User talk:Cbrodersen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cbrodersen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  AdamBiswanger1 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Oboe da caccia

You're speaking about the caccia in contrast with the "taille" (what Bach called the proto-English horn), are you? If what you say is correct, from personal experience (of playing both of these instruments), then you really ought to put in descriptive text similar to what you wrote to me on my "discussion" page. The curvature of the instrument's body must make it easier to finger the instrument, and the lower register is easier to play. The fact that other registers are good as well doesn't negate the fact that the lower register (the main reason why the instrument is used, because it has these lower pitches, unlike the oboe) is better is of great importance, and should be discussed. Badagnani 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes -- you should be aware that this article is an amalgamation of two previous articles on the instrument (I've forgotten why); this is why the article seems to "start over" again after the section on modern makers. It's sometimes (as in this case) difficult to reconcile different versions, but some of the material from the last paragraphs should probably be reworked into earlier in the article -- and section headings should also be added. Badagnani 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authentic Performance

Hello Cbrodersen! Thanks for your comments about period performance. I agree with you about the name. The article isn't "mine" or anyone elses; articles are the collaborative work of the community (see WP:OWN). The reason I moved your addition to the talk page was because it included a lot of statements that read more like opinions than verifiable encyclopedic data. Phrases like "Many would argue. . ." while perhaps true, are usually to be avoided in an encyclopedia (wikipedia calls them weasel words. The comments about 'animosity' and 'enragement', though also very likely true, do not seem a suitable way to phrase things in an encyclopedia.

Now, that said, most of the comments you made on the talk page are very valid. I invite you read some of the articles above in the welcome message to familiaze yourself with policies like WP:NPOV and then dive in with your revisions! User:Antandrus, User:Makemi, and User:Peirigill are three other editors versed in Early Music. The first two are also admin's and would be happy to assist you!

Thanks for your help. Have fun and good luck with the article. -- MarkBuckles 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

It's nice to have another early music specialist around! If you're interested and have some time, please take a look at the Gregorian chant article. I've been working on plainchant articles, and several of us are working to bring the Gregorian chant article up to FA (Featured Article) status. If you see anything that bears improvement, please mention it on the peer review page or on the talk page, or just be bold and edit the page if you see something obvious. Thanks! Peirigill 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another hello

Greetings! I'm happy to have you here as well; please feel free to make changes to the Authentic performance article, such as the ones you suggested on the talk page. (I hadn't noticed myself; there are hundreds of articles and discussions going on at any one time; but User:MarkBuckles kindly left me a note!)

On Wikipedia I mostly concentrate on the Renaissance and early Baroque, in particular composers, musical styles, and schools. Organology is a whole area in need of expertise. I'm looking forward to your contributions, and let me know if you need any assistance! I've been around a couple years and know how the place works. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural trumpet article -- good work!

Hi -- just wanted to thank you for the excellent additions and amplifications you added to the natural trumpet article. I did my best (as an old ex-trumpeter [amateur] who just has a lay interest in the instrument and era) to expand it from its formerly minimal status, but your additions have really improved it! StanislavJ 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Die Wiener Philharmoniker

Hi, Cbrodersen. Yes, it is better now. Also, I'm not sure it's important to mention that the German phrase is plural, but it's certainly interesting. Just out of curiosity: how does "Wiener Philharmoniker" translate exactly into English ? (I had thought it meant something like "Viennese Philharmonic Orchestra", but that's singular). Thanks and regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to thank, your arrangement is really more accurate. I was going to suggest you make the same change to the Berliner Philharmoniker page for the sake of consistency, then I noticed you had done it already. Good ! Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Cbrodersen! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Cbrodersen, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

Here are some tasks you can do:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! -- Agathoclea (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Name, Baroque Music

Guten tag baroque Musikgeliebter, wie Sie sind heute?! Von welchem Teil von Deutschland Sie sind? Music conventionally described as Baroque encompasses a wide range of styles from a wide geographic region, mostly in Europe, composed during a period of approximately 150 years.

That's what the article says, but can you find the exact year and the country where it was most popular?> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.2.2 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Danke schon!

[edit] March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter
Issue II - March 2008
From the editor

This is the second issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you think anything should be featured in the next issue, please leave a note at the Newsdesk
Other areas where you can help
  • Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page.
  • More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics:
    • Transportation in Germany
    • German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians)
    • German Democratic Republic

Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it).

  • Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news
  • Cities and municipalities task force

The task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities is happy to announce that there are now (at least) stub articles for all municipalities of Germany. Now the task force is looking for help in fleshing these out a little bit. The current phase of activity for the task force is to copy in infoboxes from the articles in German Wikipedia. If you want to help, even just for a few articles, look at the instructions and links here

  • Article Assessment:

There are now way over 26.000 articles tagged as part of our Wikiproject and many still need either an importance or a quality assessment. Also there are many more out there that do need to be tagged like approx 8000 municipalities. If you would like to help take a browse through Articles needing Importance assessment or Articles needing a basic quality assessment.

- - Newsletter Bot Talk 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - - Newsletter Bot Talk 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pachelbel pronunciation

Cbrodersen,

I really don't want to get into a fight about this, but really, what you just did was replacing a cited passage (to which I could add another citation, from a scholarly article I've already told you about, and yet another one, from Perreault's Pachelbel catalogue, where he says he heard Germans pronounce it Pachelbel, etc.) with an uncited one. Shouldn't we at least try to find someone who has a copy of Duden Aussprachewörterbuch and look into that? Before erasing material that does not conform to our ideas, that is?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate, understand, etc. your opinion. If you say that in Germany it is pronounced that way, I believe you. But citations are vital to good articles, and we can't just throw them away like this. Especially because this particular issue is complicated, according to scholars specializing in Pachelbel. So unless you can provide a source for your claims, I think your latest edits need to be reverted.

--Jashiin (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jashiin - go to the Pachelbel article on German Wikipedia--there you will see that there is only ONE pronunciation given--the one I substituted with the accent on the correct syllable (although German Wiki has the wrong symbol for the middle vowel, I believe). It is not just my 'opinion' on how the name is pronounced--it is how I heard it pronounced IN GERMANY during the several years I lived there (where I also, incidentally, performed several Pachelbel choral works with a German choir). Not to mention that I am of German descent and speak German fluently, so I think I have a good grasp of the subject.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to list the German pronunciation as I gave, then the (bogus) 'English' pronunciation after that, if you insist on that.

You have to realise that there are many German names that are similarly constructed--Händel (or Hendel, in English Handel), Müthel, Pisendel are some of the ones that come to mind. In German, one does not pronounce them Händel, Müthel, Pisendel, which would be totally absurd in German, but rather Händel, Müthel and Pisendel.

Cbrodersen (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave this some thought; lets leave it the way it is (i.e. the way you left it - someone has already reverted the edits and didn't give any reasons.. *sigh*), but I'll add a footnote citing the scholars I mentioned, so that the readers are informed of the (slight) controversy. I guess thats the best way to handle the issue until someone does pick up Duden and/or those other sources that you mentioned on my talk page. Ok? --Jashiin (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone did pick up Duden, namely John Wells. And someone else inserted the pronunciations Wells found there into the article, providing a citation. Cbrodersen then removed two of the cited pronunciations without providing a source.
I happen to own a copy of the Duden-Aussprachewörterbuch and can confirm that it does indeed give the pronunciations [ˈpaxɛlbl], [ˈpaxlbɛl] and [paˈxɛlbl] (with syllabic [l]s), in that order. I'm going to change the article back.
Timeineurope (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Timeineurope, thanks for clarifying the Duden issue. Since you have a copy of Duden, could you please add a direct citation to the article? (i.e. page number(s), publisher info and ISBN) It'd be much better than just citing a webpage (the reference to which we can keep, just in case). --Jashiin (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)