User talk:Makemi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user discussion page is a capitalised gibberish free zone. If you wish to refer to Wikipedia policy documents, you may do so using plain English.

For old discussions please see

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. I will most likely respond on your talk page.

Contents

[edit] Anne Boleyn

What do you--or more precisely, your sources, think about this one? [1] I only have the Historical Anthology of Women in Music, and the case they make isn't all that strong, though I personally find it convincing that she wrote the example given in the book. You have a better encyclopedia on the topic, don't you? Hope you had a great weekend! Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Well. Tradition definitely has her as a composer. The source I have to hand is the largely-duplicate-of Grove Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers, which says that "Though often said to be a composer, she is not in fact known to have written any music." (article by John Milsom), and goes on to talk about her musical training and performances. A manuscript of motets and chansons is also "associated" with her. Whether that means ultimately that tradition calls her as a composer but none of her works survive with her name attached, well, that is true of many early composers, and particularly women composers. Mak (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I find that "O deathe, rock me asleep" has been attributed to her. (continuing to look around) Mak (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that article by Edith Borroff in my anthology mentions that she was known as a performer and composer, but infuriatingly 1) lists no sources, and 2) gives no manuscript, library, shelf and all that good stuff for "O Deathe" so I'm dead-ended as well. It's such a wonderful piece, so poignant and despairing, I just want it to be by her. Oh well. Antandrus (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't find any particular reason to doubt that she could have written some songs and verses - certainly she was trained in music, Henry wrote a bit himself, she was an active "lively" woman in a time when women were just beginning to compose, at least for themselves and their small circles if not for a larger audience. I note that the 1987 and 2004 Historical Anthology for Women gives it as "attributed", rather than certain. Hm, the catalog entry for the manuscript mentioned as being associated with her says "Copied in London, as gift for Queen Anne Boleyn; the main scribe, editor, and donor may have been Mark Smeton, a musician at the English royal court (LowMB). Copied in France (NobleMM); not originally prepared as a gift for Anne (NowackiPM)." [2] I dunno, what do you think? I think it's certainly worth it to list her as a "possible", just to encourage inquiry, etc. Mak (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
For the text at least of "O deathe" it looks like a possible is "British Library Additional MS 17492", although such manuscripts are always a pain to find copies of. See note to [3] Mak (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(another lively edit conflict) I think we should put her in as a possible composer, and cite. My three cents. Wouldn't wanna do original research, but that piece just screams "real thing" to me. We can list composers even if none of their music has survived: they still were composers ...if the tree fell in the forest, and no one was there to hear it, they can still trip on it.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, sounds good. It looks like there might be more stuff to be dug through on JSTOR if you want to dig deeper (another day, it's time for me to go to bed) Mak (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Image:Alabama Sacred Harp Singers - Sherburne.ogg

I apologize for forgetting to add the song earlier as I'm not very good with Wikipedia. I have added it to the article Sacred Harp now. I don't necessarily expect it to be featured since this type of music is probably an acquired taste and a bit different from the numerous featured articles about Gwen Stefani's music. :-) Nunciacion 00:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem at all, I just wanted to make sure it got in there properly. I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia:Featured sounds and Wikipedia:Featured articles are different things, and that we have actually had a shapenote featured sound before. Thanks for the upload. Mak (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you, Makemi, for your kind words. I'll try not to take you up on the offer :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured sound candidates

I agree on taking a second look that this sound file might not be the best, but I'd like to get a second opinion before I nominate a file myself. Could you give me your take on Image:Sacred Harp - 95th.ogg? Luatha 03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Care If You Delete My Stuff

Your Still Great. I Love You As A Friend Casey19 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blockflute

(Moved from clearly marked Archive) I fail to comprehend why you (the note was identified as being from you and my statements should not be taken as an attack) and some other people wish to perpetuate ignorance and misinformation by removing correct information and replacing it with incorrect information, putting in misinformation, outright wrong information, outdated information into Wikipedia, particularly when the editor and or contributor and new creator of an article has a PhD etc in the subject matter about which they write and is writing ethically and honestly about the subject matter of which they know much about with expertise?

Also the same applies to updates on information particularly scientific, archaeological and historical information which is never static for instance ---the first peopling of the Americas is now thought to have occurred as early as 50,000 years ago and this was cited from peer reviewed journals as well as the PBS Nova Television series but someone tried to edit out this and insisted on the land bridge hypothesis which long ago was proven false--and yet we find in this article persistent re-insertions of this very wrong hypothesis and removal of correct information---just as continental drift once laughed at has been proven true. I am told some teachers do this as a means to catch their students cheating/engaging in intellectual property theft. As an Educator; I know that this kind of theft can be a problem but it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as an agent to catch them more appropriate would be Turnit in.com. Those of us who heard about this on another discussion list instantly have condemned those educators who do this and particularly those of us who teach at the University level and we have sworn that if we find an Educator colleague doing this that their job could be on the line.

I am specifically referring to my article/contribution on Blockflutes which since 1990 is the absolute correct name in the English language for this musical instrument and adopted by the IIRC for proper English Language use of which I got some nasty notes about correcting the name of this instrument. If one does not wish to use "Blockflutes" then one may legitimately use the word "Fipple Flute" (vide Forsythe's Orchestration --Dover, New York) which was around way before Walter Dolmetsch in his egocentric hoity toidy anachronistic pretense began wrongly to apply the word "Recorder" to this instrument. The late Mr. Dolmetsch's musicological studies are admirable but in this aspect he was very wrong just as Albert Schweitzer was wrong in some of his writings about Bach (such as the Organs Bach played--he practically ignores Schnitger). I have had many discussions with the Dolmetsch Company about their obstinacy of using 12th century slang which is inappropriate for the 20th and 21st century (and wrong to begin with) not to mention the 19th century when Walter Dolmetsch was living. To review reasons for not using "recorder" for this instrument: Now if you have any understanding of semantics; then the word "recorder" comes from the Latin verb "recordare". Recordare means in English to practice, to remember, to play, to write down (as in a court reporter writing down the proceedings of a trial) something for posteriority etc.

Now the Blockflute under the slang word "recorder" does none of these things and to use this for this instrument is very confusing since Orchestras do use recorders of various kinds to provide bird song, whales songs et> al. Have you ever seen a flute just pick itself up and write down some music? Or play itself? Write a report? If you think that this ridiculous it is just as ridiculous as being obstinate about using the word 'recorder' improperly and is the illiterate English equivalent of saying or writing “I ain't got no funds".

Now imagine that you came across William Rowland's Concertante for Blockflutes, Glockenspiel and Strings but instead it said 'Recorders' in the title.(Just in case you do not know about this work---it is one of the rare concerto like works using all of the Blockflute family). You are head of a music group that is going to perform this so would you use some sort of recording device such as a tape recorder, some scientific instrument, or the correct instrument--the Blockflute? Common sense will get you into trouble here because all of these have been used at one time or another in a music score (example Resphighi's Pines of Rome various Legetti works). The nomenclature of "recorder" is only a problem in the English language in other languages it is very clear in meaning what is wanted: in French it is Flûte douce, German: Blockflöte et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigvan beethoven (talk • contribs)

I have replied on your talk page. In short, Wikipedia reflects English-speaking usage, which happens, in this case, to be "recorder", not "Blockflute". Mak (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are on the wrong track and you are trying to promote ignorance by clinging to information that is out of date or incorrect to begin with. This is not about the English language but about proper music terminology, proper word usage and semantics use which could apply to any language. What I wrote was an explanation of what has changed in this area of music of which I have a great deal of expertise in. The correct term is Blockflute not recorder. This was agreed back in the 1990s and adopted.

While we are on this subject: you need to ban from editing whoever caused a panic in the Music world by claming that Daniel Roth, the noted Organist of St. Sulpice, whose family are friends of mine, is deceased. This is blantantly not true. I called Daniel, who has an excellent article on him in Wikepedia, and sent an email. His wife Odile says that he is very well and very much alive. I ask if they would please correct the article in Wikipedia. lvb, member ascap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludwigvan beethoven (talk • contribs) 6 August 2007.

To avoid your duplicating my effort, Mak, I did a quick search, and I could not see any edit on Wikipedia suggesting that Daniel Roth had died. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Some time ago an anon (as I recall) changed the Eglise Saint-Sulpice, Paris article to suggest that Dnaiel roth had died and there was a new titulaire. having spotted this thread this morning, I did a bit of checking and changed it back. David Underdown 11:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
For information, here is the diff regarding that addition diff, but infact the organist User:David Underdown removed is actually a co/assistant to Roth, so I've made that clear now. –MDCollins (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No I have given very solid reasons why Blockflute and Fipple Flute should be used as legitimate nomenclature(aside from being adopted for English by the IIRC) for the bastardized English "recorder". Please give me good LOGICAL reasons for using bastardized anachronistic nomenclature should continued to be used when Blockflute has been adopted as correct English Musical nomenclature and leaves very little to interpetation as to what is called for in music score. And also why you obstinately wish to continue vague and confusing terminology. The purpose of writing and communicating is to make something understood; not to confuse or be vague. Wikipedia is not some spy journal with needs to confuse and hide or be vague but to clearly educate. Using vague confusing terminology and writing does not fulfill this goal. lvb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludwigvan beethoven (talk • contribs) 7 August 2007.

[edit] Meetup

Nice to meet you in person! If you want to see our concert of H.M.S. Pinafore, it will be Sat. Sept. 15 in the basement of the Community Church, 40 East 35th Street between Park and Madison Avenues. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEED URGENT HELP

You welcomed me nicely to Wikipedia. I have spent days writing several articles which I think are well done. One on DAVID FEUERWERKER has been seen by many people knowledgeable and qualified as accurate and well done. Since a few days, an individual signing 74.105.77.91 has repeatedly defaced this article with statements which don't make any sense. I have reversed his vandalism but he comes back! To stop this unwelcomed attack, is there a way either to block this individual address 74.105.77.91 or once my original text is reestablished to have it blocked to avoid any further attack. I will appreciate your help. All the best. Highland14(Highland14 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] REF:NEED URGENT HELP

Ref. above note about 74.105.77.91. I just noticed he defaced another article I wrote about LILIANE ACKERMANN, reducing it to nothing and making a vulgar comment in parentheses. Now, I think this individual 74.105.77.91 should be blocked but how? Best regards. (Highland14 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] FA Review of Charles Ives

Charles Ives has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. MrPrada 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount St. Helens

Hi. You protected this page on April 25 due to vandalism. Might it be time to try and unprotect it now to see how it fares? It can always be reprotected. The "request unprotection" page on Wikipedia suggest asking the protecting admin before making a general request about it, hence my asking you directly. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mak (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Herbert

Herbert's operettas (see his article for links) were all in terrible (really terrible!) shape. I've spent a couple of weeks trying to upgrade them, but it has been hard to do all alone. Herbert is neglected because he's stuck between opera and musicals, so neither the opera project folks (mostly brits) nor the musicals folks (mostly young) are interested. So I think you are probably my best bet for some help. Any interest in working on them? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew's Blog not notable

Hi. Having stopped by the article to fix a spelling mistake, I've ended up proposing that Andrew's Blog be merged into Andrew Keenan-Bolger, since it clearly isn't notable enough to justify a separate article. (I'm not sure how notable the main bio page is either.) And since I noticed that you'd already put a (now-removed) redirect on the page, I thought you might like to add to the discussion. - ObfuscatePenguin 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mak (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics

Hi Mak, an editor put the {{inactive}} tag on this article recently, which reminded me of how little progress is being made on it. As you did about six months ago, I removed the tag and started a participants section, which hopefully with gather more names. I know you're busy and haven't worked on it for a while, but I was hoping when you got back from your wikibreak you might sign on to help make the project look more active, and perhaps help with a few articles too. Rigadoun (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I see that you put "I'll probably be back some day... maybe" on your wikibreak notice. I do hope you return once you're well-rested, as you've done terrific work on all sorts of music articles. Rigadoun (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably really return once stable versions are introduced. In the mean time I'll pop in every once in a while to check up on articles I wrote and my talk page. I think today I might work on that list :) Thanks, Mak (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Townshend Acts

The Townshend Acts article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's looking ok to me. Mak (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Page

Hi Mak. I'd like to start a brand new page for a new article and can't remember how to do it. Thanks Bee Coz 15:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just go to the page you want to start (for example, Plaguism), start typing, and then press save page. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Moreschi. Mak (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mansoor Al-Jamri

I've been running through semiprotected pages today, and I found that this has been s-p since March. But it also references an OTRS ticket, so I won't touch the protection level, but I was wondering if this still needed the semiprotection, or did the issue ever get sorted out? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mak (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matteo da Perugia

It's hard to tell by listening to his music whether it belongs to the Medieval or Renaissance period. I believe there is a bit of an overlap of styles. Do you think this composer transitioned to Renaissance music? 70.101.160.105 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think it sounds like complex late Medieval music. But then, I think ars subtilior is medieval. Just because a composer spans the highly simplified years given to a musical era does not mean that the composer also spans the styles. From the recordings I have of Matteo, I don't think he musically spans the styles of the Renaissance and Medieval periods, but the point could be argued. What in the music seems Renaissance to you? Should we even give a period? Perhaps not. I think saying he's a medieval composer helps the reader, but I'm open to argument on that point. Mak (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Judging from samples of some of Matteo's music, I do think it has Renaissance characteristics, given its use, somewhat, of a modern harmonic scale versus the Medieval ones, and its use of voices or lines forming major and minor chords, which I believe is very untypical of Medieval music. And would you say that Matteo's older or slightly younger Italian contemporaries wrote music in arguably Renaissance styles (beginning c. 1400 or a little before), even if you think Matteo didn't? 70.101.160.105 20:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
People were writing Classical music before Bach died in 1750. There is always a certain amount of overlap. The music I'm listening to my Matteo is modal. I do think some of Matteo's contemporaries composed Medieval music, such as Johannes Ciconia and the early music of Guillaume Dufay. Matteo's use of complex coloration and obfuscation of the tactus make me think it's much more on the side of Medieval music. I'm also not hearing movement in parallel thirds, which is what would be a Renaissance trait - incidental thirds, which I'm hearing in passing, are a Medieval trait. Unfortunately I don't have any sheet music in front of me, which would make the discussion easier. If I may ask, what works are you listening to? And, of course, there were people writing in a Renaissance style by this time, I just don't believe what has come down to use from Matteo da Perugia falls into that category. Mak (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York City Meetup

The Brooklyn Bridge New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area
Last: 8/12/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/3/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured sounds

I noticed that you have participated Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings!

Hey, good to see you! Things are always changing around here ... Wikipedia is evolving; it's interesting to watch, and maybe even more interesting if you visit every few months, like watching something grow by time-lapse photography. Some of the same nuts and trolls are with us, obviously. Not many people active in the area of early music. I've been teetering on the edge of burnout, but then every once in a while I get excited about something again. I picked up a copy of Einstein's The Italian Madrigal at long last (love the internet for finding obscure and rare books). Going to the Ojai Festival this weekend, so that's worth a Wikibreak. Steve Reich will be there, Dawn Upshaw, and others ... Life is good, trolls or no.  :) Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)