTML documents, are technically endnotes), in the words of the Footnote article, "may cause inconvenience for the reader that has to move back and forth between the main text and the endnotes." I find hyperlinking back and forth extremely distracting.
The Chicago citation format is also the one most widely used in the field of music scholarship.
The short-title format that you additionally are recommending I find unsuitable for Wikipedia, because it requires that the full bibliographical citation occurs in the first footnote citing that source, with the short-title form only in subsequent notes. Because of the fluid nature of Wikipedia articles, reference citations may come and go as material is added or deleted. Thus, it requires extraordinary editorial vigilance to ensure that this system does not become corrupted.
While I shall send these opinions via email, as requested on you User page, "not replying on talk" is inappropriate when a change of this nature is being proposed, since the input of other editors is desirable, and they need to see the full discussion.
Finally, I have no idea what you are referring to by "Sailor Moon". If it is pertinent to this discussion, please explain.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Two things:
  • The "thanks ..." message was ironic. And nowhere did I request that discussing should go via emails. My user page definitely does not say this.
  • In your edit summary you referred me to WP:SM. Go have a look.
Str1977 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, irony. It doesn't always come across well in email and talk pages. I suppose I must be a little dim, because I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Since I took your "thanks for not replying on talk" to mean "please don't respond on talk, thanks", I put this together with the message on your User page reading "I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. For more urgent matters, please send me an e-mail" to mean that you wished for any reply to be emailed, rather than posted on either the Schoenberg or your Use talk pages. My apologies for putting 2 and 2 togeher and getting 5.
Yes, I linked there, because I found that the phrase has a Wikipedia article. I still don't see the relevance to the present discussion, sorry.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What I wanted to say was "you should have replied on the talk page". Well, now you have. Aparantly here we have two preferences standing against each other and though I strongly believe that mine is superior, I cannot make you comply. And I am not willing to fight over this.
The relevance is that you pointed my to WP:SM, which is about Sailor Moon. Str1977 (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the suggestion to use the Talk page actually originated with me, but let's not quibble. And no, I see no reason to engage in a battle over citations formats, since my beliefs are just as strong as yours.
My bafflement about Sailor Moon is not about the relevance of your subsequent comment, which is perfectly plain, but rather about the relevance to the present discussion of bringing up Sailor Moon in the first place.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The source of the SM confusion is that Jerome Kohl wrote in his edit summary that Str1977 should look in the Wikipedia Style Manual, which he abbreviated as WP:SM. Str1977 conscientiously followed that link to the Wikiproject on Sailor Moon.

I feel now that I have lived up to my username. Ravpapa was a Rabbi of the Sanhedrin, famous for his clear commentaries on abstruse Mishnaic texts. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So that's what all this Sailor Moon nonsense was about! I typoed WP:SM instead of WP:MOS, and that way back in an edit summary, not here on the Talk page!! Thank you, Ravpapa, you have indeed lived up to your username!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)