User talk:Jerome Kohl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

For Prof. Kohl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Louis_Monod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.12.169 (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jerome Kohl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I have read your edits to Karlheinz Stockhausen with great interest.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Again, welcome!
Runcorn 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have you working on the serialism page - good edits and well done. Stirling Newberry 04:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You should do your user page, so people know more about your interests and experiences. Stirling Newberry 12:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good thought. I've only been registered since early August, and am still finding my way around the system. Jerome Kohl 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Electroacoustic Music

First, just to clarify that there IS a composer called Robert Mackay (not just a Canadian businessman) - he works in the UK and is based at the University of Hull, Scarborough. Though I agree he may not qualify as sufficiently notable for such a brief list (whatever 'notable' means.)

Secondly, while I'm relatively resigned to not being sufficiently notable to make onto your list of Electroacoustic Composers, I am a bit sad not to have made it onto your more comprehensive list of Acousmatic Composers. Granted, this means that you have never heard of me, and I should probably just take the hint!

Anyway, thanks for all your efforts. Best wishes, Andrew Lewis 12:06, 13 March 2008 (GMT)

I don't have a clue what you are referring to—I don't "own" any lists. Instead of posting this message on my Wikipedia user page, why don't you put this comment on the Talk page of the article in question, where all editors interested in the subject can see it? As to what "notable" means, it is defined fairly clearly and at length here: Wikipedia:Notability. Best wishes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to your very extensive editing of the lists of composers in the articles Electroacoustic music and List of acousmatic-music composers, and to your statement in editing the former that Robert Mackay is not a composer, which he is. I posted here because others have also posted here comments on your edits to (for example) Le marteau, apparently without causing offence, but I will refer future comments to the discussion on these pages, as you request. (Also, being fairly new here, I wasn't aware that people "own" articles. I must look into that.) Andrew Lewis. Penmon (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no offence taken. I only thought that your remarks might be of as much interest to other editors working on those lists as to me.
I'm sure that I must have made the deletions you mention, but with 400 articles on my watchlist I can hardly remember every edit. I recall that there was a fairly heated discussion about non-notables on the Electroacoustic music list—or was it about the list of Stockhausen's notable students, or perhaps both? I really do not remember editing Robert Mackay, but from time to time I have discovered upon checking a bluelink that the person in question is not who he is supposed to be. When there is no disambiguation page and I do not recognize the name as a duplicate or cannot easily find any composer of that name, I may jump to the conclusion that it was put in as a prank. Editors on Wikipedia, particularly anonymous ones, are not all above such a thing (see the recent history of the article on Mendelssohn's Reformation Symphony and its associated Talk page, item headed "Forgery?", for a particularly clever example that passed as fact for months before being uncovered).
My reference to "owning" was in response to your statement about "my lists". I did not even create those lists, nor do I caretake them with any particular diligence. You are of course quite correct about the diffrence between the two lists. The "more comprehensive" one seems to me better described as "indiscriminate", which is fine with me, personally, but strongly discouraged in Wikipedia guidelines. If Mackay was once there, and I removed him, then please feel free to put him back, with a comment in the Edit summary to the effect that he is, indeed, a composer. However, be careful to distinguish his name from the Canadian businessman with a qualifier, such as "Robert Mackay (composer)", so that the name will not bluelink to the wrong person. (If you are not yet familiar with the markups necessary to make the entry display as just "Robert Mackay", you will find them at Help:Link#Wikilinks.)
If you expect to take a continued interest in contributing to Wikipedia, I encourage you to register. Apart from the reasons given at that link, an anonymous edit tends to raise suspicions (at least for me it does) more than one from a registered editor.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks, that's very helpful. Andrew Lewis. (I would have registered under my own name, but it seems it's taken!) Penmon (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le marteau sans maître

I noticed your edits to the Pierre Boulez page regarding analyses of Le marteau. Would you consider adding what you know to the Le marteau sans maître article as well? - Rainwarrior 15:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been done. Thanks for the suggestion. Jerome Kohl 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That will be a good guide if anyone is looking for analytical writings about it. I have a question though. It's been a while since I read Boulez on Music Today and I don't have it on hand (is it still in print, even?); I was wondering if you could explain "pitch multiplication". Was this using each of the pitch numbers in the row to reorganize the pitch order within the rows used for pitch in the music? (I can't remember.) We could probably use a section about this at Twelve-tone technique. - Rainwarrior 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No, pitch multiplication is quite a different thing, involving chord generation by combining subsets of a row or collection. (It's actually something of a misnomer, since mathematically the operation is addition, not multiplication). I'll see if I can come up with something coherent and not too involved, but whether it really belongs under twelve-tone technique is another question. Jerome Kohl 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, if it is an obscure technique then it need not be defined at Twelve-tone technique (though it might be worthwhile to mention "obscure techniques" there with a link to Le marteau). It would be good to have some kind of definition at Le marteau sans maître, as a passing reference to "pitch multiplication" is annoyingly vague.
I've found some interesting lisp code here that claims Boulez's pitch multiplication is to take two sets and add each element of set 2 to each element of set 1 and collect the results without duplicates. (e.g. { 1 4 7 } x { 2 3 } = { 3 4 6 7 9 10 }) Is that an accurate description? (I would word it differently in the article, but I want to know if this is the correct operation.) - Rainwarrior 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is the correct operation. I didn't know about that site, so thanks for pointing me at it. Jerome Kohl 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
We apparently already had an article called Multiplication (music) (which wasn't in very good shape). I cleaned up what was there and added a section on Boulez's technique. Perhaps you'd like to look it over? - Rainwarrior 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks good to me. I've added a link from the appropriate place in the Boulez article. I think maybe the part on the other type of mutiplication (M1, M5, M7, M11) might benefit from a slight expansion to include something of its history (Herbert Eimert, etc.), but I'm going to have to look more deeply into this than I have so far. Jerome Kohl 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Atonality

I noticed that you "corrected" the name "Robert Fink" in this edit, though I am wondering if it might have been in error. There is a UCLA musicologist named Robert Fink who has written extensively on 20th century music (e.g. his book "The Language of Twentieth Century Music"). I think there is confusion as to whether it was this Robert Fink, or the Bob Fink who had been inserting links to his website into the article at a later date. You can see in this edit that the original reference to "Robert Fink" was made by Stirling Newberry, and the links to Bob Fink's greenwych.ca website were added much later. I think it is more likely, however, that the original reference to Robert Fink was actually intended as the musicologist who specializes in 20th century music. (That said, it still needs a "citation needed". When I can get to a library I'll probably look up Robert Fink.)

I only noticed this because I have been having recent problems with Bob Fink, who has been inserting material from his self published books, and links to his website into pages all over wikipedia, and I've been trying to clean them out, so I've been doing a lot of digging through page histories lately. - Rainwarrior 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I only "corrected" that link because of the inserted references elsewhere in the article, which directed me to the Bob Fink article on Wikipedia. From what it said there, it seemed plausible that it was this Fink who was the one making the claims. I don't know the UCLA Robert Fink.--Jerome Kohl 08:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It looked plausible, yes, but I just got word from Stirling Newberry saying that he did mean Robert Fink, and not Bob Fink. - Rainwarrior 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Sterling Newberry still needs to cite a source where Robert Fink said what he is alleged to have said.--Jerome Kohl 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would be good to have a citation. I've mentioned that to him. - Rainwarrior 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A search of RILM turns up 25 articles by Robert Fink (always assuming there aren't two or more authors of that name), but nothing specifically addressing this question. He seems to focus on three areas: American minimalism, popular music, and teaching/administration. I suppose it is possible that somewhere, in one of these articles, he makes a passing reference to the impossibility of atonality. I have to confess I am interested to see whether his position is that (1) atonality is an abortive concept, and all music described as such is really "tonal" in some sense of the word, or (2) all things labelled "atonal" are outside the realm of "music". He does have one article on Schenker, who once famously proclaimed that a piece by Stravinsky was in fact not music, because it failed to conform to Schenker's tonal model, so perhaps the latter is a possibility.--Jerome Kohl 18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trio theory

I noticed you added some calls for citations at Trio theory. That page, though, is just a duplication of material Bob Fink inserted into Musical acoustics, so you might want to give that a look over too since it's the same stuff. (If you feel adventurous you might take a look at the talk page, but it's got pages and pages of Mr. Fink's argument on it.). - Rainwarrior 07:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rainwarrior, for the heads up, though in fact I am aware of this. It seemed to me fair to straighten out the formats and documentation of the Trio Theory stuff, even if it is nothing more than one of the latest retread-retread jobs of a conception already beaten to death in the 1950s, 1930s, etc. (with the Naturton aspect of course going back to Hugo Riemann in the 1880s and 90s). I'm compiling a list of references to this earlier material, but it's now over 200 items, and may be a bit too long a list for a wikipedia entry on such a stale latecomer. Still, he may appreciate someone supplying all the sources he fails to mention for the ideas contained in his little article. I mean, somebody has got to do it, since he seems incapable.--Jerome Kohl 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


To Jerome Kohl:

I feel it's necessary to tell you that Rainwarrior is not telling you the whole truth about myself (Bob Fink).
He told you that I have listed my "self-published" works on Wikipedia but he has has neglected to tell you that most of my major work is NOT self-published.
Here are three major examples meeting Wiki standards:
  1. I was invited to write a special article, and it was published in Studies In Music Archaeology III, a huge 670 pp book (2003) of the archaeology study group of the International Council On Traditional Music, -- the proceedings of its 2000 world music archaeology Conference in Germany.
  2. I was published in Archaeologia Musicalis a separate journal of the same international study group. You can find both the above international book & journal titles in WorldCat at http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/search?q=%22Archaeologia+Musicalis%22&qt=owc_search
  3. I have been invited to write an article again in the Spring of 2007 by a new musicology academic journal in Turkey.
I am not a member of these groups, but was invited (unsolicited) to their publications because of my reputation in the field of the origin of music and my 1997 Internet essay The Neanderthal Flute -- which received so many hits that the publisher was able to raise money on one of the websites for publishing the essay in hard-copy. I have never paid anything to a publisher for publishing my work.)
In addtion, I was asked by Nature Journal in 1999 to be a juror for them regarding an article on the 9,000 year old flutes from Jiahu. I have dozens of e-mails from the editor to prove this unsolicited invitation.
My books on music origins were published by a small Detroit publisher in 1970. They sold out my books, and sold their imprint to a buyer (not me) in Saskatoon. At the same WorldCat URL above, if you list my titles: Universality of Music, & Origin of Music Essay, & On the Origin of Music in the search, you'll find about 1/3 to one-half of the several hundreds of books we know are catalogued in major world libraries. (Not all foreign or smaller libraries list holdings with WorldCat).
Finally, if you Google these terms (+Fink +"Neanderthal Flute") Google will return over 3,300 websites of reviews, links and comments about my work on that title.
If you want a much fuller detailed matter of my background, reviews, credentials, published articles in other journals, magazines, and the media, see: Talk:Musical_acoustics and click the contents there on the section "9. Notability....". I also have a university degree in music (Wayne State University), but decided I couldn't take the jingoist atmosphere at that time to go into teaching & PhD work. I joined the anti-Vietnam war movement instead. But I kept up my studies.
I only mention this to prove that Rainwarrior -- for reasons I cannot understand -- is omitting the full truth. Perhaps when my publisher (and others, including myself) began looking into Wikipedia to see if there was a place for the half-century of research and knowledge we had -- we didn't know the rules, and Rainwarrior has found to his horror that many links (relevant to the articles where they were placed) were "all over " Wikipedia, listing my published record and websites. We stopped doing that when everyone jumped down our throats. I realize you think my views are "retreads," but fairness for other verified views is supposedly a Wikipedia goal. R's horror at newbie procedural mistakes doesn't justify withholding the entire story. (And the wheel is still a viable invention despite needing retreads from time to time, especially when the older conception or tread fails to answer certain problems that the current ideas solves.)
But looking into the Wikpedia policies, we see that the rules are aimed at blatant promotionalism & outrageous huckstering rather than at well-meant educational goals, and that indeed, if relevant and reputable, sometimes owned websites can be justifiable as sources of reading and useful information.
To Rainwarrior I ask he respect his own Wikipedia rules and guides. And here, citing part of one: ("You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work..."). Rainwarrior should therefore not "clean out" every Greenwich reference that may actually be informative and useful, behind our backs, as a private crusade against me, without a chance for comment from any opinion other than his own. I trust he will do that so that we can know and replace with proper citations and sources those he cannot abide for concrete reasons.
Regards,
Bob Fink
P.s. I am prepared to negotiate with Rainwarrior regarding Musical_acoustics if he has any desire to look at a constructive give & take or compromise. I'd like to end this time-wasting and debilitating dispute. My e-mail is fink@thelink.ca. Or use Talk if you prefer. --Bob Fink 65.255.225.37 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20th- and 21st-century composers

Hello Jerome. I happened to notice some of the work you've been doing and would like to point you to my user page where I've collected very basic information (birth/death dates, nationalities) on about 40 composers that I feel should have more Wikipedia representation. Perhaps you will find some of the work that I've already done useful. I hope so. —Middlepedal 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Middlepedal, good to make your acquaintance. Thanks for the heads-up about your list, I will certainly keep you in mind should I come across any of the data for which you are looking. A few of those names are familiar, though at the moment I don't have anything to add. The additions I have made to the 20th- and 21st-century lists have mainly come about due to wikipedia articles I have written recently, though in some cases they are merely composers whose names it occurred to me were missing from those lists while I was glancing through them.--Jerome Kohl 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CZ

Have you considered moving over to Citizendium? Things are really nice over there. I used to spend so much time on WP deleting simple vandalism I never had time to actually produce content, but on CZ one can dedicate one's time entirely to writing, see my articles on Norgard for example. Also, since you appreciate formal music scholarship, CZ with its philosophy of heeding recognized experts above Joe Random might impress you. CRCulver 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Never even heard of Citizendium, but I will check it out on your recommendation.--Jerome Kohl 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits to Experimental Music - Cope references

Hello. I see that you added back those hideous "[page number]" bits to the Cope references on the Experimental Music article. I agree that page numbers are needed, and I am intending to add them (I've got a hold on Cope's book at the library that I'm waiting on). In the mean time, I just thought those tags made the page look awful, and I think a more effective means of getting references fixed is to ask the person who added the quote to do it (perhaps you did?), or get it yourself. Anyway, I hope soon to have page numbers for the references, and then everyone will be happy, and the page won't look like crap. Cheers, Doctormatt 20:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doctormatt. Of course those intrusions look terrible, but it is the only way this poor wiki-novice knows to make such a tag, when the book citation itself is already present. Removing the tag makes it appear that the person responsible believes the problem to have been corrected. When I first tagged those incomplete cites, they had been in place for a very long time, and I did not have the patience to go through the entire article history to discover who had first inserted them. I do not have a copy of Cope's book handy, but I do have the Cage, and will make an effort to find that page citation (though the book lacks an index, making this a challenge). Between the two of us, perhaps we can soon transform the manure pile into a rose bed.--Jerome Kohl 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for adding the Cage page number. I should have the Cope book in a few weeks; when I get it I'll be sure to fix those references. Cheers, Doctormatt 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stockhausen discography

As you seem to know this subject if you have time could you compile a selected discography of Stockhausen please? I am interested in getting to know his work and wouldn't have a clue where to start. Thanks in advance. SmokeyTheCat 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up". Somehow, I hadn't noticed there was no discography at all. I've added a link to Bernard Pulham's comprehensive discography (see the Talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen page), which is not the selective discography you are asking for, but it's a start. I'm not sure I'm the right person to be asking to make such a selection, simply because I know the subject too well. As a result, even Bernard's comprehensive discography can sometimes seem too selective to me, though you may find it overwhelming. I'll give this a think, and maybe some other kind souls who have a little more distance than I do will contribute, as well.--Jerome Kohl 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd coinage on counterpoint

Greetings! Have you ever heard of this? It gets three Google hits aside from Wikipedia itself, but is being persistently pushed into counterpoint and another article by a series of anon IPs. I've had a creepy feeling I'm the only one with counterpoint on his watchlist, but I noticed you edit the article once in a while--and also have some expertise in this area. I keep reverting him, but I just want a reality check to make sure this isn't something significant that's new. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of "homosynchrono" counterpoint, no, but then, what do I know? I only have PhD in music theory, and a few years' experience teaching counterpoint at the college level. Still, the etymology seems correct, though the offered definition appears a bit screwy. It sounds like an alternative definition for various sorts of canon (augmentation canon, retrograde canon, etc.). I would concur with your decision to revert this guy's persistent attempt to insert this nonstandard term. You could be correct about your being the only person with counterpoint on you watchlist ;-). I have about 150 articles on mine, so I have to be careful about adding more. You are correct, of course, that I have from time to time tweaked this article. I tend to get diverted here from Kontrapunkte (which was originally a mangled article title—no hyphen—for Kontra-Punkte, by Stockhausen), as well as from diverse other articles of music-theoretical nature on my watchlist.--Jerome Kohl 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Stravinsky

Why is that not overtagging? Have you read the references in the references section? Not everything needs a cite, especially not some uncontroversial ones as you have tagged. If you believe some statements are false, remove them or mention them on the discussion page. But this seems overtagging and also (minor point) makes the article look ugly. Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and apologies that I reverted a second time. I did not realised this was the second time which I always try to avoid. I though it was some other article where I removed those tags. Garion96 (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, a "References" section (or Bibliography) is simply a convenient, central list with the publication details of sources used in an article. It is no substitute for notes or inline citations, which are necessary for providing the specific page in a book (for example), where the information can be verified. It is possible that some of the tags were for relatively trivial things. Well and good, so remove them and explain your reasoning. For the rest, it is not so much that I believe the statements to be false as that they seem unsupported, and I would like to know where that data came from. With a wholesale removal, I am left with two alternatives: (1) painstakingly re-edit the entire article or section, marking only what I believe (on this pass) to be the most flagrant unsupported claims, in the hope that you and/or other editors will agree they are necessary, or (2) simply revert to the "overtagged" version, and risk starting a revert-edit war. The second option is obviously a lot easier for me.--Jerome Kohl 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Citing is preferred, but for non-controversial statements/facts it is not mandatory. Asking for 9 citations in one paragraph is excessive. I did asked for more imput on the mailing list. See [1] for someone who agreed with your tagging and [2] for someone much smarter who agreed with me. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I know which of those two correspondents I agree with, as well ;-) Now at least I know which tags you were referring to, and I feel that (for example) it is important to indicate where to find out about the availability of those piano rolls. Searching through everything in a long list of references is just not on.--Jerome Kohl 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Within limits, I do agree with you. But asking for 9 citations in one paragraph is still too much, even in academic papers you don't encounter that often. Searching in a reference section, although citing is preferable, is not that bad. Garion96 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nine calls for citations in a paragraph, of course, does not necessarily translate into nine citations (since it is possible—even likely—that two or three facts come from a single source), and a usual procedure in any case is to collect citations at the end of a paragraph, except where the context demands more specific placement. The comparison to academic papers is, I respectfully submit, not very relevant, principally because Wikipedia is not written by "experts" but, rather, by "anybody", which makes the need for verifiabilty more acute than for academic papers, not less so. Searching in a reference section can indeed be "that bad", and in fact usually is. In the present case, for example, there is an undocumented reference to Robert Craft's embarrassment at Stravinsky's behaviour in restaurants. I do not recall this particular anecdote (though I remember one about a wrong telephone number and a truss that needed repairing), and might like to track it down, not so much to confirm its accuracy as to find the context, and possibly other similar stories. The Source list includes two enormous books by Craft, plus one of the conversation books with Stravinsky, and the "Further Reading" list (which may or may not have been thoroughly vetted for whether or not it contains "references" to the article) has one more of the conversation books. I am fairly certain that the indexes of these books do not include items like "Stravinsky, annoying personal traits," so tracking down the citation would involve skimming through perhaps 1000 pages of material. With items not tied to an author's name (the question of availability of those piano-roll recordings, for example), the problem is greatly magnified, but even an unpaginated reference to Taruskin can be virtually useless if the subject is not specific enough to warrant an index entry, since his two volumes come to over 1,700 pages. At present, this article does not have a very long reference list, but it can (and probably should) grow, which will only make the problem worse over time.--Jerome Kohl 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Little late reply. As before, I do agree with you that citing is better. Tagging the article with {{fact}} is no problem of course, but if there are so many needed in one paragraph it is better to either a:remove it if you think it is false. b:use the discussion page of the article to ask for cites. My original point still stands that using {{fact}} nine times in one small paragraph is excessive. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic music (classical) - copyright questions

Hi - thanks for the improvements at Electronic music (classical). I thought I should inform you there might be an unresolved copyright issue with that article and some of your improvements may be to parts of the text involved in the question.

I'm not sure about this, someone else just informed me; and I don't think it's clear yet. Here is the link to my talk page where I was told about this.

At first I misunderstood the post and responded a different aspect - the copyright issue is clarified in the 3rd indented reply.

If you wish, you're welcome to add a note to the discussion on my talk page so we can figure out what to do about the questionable copyright status of the text. Best Wishes... --Parsifal Hello 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

... I replied on my talk page to your note about the copyright issue. --Parsifal Hello 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic music (classical)

Hello, I am very happy for the great improvements at that article, Would you agree to move it to Electronic music (classical and experimental), since there is one named Electronic music (dance and popular)? We should thank User:Susume-eat for having been bold, ha made important changes and now we can see the good implications of his work. he seems no longer active now.Doktor Who 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would cautiously endorse this move, mainly on grounds that I am uneasy with the use of the word "classical" all on its own in this context, since we often use the expression "classical studio technique" to refer to the way electronic music was produced in the 1950s and early 1960s, before the advent of synthesizers and computer-music technology rendered the cutting and splicing of tape largely obsolete. There is, however, still the problem of the article titled simply Electronic music, whose historical section largely duplicates that of the present article.--Jerome Kohl 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur that the word "classical" is not appropriate here. But I don't think we should use the title Electronic music (classical and experimental), because there exists Experimental music that is not electronic. Also, there is erudite or serious electronic music that's not "classical," and as you mentioned there is also "classical studio technique" that has a different meaning. So the current title of the article is not appropriate.
It was previously titled Electronic art music until an editor changed it to the current title without consensus (part of a fast and disruptive move of many articles. Most of the disruption has been reverted, and the title Electronic music (classical) is left over from that).
What do you think of the prior title, Electronic art music? There is also a non-electronic article, Art music that serves partly as a disambiguation or navigation page, to organize serious music and link to pages such as Classical music, but that article needs a lot of work too.
Then there is also the main article at Electronic music that as you also mentioned, overlaps this one a lot. That article though needs to be enough of an overview to lead to articles both in the serious/erudite side and the popular areas such as Electronic dance music and others. Due to those popular associations, that article attracts a lot of "churn", like the main Music article, with all sorts of strange things appearing there often. I think it's best kept as a flexible navigation page, with only short summaries of each area, so the funny stuff that gets put there can be easily seen and fixed, and the deeper topics have their own pages.
One more page that also overlaps is Electronic musical instrument, so, it seems... there's lots to do!
In any case, back to the main point here. I concur that Electronic music (classical) is not the right title for that article. However, whatever title is chosen should not be based on the way the electronic popular music genres are organized currently. They have a different kind of hierarchy, and also, those article titles may not be settled at this time, so they should not be used as a template.
I'm interested in your thoughts on all this. Would you like to continue this discussion here, or perhaps at Talk:Electronic music (classical)? --Parsifal Hello 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the contents of electronic music in the academic/classical tradition and the electronic pop, rock and techno scenes and styles must be kept fully distinct and separate even in their historical sections. An article regarding the history and development of music technology should keep both the "sides" together. The title of Electronic music (classical) could be simply Electronic music. I agree to continue this discussion in articles' talk pages. Doktor Who 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by all means let us continue this in the talk pages of the respective articles. Just one parting question, however, before we adjourn to more suitable premises: if "Electronic music (classical)" is to become just plain "Electronic music", then what is the present "Electronic music" to become?--Jerome Kohl 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I re-edited to remove a comment I had just now entered here. It now no longer applies, because I saw you already moved this to the talk page; I will join the discussion there. Thanks for your work on this. --Parsifal Hello 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Music Barnstar

Image:Music barstar.png The Music Barnstar
Doktor Who, would like to award Jerome Kohl with the Music Barnstar for exceptional efforts in improving music-related articles.--Doktor Who 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] electronic music references

Hi - thanks for cleaning up those references I added. I've never used that streamlined format before. It looks much better now that the booklist can be seen all in one place.

About the [sic] words... two were typos, I've now fixed those. This one: "avante-gardism" - I copied out of the book, that's exactly how they wrote it; I wondered about it but decided not to second-guess the publisher. The one on the Brian Eno reference I didn't add so I don't know about that one. --Parsifal Hello 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As you might have gleaned from my user profile, I served a 16-year sentence as editor of an academic journal, so I have a fairly good idea of what works and what doesn't in footnotes and bibliographies. That said, there are a variety of formats in standard use, and Wikipedia probably uses all of them at one point or another, but the nature of Wikipedia makes certain conventions hazardous or even unusable. Devices normally used in print media to reduce the bulk in footnotes, such as "ibid.", "loc cit.", and shortened references after the first appearance, are not possible where a new intervening footnote might be inserted (unintentionally pointing a "loc cit.", for example, to the wrong reference), or where an initial reference may be deleted, leaving a string of "[authorname], [pagenumber]" cites without an antecedent. Reproducing the entire bibliographical entry in every footnote is unwieldy, as I'm sure you found out. Similarly, I have learned not to use the conventional 3-em dash as substitute for an author's name after the first entry, when several items by the same author occur in a bibliography. A later edit by someone who does not understand this convention can end up attributing a book or article to the wrong author (e.g., see the edit history for Pierre Boulez from around 6–9 August of this year, where one of Steve Heinemann's articles suddenly was attributed to Boulez!).
I marked those sics as much for my own reference as anyone else's. Unfortunately, the book in question is checked out of the library here, so I couldn't verify the misspellings. I'm sorry to inform you that this popular book is full of this sort of thing—it is not what I would call a reliable source, and these citations should be replaced by better ones, if they can be found. When quoting verbatim, we never "second-guess the publisher". That's what a "sic" is for.--Jerome Kohl 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining about that; I see we need to avoid the usual shorthands to assure that footnotes don't get separated from their publication sources.
I the meantime, there were changes again to the article title, so if you like, please have a look at the talk page and article history. It appears that your name was invoked as an authoritative implied endorsement for the change. Maybe you'll like the change, but I hope not. I find it confusing and inelegant. --Parsifal Hello 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Genre

The Music Genre page is lacking in sources, and while it may seem minor, it has come up as a major point in a discussion on another page. I am hesitant to link you because most of the valuable information is in Japanese, but more information on "genre" (albeit a controversial topic) would be helpful. (The article we are debating is Visual kei. It is listed as a music genre in the Japanese Wikipedia page, associated with the "Gothic and Lolita" subculture. Unfortunately none of the Japanese articles have sources and one of the editors involves insists that everything be sourced. If you know any Wikipedians with Japanese and music knowledge you could invite to the discussion, it would be appreciated; currently I am the only editor in the discussion with an understanding of Japanese. The article has been in contention for 6 months, and the other editors I have spoken to have "given up" on it. Denaar 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't apoligize for asking, but I'm afraid I can't be of much help to you. I don't know any Wikipedians with knowledge of Japanese, nor do I have any familiarity with the language myself. As for "genres", I am totally baffled by the terms you use. I have never heard of "Gothic and Lolita" or "Visual kei", which I assume must have something to do with pop(ular) or commercial music(s), which is/are quite outside of my areas of interest and expertise.--Jerome Kohl 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stockhausen

I want to take the opportunity to thank you for your edits to the Karlheinz Stockhausen article. Stockhausen and his music (as well as Modernist/avante-garde music in general) are an interest of mine, unfortunately, I do not know enough to make any substantial contributions to the article. I keep the article on my watchlist mostly to deal with vandalism, and to watch the progress of its improvement. Keep up the good work. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. It is encouraging to know there are people who appreciate your work.--Jerome Kohl 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You are entirely welcome. If I can ever be of assistance, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz

What 'Jazz' needs is a lot more sensible, accurate [and 'sober'!] contributors like you, Jerome Kohl. It's currently a 'mess' which seems a great pity and no-longer-an-easy 'mess' to save. Have you the time and energy? It would be good - well done so far! cn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.108.69 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm keeping this article on my watchlist for the time being, and may occasionally make an edit. Jazz is not an area of particular expertise for me, however.--Jerome Kohl 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Schoenberg

Hi. I see you've changed the references on Arnold Schoenberg back to the Harvard method. Is this the most sensible method for Wikipedia? I think it may be confusing to those unfamiliar with reading academic texts, etc.Dancarney 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about it being confusing. Personally, I find hyperlinked footnotes to be distracting and annoying, especially when all they contain is an author-date citation. As for changing formats, I believe it is Wikipedia policy to continue with whatever form was originally adopted for an article, until and unless some good reason has been brought forward and discussed on the article Talk page. I saw no such discussion here, so I reverted your format changes.--Jerome Kohl 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a read up on this and I'm happy to leave the referencing as you had it. Sorry for the bother! Dancarney 14:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Górecki

Thanks for you help with this. Ceoil 07:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. It was nothing more than mechanical editing, really.--Jerome Kohl 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brahms's 4th final movement

Since you've been editing the chaconne and passacaglia pages, perhaps you know or have researched this. I've always heard Brahms's 4th's last movement refered to as a chaconne (with the fact that he 'ressurected' the form in the finale of the Haydn Variations). Even Gerard Schwartz in his Musically Speaking series [3] calls them both that, without even referring to passacaglias. So, any of those books you're referencing mention it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have most often heard that movement referred to as a chaconne but, if you are asking whether it might be a passacaglia instead, then you ought to look up the New Grove "Chaconne" article by Alexander Silbiger, who makes it plain (in section 7: "The chaconne and passacaglia after 1800") that the modern distinction between a bass-line ostinato passacaglia and a harmonic-sequence chaconne is entirely artificial, and can be traced "to a handful of ‘rediscovered’ pieces by the German masters, especially Bach’s Passacaglia for organ and his Chaconne for unaccompanied violin". Silbiger mentions the Brahms as being "perhaps the most famous latter-day example", but carefully avoids making a distinction between the names. He does say, citing Raymond Knapp's ‘The Finale of Brahms’s Fourth Symphony: the Tale of the Subject’, 19th-Century Music 13, no. 1 (1989): 3–17, that Brahms took as models Buxtehude’s Chaconne in E minor and the final chorus of Bach’s Cantata no.150. The latter is not specifically labelled either "chaconne" or "passacaglia" in the score, but in the conversation between Bülow and Brahms described by Ochs and cited by Knapp it is described as a "ciacona", so I suppose the weight would have to come down in favor of "chaconne", but the distinction really is entirely academic.--Jerome Kohl 20:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So perhaps the two articles SHOULD change...thanks though, either way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear about what you mean but, yes, the Passacaglia article in particular needed to change. It was an embarrassment, what with the unverified (and unverifiable) claim that it was originally a form of street dance. However, if you are suggesting that my statement about the distinction between passacaglia and chaconne being an academic one is reason for the two articles to be merged, let me hasten to clarify that I mean this in the context of Brahms's 4th in particular, and the 19th/20th-century chaconne and passacaglia more broadly. They are quite distinct forms in the 16th and 17th centuries, and only start to become blurred in the 18th. The complete confusion of the two is a 19th-century phenomenon, based on reviving the form(s) based on too-small a sample of 18th-century models (three or four pieces in all, and all by Bach and Handel). There is of course that 20th-century "textbook" distinction to which Silbiger refers (I believe it was fabricated by one of Willi Apel's graduate students for an early edition of the Harvard Dictionary), but this is based on an even smaller sample (two pieces, both by J. S. Bach, as Silbiger states).--Jerome Kohl 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Er no, just referring to the Brahms 4th issue. Certainly they need seperate aritcles in general. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Wright & Stockhausen

Good call on removing that bit about Rick Wright from the Stockhausen article. Had I noticed it, I would have removed it myself. I reverted an anonymous user's addition of Wright to the prominent students list earlier today. What I find particularly amusing about all this is that the Rick Wright article (about whom I know next to nothing) claims that he is a self-taught pianist! So, he is both an auto-didact and a prominent student of Stockhausen?! Truly remarkable. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. Whoever it was who inserted that claim (which is not made in the Wikipedia article on Wright, BTW) has had nine months to verify it, ever since I tagged it back in February. It was your reversion of the anonymous addition that reminded me after all these months of the claim in the "Popular culture" section, so thank you for your scrupulous attention.--Jerome Kohl 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I would be fascinated to learn that Stockhausen influenced the members of Pink Floyd, if there were reliable sources for it. But, it is nothing more than speculation to say Rick Wright was a "student" of Stockhausen---which I assume is meant in the vague student-from-a-distance sense of one who has studied someone's work in an informal manner. For our purposes, that simply will not do. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jerome and RepublicanJacobite - I noticed your discussion and found a couple references with a mention of this, though no further details are included:

"The group's organist, Rick Wright, in particular acknowledged the influence of Stockhausen;""
page 141 -- Macon, Edward L. (1997). Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195098870.
"Rick Wright and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd were admirers of Stockhausen."
Page 222 -- Bayles, Martha (1966) Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music , University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226039595.

I'm on minimal editing schedule currently, so can't work on this further, but I thought you might find the above interesting. --Parsifal Hello 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, of course, but "influenced by" is a far cry from "studied with". As the Wikipedia article already notes, many jazz and popular-music artists have expressed (or are claimed to have expressed) admiration for Stockhausen's music at one point or another. Perhaps these citations can be added to that list. Thank you.--Jerome Kohl 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Flag

I realize that it may seem like vandalism, but The Process of Weeding Out is indeed a 12-tone piece, especially the title track. I hope you're not letting any kind of classical bias keep you from letting this stay on the page.

I hope I am not letting any such bias creep in, but (1) from what I could learn, the person listed as the composer was merely the lead guitar player in the band, (2) The Process of Weeding Out appeared not to be "a piece" but rather "an album" (you have now clarified to me that it is both, but persist in referring to the album as a "piece"), and (3) I could find no evidence of 12-tone content. Your say-so is not sufficient, since this constitutes WP:Original research, in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Further, though I do not know this particular band, I am familiar with a group called Twelve Ton Method, who claim to use Schoenberg's 12-tone technique but, on listening to the pieces in question, it is clear that they are nothing of the sort. So, claiming something to be twelve tone is not the same thing as it actually being twelve tone.—Jerome Kohl 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article on you

Hi. I intend to write an article about you, as a Stockhausen expert. Do you know if I can use information or even text from your user page? I am referring to WP policies and general copyright laws.--Atavi (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that WP:RS#Self-published_sources would rule out the citation of user pages. You would have to find better sources than that, and this may be difficult in my case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right. I think I'll leave it,...--Atavi (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMSLP

I note you reverted my revert?

The revert was because there were apparently attempts to revive it underway.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To expand on what Sfan00 is saying, check the IMSLP forum. Quite a number of threads explain that the shut down is only temporary -- that's why the template was changed rather than deleted. Though the two links I see in your history that were removed don't belond at the moment. I'll go stick em on their articles' talk pages. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary music

Hello Jerome Kohl, I’m glad to meet a fellow Wikipedian who is interested in avant garde music and theory! I’ve set up a Wikiproject to focus on these articles. I thought I’d ask; Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Contemporary music? Cheer, --S.dedalus 00:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I've had a look at the proposal, but I'm not sure just what "joining" would involve. It also seems to me that there are some serious definitional issues (the linked article Modern music, for example, for all its brevity is in considerable conflict with the parallel French article, as well as with the list of categories declared as relevant to the proposed project), but perhaps this is best referred to the project's Discussion page.—Jerome Kohl 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, as a relatively newcomer to Wikipedia I’m somewhat inexperienced in setting up a project page. What you see is essentially a draft. I’ll do my best to correct these problems. Feel free to change anything you see, this is after all in the early stages of construction.
Joining would simply imply writing your name on the list of participants. As with other projects, WikiProject Contemporary music is meant as a way of communicating and collaborate on a subject we all work on anyway. The project will also try to help standardize contemporary music articles (improving categorization, formatting, naming conventions, et.) and will be a place other users can seek help if a particular article requires expert attention. Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've seen references to similar groups from time to time, but never became curious enough about them to investigate how they worked. I'll sign on gladly. See you there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! See you there. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Nomine

Thanks for your attention to the article In Nomine at the end of December, as well as your comment on the modern compositions. I removed the passage you queried that characterized the pieces as "often rather slow and meditative." -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome! As for the "often slow and meditative" remark, I was quite mystified by this, but thought perhaps it was a citation from some or another verifiable source. I therefore didn't want to just remove it, without giving the person who placed it there a chance to justify the claim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French spectral guy

I really don't object if he's in the Spectral music article. Only the most notable ones should be in the spectral section of the Contemporary classical music article. I just objected to his removal on the apparent grounds that it was just a made-up name, without moving him somewhere (but he's already in the spectral article). Badagnani (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my edit note read "removed redlink with no evidence of notability". If this suggests to you that I believed the name to be a made-up one, then you are reading into it things I certainly did not intend. I meant just what I said: it was a redlink, and I found no evidence of notability—certainly not on the same level as Grisey, Murail, Dufourt, etc. So, then, since you say "only the most notable ones" should remain in the CCM article, do you agree that Hurel does not belong there?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wind Quintet

Sorry for the confusion. There are references for Waschka, but I didn't come across a reference for a quintet by Waschka in Wikipedia or the web in general. I could have missed it. YRDailey (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. I can't find any reference to a wind quintet, either. If you haven't removed him again already, he should be. But, hey, next time, mention in your edit summary what it is that you couldn't find.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hörspiel

Hi Jerome, you are eager to establish in Wikipedia a new form of radio art. As a German radio producer I can ashure you, there is no difference between a radio drama and a Hörspiel. If you think "the musical component in German broadcasts is typically more substantial" you are ignoring all the typical German Hörspiele of the years 1924 till 1970. By the way, the author of the article "Horspiel" thought about Bibi Blocksberg & TKKG and not about people like Luc Ferrari. Greetings --Kolja21 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am neither eager, nor do I wish to establish anything whatever, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, concerning any "new form of radio art". I merely observe that the (English) Wikipedia makes this distinction, and as long as it does, links to the Hörspiel article ought not to be changed to Radio play, any more than a link to the article Lichtenstein ought to be changed to Banana. I did not write, nor have I contributed to the "Hörspiel" article. My personal experience with such things is very limited, though I have been told by Charles Amirkhanian, amongst others, that Hörspiel (at least, as practised at the Westdeutscher Rundfunk in Cologne in the 1970s and 1980s, when Amirkhanian was creating for the Hörspiel department there text-sound works that were in no meaningful sense "plays") is a much more inclusive category than "radio play". Perhaps this reflects a difference between Cologne and Berlin, where your user profile says you reside. (Possibly you are therefore personally acquainted with Georg Katzer, the subject of the article with the link actually under dispute here, and know his opinion on this matter. I do not know him myself.) If you feel strongly about this issue, then the correct procedure would be to put a "proposal to merge" on the two articles. If there is editorial consensus, then the "Hörspiel" article could be subsumed into the "radio play" one, perhaps with a short and well-documented section explaining the (disputed) difference.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Skempton

Thanks again for your help. Actually, I thought you'd just tell me where pages begin/end in the originals.. you really didn't have to do all that work figuring out where specific statements came from. But thanks :) The article is in very good shape now. Jashiin (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H. Owen Reed

I don't know why you felt the necessity to state your opinion that H. Owen Reed's article was "absurd." He's quite a good composer, but one whose biography isn't very well known because there hasn't yet been a biography of his life published in book form. I played some of his compositions at a festival in the early 1990s, and he spoke about the background behind some of the pieces (such as "Spiritual," which was based on his hearing of black church singing as a young person in Missouri), and also mentioned his trilogy of operas based on Native American stories. When I began this article, I called him (he was 95, but still very sharp) and told him I was writing it, and asked him to fill in some of the background which is not in the published biographies, and to tell me more about the Native American operas. Some of the facts you question are in various websites, and others come from Reed himself. We do welcome artists to comment and correct incorrect information (while, of course, avoiding any possible conflict of interest), and in this case I solicited him for this purpose. He uses the Internet, and after the article was finished he took a look and commented that everything was entirely accurate (and he remarked on what he perceived to be an "amazing" number of links). I don't believe he had been familiar with Wikipedia before my communication with him. Badagnani (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I should not have used the word "absurd", but in any case I did not apply this word to the article, only some of the claims made in it. The correct word would have been "unverified". I would have thought that an editor of your experience would be aware of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, as well as the policy against using first-person autobiographical material as primary sources. But, more to the point, information from a past telephone conversation is not verifiable at all, unless that conversation was transcribed and printed somewhere. Since Mr. Reed appears still to be living, the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons applies, as well. I have no reason personally to doubt your word as a gentleman, but this does not constitute a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Do please try to find verifiable sources for these various claims.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he is so elderly and that these facts were apparently ones no one had ever asked him about (and may never again) seemed a good reason to WP:IAR, if only in just one of the 1,000+ articles I've written--regarding the information about his early life and formative musical influences, fieldwork in Mexico, etc. These are small facts that assist our readers to know more about him, no wild claims. Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations now found (and added) for all but three items. Badagnani (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Amour (Stockhausen)

Jerome,

That reference mistake stemmed from the fact that I wanted to make the article formatting consistent with other Stockhausen works' articles. I took the Texte reference from another article, changed the volume number from 3 to 4, but forgot to change the title of the actual article. Sorry about that! As for the descriptions of the butterflies, they're given by Stockhausen himself in that particular article, so I guess the cite quote template can be removed.

The Herbstmusik, Harlekin and In Freundschaft articles are not in the works; I just thought I'd leave them as links so that when someone creates those articles, they won't have to go through the process of searching for something like "harlekin stockhausen" (as I had to, with "amour stockhausen", to find the Formula composition article) to determine where they should put links to the newly created article.

--Jashiin (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did rather expect that was what happened. (I recognized the copy from the Mikrophonie (Stockhausen) article, which I created. It was especially conspicuous because you kept the "1971a" designation, without there being a "1971b".) However, you have now pointed out to me that the year is wrong, since vol. 3 was published in 1971, but vol. 4 only in 1978! As to removing the "cite quote" template, that should be done only when the citation of the quoted words, with a page number, is put into the text. (It is not sufficient, for example, to put The Complete Works of William Shakespeare into a bibliography, and then quote "If music be the food of love" in the article without specifying which play, act, and scene it comes from.)
Too bad that you are not preparing articles on the other three pieces. I thought you might be a clarinetist with a special interest in the repertoire (though Herbstmusik would be a lot to ask for). As to the redlinks, I think you will find that they only work in one direction. Someone creating an article on Herbstmusik, for example, will not find your Amour article any faster simply because it is redlinked there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

turns out I misread Stockhausen's remarks. I know, I should've known better than to create an article with a source I can't really read (I don't speak German), but I just love Amour too much. As for the N'Gor reference, I didn't have a map and had to rely on Web sources, which seem to mention the island more frequently; I'm not sure what to do about this. You're probably right though, the town seems a much more likely place to be referenced simply by "N'Gor".

As for the redlinks, I think you misunderstood. I meant that after someone creates Herbstmusik, for instance, they have to search for pages that mention the work, and when they find such pages, they have to edit them, linking to the newly created article. By leaving the redlinks you facilitate this process; noone will have to edit the article in order to include the link, because the link is already included and will function automatically.

Finally, thanks for fixing the Amour article; usually I try to be a little bit more accurate about my sources, but this time I guess I was too tired.

--Jashiin (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For someone who doesn't speak German you have done extremely well with the Texte 4 article on Amour! This is why I didn't just change the N'Gor reference, as I did with "living" to "vacationing"—I assumed you had found a source that I didn't know about. N'Gor Island appears to be a popular resort for surfers, which explains the greater number of web references, but I don't know anything about N'Gor itself except that it is very near the Dakar airport.
I do see your point about redlinks (I have had to do searches like that many times myself) but, when you create a new article, how can you tell whether any references to your subject "out there" have been redlinked? You will still need to search them out and check to see if they are linked, so a redlink only saves the need to put in the appropriate markup. The other thing about this (of which you may be unaware) is that there are some editors out there who hate redlinks so much that they make a deliberate effort to remove them. In some cases, this involves not only removing the link, but the item marked, as well. (For example, in lists of supposedly "notable" people or things, a redlink can signal non-notability.)
Finally, you are very welcome for the edits I made to the article. I was very pleased to see someone create an article for this piece, which was not particularly high on my own list of Stockhausen articles to create. You may wish to know that your contribution inspired me to finally create a long-overdue article on Hymnen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment in microtonal music

I noticed that you replied to a "citation needed" mark in the microtonal music article with "[Gary Don's article in 'Music Theory Spectrum' would do nicely.]" Comments to other editors in article text are discouraged--that's what talkpages are for. Could you replace that comment (and the citation needed template) with a footnoted reference to the article? I can't do it, because I have no idea what issue the article was in or the page numbers. — Gwalla | Talk 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It wasn't meant as a comment to other editors, but as a reminder to myself. At that moment I didn't have access to the relevant information, and expected to get back to it later the same day. Then I forgot all about it, and that was—what—a year or more ago now? Sorry about that. I will go tend to it now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elegy for J.F.K.

Hello! When looking into the "Composuition Background" of the work, I find that those two paragraphs are useless. I suggest to remove all of those. Please take a look at the discussion page for more details. Thanks:) Addaick (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that I have no idea why you have put this on my talk page. I have never contributed to the article in question, apart from tagging the talk page for the Contemporary Music project. If you find defects in the article, then you should try to improve it (as I see you have done). If other editors working on the article disagree with your changes, they will let you know soon enough.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
First, please forgives my rudeness. The fact is that since I am not quite active in Wikipedia and therefore I am not used to know a quite number of users which are working for classical music especially for contemporary music. When I look into to the list that anyone once had edited the page, I find that most of these users(including the user who tags the clean up template) are not actually likely to know about music. So I decide not to ask them for suggestion. I know you are a member of contemporary music so I decide to write to you. Please again forgive my annoyance to you. Addaick (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You were never rude! Please do not think that I felt you were, and I apologize if my response gave that impression. I was merely surprised that you seemed to believe that I had something to do with editing this article. I now understand your motivation a little better.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stockhausen

Hello - I just wanted to say thanks for your work on the Stockhausen article.

I didn't mean to cause problems by nominating it for Good Article status - It just seemed like a good article that deserved some recognition. I notice you've been responding to the reviewer's comments, with continuing improvements - but please don't feel any pressure about that. It doesn't really matter if it gets GA status or not, the info is just as valuable either way. That said, the improvements you've been adding are making an already good article even better. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and please don't apologize. A lot of missing documentation was needed, and your nomination has resulted in the impetus for me to provide it. I've given enough trouble along these lines to something like 400 other articles—I can scarcely complain when my own additions to this article come under the same scrutiny!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You've been doing a great job addressing the points I've brought up during my review. I apologize for it taking so long, but I have been very busy lately. Without a strong background in music, copyediting is a little difficult, but the article is surprisingly accessible for such an unconventional composer. You commented on my copyedits going beyond the sourced information, which I believe was in reference to Stockhausen's reason for going to the teachers' training college in 1942. The only change that I made to that sentence, though, was adding a comma. If I've created an error somewhere else, please let me know. I definitely don't want to change any of the meaning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind remarks. As to the issue of your copyedits going beyond the sourced information, you are mistaken. I was referring to your change claiming that it was Stockhausen's own choice to go to Xanten. Kurtz says only that "Karlheinz's relations with his stepmother were not always harmonious, so in January 1942 he became a boarder at the LBA (teaching training college) in Xanten" (Kurtz 1992, 18). From this evidence, it could just as well have been the result of an official adjudication, as the result of a court case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I was trying to say in my post above. As you can see from this diff, my only change to that sentence was adding a comma. The article already claimed that is was Stockhausen's choice. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll be darned! You're right! That phrase jumped off the page at me, and I'm surprised I never noticed it before. Well, it's corrected now, in any case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trecento cleanup -- Thanks!

Thanks for tagging some of the "facts" in the trecento composer articles -- I'll try to find sources for as many as I suspect I can find them for and cut these sections for what I am pretty sure we can't. Better no information than incorrect! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I don't doubt the accuracy of most of the things I tagged—it's just that verifiability is Wikipedia policy, and this has taken on considerably more weight in the past year or two. This can be particularly frustrating when an article cites no sources at all, or names one or two generally but does not have any inline citations—and there are a lot of older articles out there like this that haven't been noticed yet. In these cases (for music articles), I go straight to New Grove, and anything I can't verify there, I tag. This is as much for myself as for other editors, since I don't usually have the time to do a proper search (RILM, OCLC, JSTOR, Music Index, etc.) immediately, but may be able to do so in a day or two.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cleaning up "microtonal music"

Hi Jerome Kohl, thanks for your work and comments on the Microtonal Wiki. Can I ask you favor? If you have a chance to get around to it, I'd be grateful if you'd check the latest Microtonal Music article. I believe it's slowly getting away from the "kooky agendas" feeling it had before, and spent some time in the university library checking contents. (Not that there's anything wrong with kooky agendas, they just don't belong on Wikipedia).Frank Zamjatin (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been following your edits, and they seem entirely productive so far. I presume by "kooky agendas" you are referring to the "xenharmonic" group. I am not sure I entirely agree with you about this characterization, given that the context is Microtonality and not (say) German Symphonies, or Piano Repertoire, where just about any view on microtonality is liable to be seen as "kooky".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Paul Jacobs

Hi - thanks for all your contributions on the Paul Jacobs article. You will probably have gathered that I am a Wikipedia newcomer so your various prompts and additions have been extremely useful pointers. Any comments you have about how to improve the article generally would be welcome. I've rather run out of sources for the time being. Ideally I'd like to flesh out the section on commissions / first performances, which is light at the moment (i.e. which Berio, Henze etc and when?). Is there a simple way of appealing for information? - Thanks again Dmass (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Dmass

You are very welcome, Dmass. I did imagine you might be a bit new, perhaps not so much to Wikipedia as to forms for documenting sources, which is the area I have "meddled with" the most. As to locating more sources, you might start by creating a user page of your own, and also add an appeal on the Talk page for the Paul Jacobs article. Then you might consider joining (or at least posting an appeal with) one or more of the appropriate editorial project groups, such as the Classical music or Contemporary music projects (for which I have just added tags to Talk:Paul Jacobs(pianist)), or the Biography project (which was already tagged). For research of your own, I imagine you have already tried Google searches combining "Paul Jacobs" with the names of each composer in your list. Do you have access to Grove Music Online? If so, the composer articles there (or in the print New Grove) would be a good place to check, since the work lists may have information on first performances, and commissions may be mentioned in the body of the text. And don't forget the bibliographies to the New Grove articles, which are almost always useful. For Henze in particular, you will want to consult his autobiography, Bohemian Fifths, and for Berio, David Osmond-Smith's biography, which are listed in the References section of the respective Wikipedia articles. Happy hunting.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the suggestions. I will follow them up! All the best - Dmass (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) dmass

[edit] Bartók, modernism

thank you for your contribution to the Bartók text, I put a reply on the talk page of Bartók RobertKennesy (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historicicm

1. Disagree at talk page before rash editing. 2. As a former lutenist you should know who is Tim Crawford. Galassi (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This an example of T.Craword http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/XXII/3/527Lute88 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The COMPLETE Colburn interview is at http://polyhymnion.org/swv/intervista.htmlLute88 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made no "rash edits" that I am aware of. It would help if you would mention which article you are referring to—I have over 450 on my Watchlist—but I imagine you must mean Musical historicism. I don't know where yoiu get the idea that I have ever been a lutenist, but it makes no difference at all whether I do or do not know who Tim Crawford is, in any case. See Talk:Musical historicism for my position, and please answer my specific points. Finally, it is pointless to direct my attention yet one more time to the complete Colburn interview, since I have repeatedly made it clear that I have thoroughly read it, and even have quoted from it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and references

I thought I should clarify the way these are used on opera articles. Sources are general and provide information running through the article. References are specific. In Venus und Adonis one fact was challenged so I added a reference. You will find this system is used throughout WP, so I'd be grateful if you could leave the (actually quite useful) distinction in there. Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, OK. I was struck by the identical date (different year) for the Japanese (concert) and German (staged) premières of Venus und Adonis. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make about this "system" between "References" ("specific"?) and "Sources" ("general"?), which you say is "used throughout WP". I would be happy to adhere to this system, but I don't understand it. Could you point me to the appropriate reference in the Style Manual, or does this apply only to opera articles?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Re first point, I assume it must have been intentional, unless the German date is wrong. The opera corpus will give you links to most of the operas. You can see the Source/refs practice (doubtless less than consistent) there. In haste. Reg. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the German date is wrong (it was only specified as "January 1997" before, and it was when I went to look it up that I was startled to see it was the same day and month—the fact that the source I found it in was Japanese made the coincidence all the stronger).
I had not been aware of the opera corpus list, and my experience with WP goes back less than two years. Amongst the 500+ articles I have made contributions to in this time, I have only once seen this distinction made (in the article Tonality), which maintains two lists, called "References" and "Sources", the former for items actually cited in the text, the latter for "general references" used as background, but not specifically cited. (In the print media world, these two titles are generally interchangeable for a "List of Works Cited", and when there are both specifically cited and general references, they are combined in a single list titled "Bibliography". I have been unable to locate any guideline in Wikipedia:Citing_sources and related articles that specifies this distinction, and so assumed that an earlier editor had established this idiosycratically for that one article.) Is there a special citation policy somewhere for the opera articles listed on the opera corpus list (a quick check shows that this distinction does not apply to the composer articles on this list, only some of the operas)? If so, I have immediately found L'écume des jours (opera), Rothschild's Violin, Arizona Lady, and Licht which use other forms of reference, mainly intext citations (not to mention an appalling number of articles with no references at all). The ones that do seem to be making this distinction are not very consistent about how they handle it, either. Some combine reference notes and consulted-but-uncited items in a single section (e.g., Venus and Adonis (opera), Un re in ascolto, Der Corregidor), while others have separate "References" and "Sources" sections (e.g., Punch and Judy (opera)). Others use a "Notes" section with no bibliography (e.g., Les pêcheurs de perles, Háry János, The Silver Tassie), a "References" section of uncited items (e.g., Regina (opera), Happy End (musical), Peter Ibbetson (opera), and Francesca da Rimini (Zandonai), without footnotes, and No, No, Nanette, María de Buenos Aires, and Jane Annie, with a "Notes" section in addition). The article on Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (opera) uses a "Notes"/"Furhter reading" distinction. I have only turned up one example (Die tote Stadt) that has both a "Notes" section and a"References" section that duplicates the items in the notes. Show Boat, on the other hand, has "Notes" and "Refrences" sections, both containing footnotes.
In the case of the Venus und Adonis article, I do not see this double-list system (not a problem when the article is this short, I suppose), but I did see two in-text citations in addition to the footnote citation you kindly inserted, and I simply followed the Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles instruction: "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." On the other hand, perusing the other articles on Henze's operas, I do see a consistent pattern there, so it might make sense to override the WP guideline in this case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your long reply. I've just seen it today (9 May). Thank you for going into this in such detail. Basically you are right in pointing out that our referencing/sourcing/citing (call it what you will) are poor. Most of the time we have been following existing practice (or adapting it) without writing down rules, and yes, we have been inconsistent. Those rules we have are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats. I wonder whether you might like to join the Opera Project and participate in developing copy-editing guidelines? I'd be delighted to see another trained editor involved in maintaining standards. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been following some of the discussions on the Opera Project, but haven't yet taken the time to go back over all of the discussion about reference formats. When I have done so, I will consider your invitation to join. For the moment, I am concerned about the possibility that one project may—even if with the best of intentions—be attempting to impose stricter standards than the ones prescribed or suggested by Wikipedia policy or guidelines, and that this project could thereby come into conflict with a other projects with overlapping interests (such as the Classical Music or Contemporary Music projects). But let me discover more about the history of the project before I start worrying about nothing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also a member of the Classical Music, Contemporary Music and Composer projects. We've tried to coordinate our activities as far as possible and in some cases have shared guidelines. II don't know of any problems that have occurred regarding referencing. In the case of the opera project, the archives have been indexed so they are readily searchable. The only relevant discussion I actually remember was here. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi,
I always look forward to your edits, but I'm a little confused about some of the unreferenced tags you've put up: the boxed text says "does not cite any references or sources", which seems to me not to apply to Bluebeard's Castle which has citations in various formats as well as a bibliography. But obviously I'm understanding this differently from you. Could you explain what "references" and "sources" mean? All the best, Sparafucil (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How very strange. Can this have to do with different browsers displaying things differently? All I can see is a section marked "Further references", and a short list of "External links". I see no citations at all in the text, nor any bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It might not be anything as astonishing as a browser problem, unless you're seeing a blank section under the title "Further references" (It is an odd title, isnt it?). Would you agree that it could just as easily be relabeled "Bibliography"? There's currently a discussion here that might benefit from your perspective. Another example is Leben des Orest, which I had thought I made adequately clear was based entirely on the piano score listed at the bottom as the Source. The tag implies there's something that wants fixing (and is used to automatically list articles on "to do" lists), but I'm at a loss for how to do so. Sparafucil (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Aha. No, I see those items under "Further references", all right, but it was precisely the odd heading that made me suppose these were "further reading" items, not actually used as a basis for the article. If in fact they are references depended on for the article's substance, then I would agree wholeheartedly that the heading should be changed to "Bibliography", and the tag to "Refimprove" (since there are no inline citations as yet). Thanks for the pointer to the Opera Project discussion, of which I was unaware. I will have a look at it. As to the Leben des Orest article, it was one of about 50 that I tagged in fairly rapid succession. I'm afraid I didn't scan the text very critically, and I now see that virtually everything in it must come directly from the score or libretto. There is one detail, however, that cannot plausibly come from a score published in 1929, and that is the date of first performance, in 1930. I suppose that means a "refimprove" tag is still warrented, and surely the New Grove Dictionary of Opera article ought to be added to the ref list. (Leben des Orest, BTW, is the only one of Krenek's operas that I have actually experienced in the theater, in the Portland Opera production in the mid-1970s.)
What I am looking for in all of the articles I tag (provided that the article text is more than just a placeholder) is (1) whether there are any sources names at all, and (2) if there are named source, are there any inline citations for facts . In the former case, I am tagging "Unreferenced", in the latter case "refimprove". I believe this is the correct procedure.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, we're basically on the same page then. I personally prefer inline fact tags to non-selective use of refimprove, which I've reserved for serious cases involving inconsistencies. I should raise the issue of automated To Do Listing on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera; it's become rather clogged because every tagged article is listed.
Orest has been added to by others, but I suppose the date is right; I recall it was the same day the Alp-diary cycled premiered in the afternoon. I'm very jealous of you for having seen any Krenek opera live! Being thus qualified, would you like to take over Leben des Orest? ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hah-hah! Well, Leben des Orest was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, though I have to say I was greatly disappointed, both in the production and the music, which is far short of the measure of Karl V (now there is an opera I would like to see in the theatre!).
It is possible that the piano-vocal score was registered for copyright in 1929, but the printing was held up until the first month of 1930, so they could include the first-performance information; alternatively, the data may have been included speculatively, in the hopes that nothing would go awry in the weeks or months between the printing and the actual première. In any case, we have New Grove to fall back on as an authority.
I, too, prefer to use specific inline fact tags, but sometimes I'm in too much of a hurry, and other times there are so many undocumented claims that I just can't see spending the time it would take.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Kleinzach got the date from Grove when adding that paragraph. The note I included about the premiere cuts being now prefered would have to be from a post-1930 printing of the score, however. It would be to the publisher's advantage to have a later date for the copyright, and I suspect the 1929 plates were reworked for reprints without adding the new date. This is little different than the situation with the "n.d." Chouens scores, where later editions with added material have to be cited according to the number of the final page.
It would be fun to run across a Krenek festival one day, but first I have to plan a European trip around Licht. Sparafucil (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Later printings of the score could well account for the discrepancies, but it is nevertheless well to avoid the appearance as well as the fact of dubious references. Fortunately in this case there is no shortage of alternative sources for the performance information. There is also the difficulty, in the case of the variant versions of scores undifferentiated by date, that I may cite data from my copy of the score that is absent from your copy. This casts doubt on the reliability of the citation, if the particular variant edition cannot be specified by something apart from the year of publication (for example, an inscription like "7. verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage" on the copyright page).
Having done a few European trips around Licht myself, I'm glad to hear you have your priorities right!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one could add "copy of uncertain reprint date in the collection of the San Francisco Public Library as of 2007", but I havnt noticed this becoming standard practice...
Do you know what's up now that Dresden and Essen both seem definately off? A friend with whom I did Luzifers Traum (back in 2000; that couldnt have been the US premiere, though?) is going to Kurten this summer; perhaps I'm missing a last chance. Sparafucil (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monod

For Prof. Kohl: your editorial concerns regarding the J.-L. Monod biography are completely justified; however, the facts regarding Monod's bio. and pedagogy are entirely correct and can be confirmed after extensive due diligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.25.223 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I trust that what you say is true. Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The Monod article as it stands is a flagrant case of undocumented claims (however true they may all be). It is also rambling and repetitious, and would benefit from a thorough rewriting.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the case of the current Wikipedia citation on Monod, there lacks a sufficient "written" history with documented, "verifiable facts" to Monod's legacy; and thus, the text by all appearances is an assemblage or "collage" of various events during his impressive career. Monod's oeuvre indeed represents a relatively unknown "counterpart" and an antithesis to the voluminous work written on his former classmate at the Paris Conservatoire, namely Pierre Boulez. Nonetheless, much of the music-related issues raised in the Monod citation are provocative and relevant in contemporary music today and the challenge posed to musicologists would be to substantiate by fact-checking all that has been purportedly "true" regarding his extraordinary musical legacy. There has been too much "hype" written on Boulez and the so-called Darmstadt School: the post-Schoenberg school in which Monod has promoted has not only been under-represented but also requires a revisionist history that would focus solely upon music-related issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.25.223 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This may well be true, but none of it changes Wikipedia policies or guidelines.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bartók

Thank you for your remarks and discussion about Bartók. Although admittingly at first a bit annoyed at the many citation needed-s you added, I see how they already improve (my contribution to) the article on Bartók. I'll do my best and find sources for everything you challanged. But a few will prove hard for me. I am for instance absolutely positive that I read a quote from Bartók to following extent: "My highest aim at present is to make a synthesis of the three masters: Bach, Beethoven and Debussy" This stuck with me as I was surprised, and almost shocked at Bartók's esteem for Debussy during at least some period. But whether I'll find it back... not by searching via book indexes so far.

I would be very happy if you strengten the article with a general text on Bartók's placement in music history. And also if we could go a bit deeper than the present structure of 'biography' in chronological order and 'music' discussed in chronological order. I have some ideas about general characteristics of Bartók's music but they are my own, so I don't dare to add them, as you'll immediately ask for a citation which I don't have. (I added them already to the Dutch wikipedia).

Also, I would be happy with your critical reaction on my article on Out of Doors (Bartók)

RobertKennesy (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I sympathize with your initial annoyance. I have felt the same myself on numerous occasions but, like you, I have seen in the end how proper citations not only improve articles but—in the particular circumstances of a "publicly edited" entity, as Wikipedia is—are essential. I agree completely that a section discussing the overall character of Bartók's music and its historical position would be highly desirable, but do not shrink from adding this yourself. I am dismayed (though not entirely surprised) that the editors of the Dutch Wikipedia do not yet raise such issues.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Grove Online

Hi, Jerome. I see you're more active in music-article editing than I have been, so maybe you can answer this question. About the citation to Grove Online at Kosaku Yamada-- I've got access to the database, but, since I can't link to the article for non-subscribers, would it be better to cite it as to the print copy? Or is it best to cite it as online, but not available without a subscription? Dekkappai (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my personal preference to cite the print edition of New Grove, for precisely this reason. Very few people with subscription access to Grove Online will be unable to gain access to the print New Grove, and surely every last one of them will know that their online access will take them to the same material. Not all editors agree, however. Consequently, when I find a citation of Grove Online, I almost always respect the decision of the editor who put it there. I believe it is Wikipedia policy (it is certainly common in practice) to always put a warning label on a website that requires subscription access. The problem is compounded with that template you used, because it assumes unrestricted access and puts the link on the article title, rather than on the name of the source (in this case, Grove Online) The template is of course unable to distinguish between the URL of title links and generic website links and, as far as I know, there is no way of manually overriding this aspect. I never use Wikipedia citation templates myself, because inevitably exceptions like this arise, with which the template is incapable of dealing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Professor Kohl. I was pointed to citation templates when I started editing here, but you are the second editor with a scholarly background who has advised against them. I'll re-think my usage of them. As for Grove, I think I'll cite the print version from now on. Dekkappai (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le Baiser de la fée vs. Le baiser de la fée

Thank you for the fine points! — Robert Greer 00:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sixteen years' experience as an editor of an academic journal have finally paid a dividend! ;-) Seriously, though, the French titles of several Stravinsky works are inconsistent amongst themselves. For example, although we have Le Baiser de la fée (and I just noticed it needs a redirect from the alternative capitalization, which presently yields a redlink), we also have Le roi des etoiles, Trois mouvements de Petrouchka, and Les noces (not to mention the Latin-titled Canticum Sacrum, the capitalization of which is a bit debatable). Capitalization of French titles is all over the place in the List of compositions by Igor Stravinsky, as well, though this is less traumatic to fix than article titles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My area of interest is New York City Ballet, and just for starters they insist on spelling the composer's name Tschaikovsky! Nor are they as consistent as one might hope on their website and in the printed literature; they're not bad, just not academics. Finally, choreographers do occasionally rename their ballets, and Balanchine lived long enough to do so more than anyone else in the business. Isn't that what re-directs are for? — Robert Greer (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cross posted from Talk:The Firebird

You are right about the eccentricity of City Ballet's orthography vs. the accepted transliterations — the French best reflects the pronunciation of Чайковский … But Balanchine studied in St. Petersburg, had his own ideas about the proper English spelling of the composer's name — among many other things — and who am I to argue with Mr. B.! He was Georgian by birth, not Russian, and it may be that he pronounced "Tchaikovsky" with more sibilance than would have been the case of a Muscovite (this is idle speculation on my part.) If one "Googles" Tschaikovsky, Tchaikovsky and Tschaikowsky on site:NYCBallet.com one finds 237, 27 and zero hits, respectively; versus 127,000, 6,500,000 and 908,000 if one "Googles" the Internet at large, so the French "Tchaikovsky" is dominant. But NYCB programs always, and I do mean always, spell it "Tschaikovsky". Robert Greer 16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tschaikovsky vs. Tchaikovsky

I've finally tracked down origin of the spelling, Tschaikovsky:

How should the name of the composer of the music for “Serenade” be spelled? Most Westerners now spell it Tchaikovsky, but City Ballet took up, during Balanchine’s lifetime, the spelling Tschaikovsky. Why? Because that’s how the composer spelled it when he was in New York in 1891. (My thanks to the reader who sent me a copy of his Carnegie Hall autograph from the Pierpont Morgan Library.)

NY Times article by Alastair Macaulay, June 1, 2007
— Robert Greer (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Marvellous! Thanks for that, and for cross-posting it! I wonder how he spelled it when he was in Italy in 1887?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your help with my article Lilith (opera)! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Changes

Thank you very much for working on that article! Could you maybe find time to look at Etudes Australes and Cheap Imitation too? These two and Music of Changes are the ones I've been working on lately. Jashiin (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)