User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 4

Positioning image in lead

I noticed you had several bouts about the alignment of the composer's image in the article on Karlheinz Stockhausen. If you have some time to kill and want to be amused by Wikipedia shenanigans, try this WP:LAME candidate at the talk page of Joseph Priestley: Talk:Joseph Priestley#The main picture ff. (>24,000 words). I suppose the relative obscurity of KS works in your favour. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! I wonder whether "It looks hideous on the left" constitutes Original Research, or can it be verified by a Reliable Source? ;-) As a matter of fact, the portrait in question isn't as much in profile as the (very poor) photo of Stockhausen, which needs to be replaced with a better one. I have several, with the requisite licensing, but haven't quite worked out how to upload them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploading images to Commons is not all that complicated. Assuming you have the image(s) on your computer, you go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload and click: "It is entirely my own work" if it is; if it's not, pick "It is from somewhere else". In both cases, you are taken to a screen with a number of boxes to fill in. In the first case (your own work), you have to provide a license under which you release the image; the recommended licence is probably a good choice, or the "Creative Commons 'Zero' waiver" one. In the second case (someone else's work) you have to provide evidence from the copyright holder that the image is released under a suitable licence, usually "Attribution ShareAlike 3.0", by email; you have to obtain a statement of release by the author and forward it to the OTRS system (there is a button with the OTRS e-mail address below the box "Permission"). Lastly, add the category "Karlheinz Stockhausen" to the form and upload. The name of the image should be reasonably descriptive. There is a longer explanation at Commons:First steps/Upload form and Commons:First steps/License selection and in the top part of the upload pages.

I found that Internet Explorer doesn't work well or at all for these upload pages, so I use Firefox for that. Let me know if you need further help with this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. The images in this case are not my own work, but I have the requisite license from the copyright holder. The problem is more to do with the fact that there are several images in an archive, and I have been undecided whether they can be uplinked as such, or if they need to be unarchived and uplinked separately. If the latter (as I suspect to be the case) is the license provided for the archived set sufficient? (I suppose I could just try and see if it works . . .)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "archive". If it refers to a collection of images in a ZIP/RAR or similar container file, then I think they have to be extracted and uploaded individually. If it is simply a large number of images, I'm out of my depth. I'm only vaguely familiar with huge contributions to Wikimedia, e.g. from the German Bundesarchiv, Deutsche Fotothek, or the 10,000 paintings from Directmedia; I have no idea how they were managed. For a large number of images which is not of that magnitude, Wikimedia recommends the tool Commonist; again, I have no experience with it. How many images are we talking about?

As you pointed out, the most pressing issue is a better photo of Stockhausen for his article. For that purpose, the procedure above should work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a ZIP archive, and not a large number of photos—perhaps eight or ten. Thanks for your assistance, I had not heard of the Commonist tool before. It does not sound like it should be necessary for such a small number of images. I shall have to get to work on this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute: Thirteenth

With User:87.69.130.159. I'm citing sources, anonymous is not and is accusing me of making invalid contributions and describing those and describing those as incivility. Also So What chord, chord-scale system, Parallel harmony, and less so with Petrushka chord. Hyacinth (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not examined all of these articles, but to judge from the discussion about thirteenth chords, I would say it looks like the work of a wind-up artist. If your citations are not to his/her satisfaction, then he/she needs to find better sources. Otherwise, as you have said, anonymous's views amount to OR. Is there anything further I can do to help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Symphony in Three Movements (Stravinsky)

Forgive the intrusion, but back in April of 2008, you posted a contradiction tag on Symphony in Three Movements (Stravinsky), but didn't leave a clue as to where the contradiction might have been. I've been trying to take care of some of the backlog and need your help to figure out where the contradiction may be. I know it's been quite a long time, but I wonder if you could take a look at the above page and have a quick look. If you could leave a response here or on my talk page as to what the contradiction might be, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks so much for all your hard work and help! Kjnelan (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, I cannot now remember why I did that, though I suspect it had to do with a large number of claims about origins from previous (undated) projects. Let me think about this for a bit and, if I cannot remember why I tagged it, I will cheerfully delete the tag as inappropriate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your efforts. Thank you so much! Kjnelan (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

bump ;) --Arkelweis (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Citing sources

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Citing sources and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Citing sources. Hyacinth (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hyacinth. I do wonder what all the fuss is about, but it is good to be clear that everything on Wikipedia requires a source. (Am I missing something?)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek pronunciation edits

Hi. A moment ago you reverted an edit by 75.99.47.10. He has now moved on to a different Ptolemy, but since I'm not able to read the notation, I cannot decide whether to revert. Could you have a look at it? Thanks in advance, Favonian (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reversion I made was to the pronunciation of the specifically English form of the name, which I have never heard spoken as "Tau-mee" (roughly what the IPA results in). Since you haven't said which other Ptolemy he has moved on to, it may take me a minute with the disambiguation page to find it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Ptolemy I Soter. I included a link to the user's contributions which should make it easy to locate, mostly in case he continued to other articles. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought of that just as soon as I rang off. It's odd, but what he did there was to insert the correct IPA (well, I might quibble about the final vowel)—virtually the same thing he replaced with "tau-mee" in the earlier case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Irmin Schmidt and Stockhausen

I followed up on your edit at Irmin Schmidt and left some notes at Talk:Irmin Schmidt#Studied under Stockhausen. What do you think? Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done good work! I have posted a more detailed response on Talk:Irmin Schmidt.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1st millennium BC in music

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I added an "inline citations" template to this article. I came across the article while looking through the new page list. Please do not take my edit as any criticism of your work. I see from your contribs that you are prolific and conscientious in your work. Several guidelines I read mentioned that inline citations are optimum for relaying verifiability. If I have applied the tag too hastily, please feel free to remove it at your convenience. Regards Tiderolls 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, but I feel constrained to point out that you have overlooked two inline citations already present in the list, the first at 586 BC (Anderson and Mathiesen 2001), the second at 405 BC (Anderson, Mathiesen, and Anderson 2001a). Most if not all of these "timeline in music" lists are under-documented but, when there are some but not enough source citations, a more appropriate tag would be "Refimprove". I suspect that you may be confusing "inline citations" with "footnote referencing", but the latter is only one of several formats used for inline citations. This article uses Chicago-style citations, one of a number of formats collectively referred to as "author-date" format (others are MLA, Harvard, and APA styles). A good summary of the many acceptable citation styles on Wikipedia may be found at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct; I was confusing footnote referencing with inline citation. I am new to new page work and that is one reason I came here to inform you of the tag I placed. I am bookmarking the citation styles page you link to so as to have it ready as future reference. Thanks for taking the time to explain and your patience with my "n00b-ness". See ya 'round Tiderolls 21:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

List of noise musicians

I intend to reverse your elimination of artists from the List of noise musicians that I have been building and monitoring. I know that some of the names seem strange - but I have checked them out and all have a least a my space music page. Hope that is OK with you.

Valueyou (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure to which names you are referring. I would certainly object to restoring Darius Milhaud to the list, for example. Adding his name was surely a prank. If, on the other hand you are talking about the names I removed as non-notable, the usual procedure is to write a Wikipedia article on a subject first, and only then add it to a list, and link the names by enclosing them in double square brackets. The blue link that then appears indicates at least the likelihood that the subject is notable (unless the article to which it links is successfully challenged as non-notable and therefore is deleted). Before writing these articles, I would urge you first to read Wikipedia:Notability, and the Sources section of Wikipedia:Verifiability. There you will find that things such as "my space" are regarded as self-published sources, and therefore not suitable to establish notability.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with all your changes Jerome - but one. I think we must list LaMonte Young because of his important Fluxus noise works like Two Sounds (1960) and Poem for Tables, Chairs and Benches (1960). You might indicate only this period of his work as pertaining to the noise music perhaps? Thanks for the Wikipedia:Notability info. Noted. -Valueyou (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to stop and consider some criteria for inclusion. My first thought was that Young's early Fluxus works (only some of which would qualify as noise-based) are not typical of his work as a whole. If we are to include every composer who ever wrote a piece in which pitch is not present or important, then we will have to restore all of the names I removed, and a great many more who have never previously appeared on this list. But then I thought, "All right, let's be fair and look at the 'Noise music' article to see exactly how it is defined there." Wow. According to that article, twelve-tone technique and qualifies as noise music (though it is not explained why this should be so, or whose opinion categorizes as noise a technique solely concerned with pitch), as does a whole spectrum of composers who are seldom if ever associated with the genre. That article is a fiasco. As it stands, we would have to include not only Mozart, because of his use of Janissary music in some pieces, but also every composer who ever included an unpitched percussion instrument in a composition. It seems to me that this discussion really belongs on the Talk pages of both the list and the article, and I invite you to move over there with me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Goehr

I just added an external link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Goehr. The external site has a load of scanned articles, reviews and other material supplied by Professor Goehr, but I felt that due to the format it was inappropriate for direct use in notes or references. If you get the chance I would be grateful for your opinion on whether or not this is appropriate as an external link in the context of this page.-Charles Brown 19 September 2009

I presume you are referring to the Stageworks link, though I find no scanned articles or reviews there, only links to videos. I certainly see no problem at all with using this as an external link in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to that link. The format of the scanned stuff (below the videos) is part of the reason I wasn't sure about referring to it - it uses Silverlight (and hence requires Windows or MacOS X to display). Anyway - thanks for the confirmation! Fcqv (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ervin Nyíregyházi

Thanks for your help with formatting on this page. I'm working on the ref page numbers.THD3 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. You've been doing a great job. I hope you are not finding my additions and queries too annoying. I have a suggestion to avoid the clutter in the footnotes, and a question, both of which I will put on the article's Talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been having trouble with those footnotes, so your advice is much appreciated. The article appears to have been written by a fan. I've tinkered with it a few times over the years, but got serious about it the other day.THD3 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerome, are you sure you're looking at the same edition of the book that I have (ISBN: 0-78672-088-3)" What does the 20 mean in your failed verification note? Is that the page number listed, because that's not the one I entered. It looks like another editor removed my page info.THD3 (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened. I have reinstated my long form citations with page numbers. I'll try to shorten them once I master the process.THD3 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my annotation referred to the fact that someone incautiously consolidated the various references to the one book, without noticing that each one referred to a different page. As a result, they all referenced page 20, but only the first citation actually appears there. In different circumstances, I might have reformatted the references myself, as I outlined on the article's Talk page, using a list of references and a short citation form in the footnotes themselves (personally, I prefer author-date form, which is the most compact). However, in this case I didn't want to interfere with your preferences, since you have been intensively involved in the revisions to the article. Still, it does seem to me that compiling the full bibliographical information for all the sources into a list (whether called "Sources", "References", or "Bibliography") and using some shortened from of reference in the footnotes is desirable. All that would be required is to copy one full citation (without the specific page number) into the list at the end, and then reduce each footnote entry to the form "[author last name] [year], [page number]" (or "[author last name], [short title], [page number]", if that is your preference).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Musique concrete

Hi Jerome, you might like to comment here. I would appreciate some input. Thanks. Measles (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Symphonies by John Graham

Hi Jerome,

Is there something bothersome to you that I have completed three tonal symphonies and completing a fourth? Would you like a sampler CD sent to you? Just give me an address to send it to. Hey, you don't have issues with me being a TONAL composer now, do you? E-mail me at eaglefeather7@consultant.com.

JKG

Hi John. I have absolutely no problem at all with your symphonies, completed, in progress, or planned. (If you will check my edit history, you will discover that I have contributed to and created many articles on composers of a wide variety of styles and techniques. Tonality or the lack of it is of no interest to me, as such.) I presume you are reacting to a recent edit I made to the Wikipedia article about you. This had to do solely with the lack of verifiability for claims made. Keep in mind that, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, 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." What that article sorely needs are reliable, third-party sources, which are also needed to support notability.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Noise (music) glitch

Hello Jerome, I got it. Just was hiding.

re: Hello Jerome, Getting some of the work done at Noise Music. Found a really dilly I cannot understand. Can you check foot note 39?

It should be a link to: http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/flux_tellus/Flux-Tellus_09.mp3

but rather it shows up down on the page as:

^ Anonymous advertising blog, "Noise Rock".

I don't understand why. Thanks for this and all the work you put in on the page.

Valueyou (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Maderna

Dear Jerome,
I have reserved two of the short points you deleted, onto the Bruno Maderna talk page, pending verification, which seems likely (please glance at it): but you have done well to clear out all you have done. This rather dud article seems to have cloned all over the internet unfortunately. If my efforts to find sources aren't up to scratch, please cut more vigorously - like you I want to turn this hotch-potch into a clean text if poss. Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that at least some of those claims must have been true, but I couldn't find verification for them myself and my patience finally ran out. Because some of the claims almost certainly are not true, the removal of those in particular did seem overdue. I think not only has every single dud article on Wikipedia been cloned all over the internet, but even a few of the better ones. All those mirror sites make finding reliable sources online very difficult. I wish you luck finding confirmation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

20th-century classical music

There was an edit conflict, but please see my comments at Talk:20th-century_classical_music#References. --Kleinzach 04:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Klavierstücke (Stockhausen)

Dear Jerome,

We met briefly in the usenet (rmcc) about a year ago discussing some of Stockhausen's piano pieces. Right now, I am translating your article on the pieces into German (if you care, you can see the work in process as de:Benutzer:JPense/Klavierstücke (Stockhausen)).

In your article, you quote your translation of a lecture by Stockhausen; can you please point me to the German original of this, and a quotable reference for it? Otherwise, I would have to translate the parts you quoted back to German, which is certainly the second best choice.

Another question: In that usenet discussion, among other things you suggested that Klavierstück IV is actually using group composition techniques, although Stockhausen himself gives it as a typical example of point music. You wrote you were preparing an article for some proceedings volume on the topic. In the WP article on the Klavierstücke, you don't mention any of this, and just give the "standard version" that it is a two-part Point Music piece. Can you give me an update on this, please?

Best, --Joachim Pense (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, it is good to hear from you, and of your project to translate the Wikipedia article on Stockhausen's Klavierstücke. The text "Klaviermusik 1992" has not yet appeared in the composer's Texte zur Musik, since the last published volumes only go as far as 1991. However, you can find the German text in the booklet for the Stockhausen Complete Edition CD 42, Synthi-Fou—Dienstags-Abschied; Klangfarben für Synthi-Fou, pp. 51–74 (my English translation, edited and corrected by Suzanne Stephens, appears on pp. 99–122 of the same booklet).

[Discussion transferred to Talk:Klavierstücke (Stockhausen) on 21 October 2009.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review these proposed changes

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#Proposed_changes_to_lead_section. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

de Klavierstücke review update

Konrad Stein gave some feedback. He likes the article. He is missing a couple of premiere informations (I inserted V through VIII, but some from Licht are still missing). Also, he suggests to mention the piano pieces that are not named Klavierstück (AFAIK this would be Mantra, and Natürliche Dauern (from Klang), are there any more?) --Joachim Pense (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joachim. I will take a look at the review comments and see whether I can find the missing premiere dates. I think it is a good idea to mention Natürliche Dauern, with an emphatic statement that it stands apart from the Klavierstücke series, although it is naturally a set of 24 pieces for solo piano. Mantra is a different case, of course, since it is for two pianos—and electronics. However, if the idea is to include all of Stockhausen's music for piano, I suppose Mantra could be mentioned in passing (I know of no other surviving piano pieces, though Stockhausen is reported to have destroyed some student works). The other chamber and orchestral works that include the piano (Kontra-Punkte, Schlagtrio, Gruppen, etc.) are I think in a completely different category.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

update: The author of the German main article on Klavierstück X has some specific questions on the analysis on that piece, which I best forward to you. It's in the review discussion. --Joachim Pense (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Overture

I don't know if it helps, but I was at a performance of Arnold's "A Grand, Grand Overture" a couple of months ago, and there were definitely four rifles. Three don't make sense - the players on the vacuum cleaners and floor polisher are, umm, polished off at the end of the piece - one shot each. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast! I made that revision less than ten minutes ago! The score would be the ultimate choice for resolving this question, of course, though it is naturally possible that Arnold revised the orchestration between 1957 and his death in 2006. (I presume it was the Proms performance earlier this year which you attended).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was at the Last Night of the Proms this year. I didn't get sight of the score, though. (Well, David Attenborough showed us his part, carefully colour-coded). The highlight of the performance was Jennifer Pike playing vibrato on her vacuum cleaner ... Philip Trueman (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a great joke in 1956 and, unlike so many jokes, has not lost it's potency. I found the publisher's description of the score, and added it to the Overture article. Indeed, there are four rifles (it's always good to get the musicological details right), so the anonymous author of the 1957 Time article just couldn't count!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Brief question on Klavierstück XIII

How must I read the tempo figures in the score? Does e.g. 151 mean 151 quarters per minute? (I don't have the complete score but only the snippets in Frisius Stockhausen I, and I don't find a legend there.) --Joachim Pense (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The score preface says, "Zahlen im Kasten sind Metronomzahlen und gelten immer für eine Note". There is only one place in the score where an alternative occurs, and that is at bar 312 where, in addition to the boxed 71 there occurs in brackets: ⁵ = 90. This is because the tempo in the preceding two bars was 180, and so the quintuplets into which bar 312 is divided are more easily related to the previous tempo than are the quarters at 71.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Musical Modes Muddle

hello, hello. As it seems the discussion was also becomming muddled, I thought I'd move a question here.

I've begun to elaborate where I felt the current article was misleading and incomplete. If I continue at a like rate, the Greek section will be as long as the entire article soon. And I only want to convey the relationship between mode as a term for combination of tetrachords AS that might signify in the way we think of the modes in Gregorian chant. It seems from my reading thus far that the Greek analogs to Chant (theatre, ceremony) also (as indicated by the Plato and Aristotle quotes) lead to the word mode connoting far more than 'octave species' I also feel that the church pages should be 2 (I like the schism) and sections on the Babylonians before and the Persians after the Greeks added.

As for concrete examples, as I mentioned in the Modes discussion page, I'm only looking for concrete examples. They are often 'a mode' as well as being recognized as geography, culture, even a people! I'm thinking especially of the Saz and Oud among the Turks and Arabs and the Duduk in Armenia.

Since your talk page is crowded, we could move this to my talk page. If you insist, we can keep it to the original Mode page. I was beginning to lose track, though. Thanks and regards, MarkMwasheim (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I agree that navigating that talk page is beginning to resemble "herding cats". I have already expressed a strong preference not to continue expanding the section on Greek theory, but rather to give that subject an article of its own. The question of combining tetrachords (and/or pentachords) in chant theory has a lot to do with the concept of "affinals". The Plato and Aristotle quotations, on the other hand, are mainly to do with ethos of the harmoniai, and what relations they might or might not have to the tonoi, octave species, transposition levels, etc., is way beyond the scope of the "Musical mode" article. I must reiterate that the Latin-based word "mode" is alien to Ancient Greek theory (as opposed to modern musicological discussion of Greek theory), and the relationships among the categories that they did name are frequently obscure. As to the Babylonians and Persians, as far as I am aware there is no surviving musical theory from either of those cultures. When you start dealing with Arabic, Turkish, Indonesian, Korean, Japanese, etc. musics, you are getting squarely into the "modern musicologist" area and, while that is a valid point to bring up, I think it best to keep just to links to the relevant topic articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as I mentioned on the talk page for Mode, i agree with this. To reduce the scope and not extend it is a laudable goal. From my current reading, the greek section could be reduced radically, practically be removed other than to point out that the names originated and the conception of the tetrachord as building block has common ancestors. Otherwise, the greek section should just be separate. The Octoechos (and the Damascenes) pages seem to do their job as well, and it makes a lot more sense to expand and correct there where necessary. The introduction to Musical Mode, then, needs to be revised to point out the focus. Mode in the general sense of scale and melody is then NOT the scope of the article. The whole discussion of Melos/meletic, ethos and harmoniai is also such a can of worms that, although I'm tempted to reconcile those with mode, I recognize that that's just mad! And just a note about the Babylonians, it does appear (according to John Chalmers) as though there is surviving cuneiform which bears a striking resemblance to pythagoras intervals...however that might look! I'll have to dig up the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was unclear about one thing, I now see. I did not mean to suggest that ethodic considerations should be banished from the mode article entirely—only that a discussion of the possible interrelations amongst harmoniai, tonoi, octave species, and transposition levels (and to which of these the ethnic names are properly attached) would be way over the top for the Mode article. I think it appropriate to at least mention ethos in connection with the Greek harmoniai, as is already the case for Medieval and Renaissance writers, and this ought to lead quite naturally to a discussion of melodic type (as opposed to mere scale structure), which is strongly implicated in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and unquestionably part of the discussion of modal ethos in writers from the 10th century to the 17th.

Ethos. Well, that would get us into a discussion of Melos and the like, for which I'm not likely to qualify myself in this lifetime. The confusion (interpretation) which maintains to this day is staggering. There seems to be no way to unravel Tonoi and Harmoniai. Let alone Melos or Ethos. As far as I can see, Tonoi, in the case of the Modes article in conflated with Harmoniai and vice-versa, frequently. My Greek is too poor to shed any light on this. And the English translations are probably full of errors. I suppose I'm throwing up my hands here.

The melos/ethos thing is important enough to warrant mention. As I said before, it crops up chant theory and—perhaps more importantly—in later polyphonic modal theory, amongst other things when the theorists were trying to discriminate between the authentic and plagal mode pairs and, because of the different ranges of the different parts, could not rely on ambitus as a deciding factor. (A section on polyphonic modal theory has yet to be added to the article, of course, so the importance of this subject may not yet be evident.) You are correct that there is an overlap between tonoi and harmoniai, and this is necessarily reflected in the Mode article. This overlap is partly due to the different periods in which various documents were written, since meanings have a tendency to shift over time (the earliest writers—including Plato and Aristotle—seem to regard the harmoniai more as styles, whereas later writers increasingly blend this category with the tonoi) but it could also be due to sloppy usage or unclear writing. Plato in the Republic, for example, is mainly concerned with ethos and the positive and negative effects of different kinds of music on impressionable young minds. As such, he does not waste time discussing how to tune a lyre and such, but cuts directly to the chase, assuming that if anyone in his audience is not already familiar with the character of the Phrygian harmonia, he can just pop down to his local taverna and listen to some. "Octave species" and "transposition level", on the other hand, are unambiguous concepts, but to what extent a tonos is the same or different from either of them is more problematic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the account of the tonoi in the form that it has presently is misleading. But then, only the later 'Cleonides attributes thirteen tonoi to Aristoxenos' is cited. My understanding of Aristoxenos is that his approach so differs from the arithmetic of the Pythagorean that it has to be considered separately. But then, I'm still not clear about the later Ptolemy. I'm interested in fragmentary composing in any and all systems. As for Plato and Aristotle, in the political polemics we certainly can't rely on them :)

I'll take a look at the description of the tonoi (which is almost entirely my doing) and see what might be done to improve it. Certainly it is too brief, but the original idea was to give a thumbnail description for the article on Modes. Now that this looks headed for separation into an independent article on Greek music theory, this needs re-thinking. There is certainly some pre-Aristoxenian theory concerning the tonoi, but I shall have to review the material to see how specific it is. I suspect that vagueness may have been the main reason for omitting it in this context. Aristoxenian theory is certainly distinct from the Pythagoreans, though he seems to have understood their theory perfectly—he simply rejected the privileging of numeric relationships over sensory experience. This applies chiefly in the definition of intervals, however. I don't believe the classification of tonal systems is fundamentally different. Ptolemy's sympathies are primarily Pythagorean (that is, Platonic), but by his point in history the Aristoxenian (Aristotelian) view was sufficiently widespread and respected that he could not simply ignore it. However, he did also contribute some new perspectives on the tonoi and, if memory serves, he was among the first to clearly articulate the principle of transposition level, distinct from that of octave species. I think we can rely on Plato and Aristotle for some things, but not for clear descriptions of things like tetrachord genera or other pitch structures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the article's scope not covering the sense of scale and melody—surely you do not mean to say this aspect should be discarded in favor of the other two senses (interval and rhythm)?. For the "Babylonian" music referred to by Chalmers (in fact from the Hurrian culture, not the Babylonians), the leading authorities are M. L. West (with whom you will already be familiar in connection with Greek music), David Wulstan, Hans-Gustav Güterbock, Marcelle Duchesne-Guillemin, Raoul Vitale, and Anne Draffkorn Kilmer. The dispute over the tunings has been sharp and quite inconclusive, but my statement still stands: the cuneiform tablets are musical scores and lists of composers and scribes, not theoretical treatises, though a certain amount of theory can be inferred from them. There is a very brief discussion at Hurrians#Music, and you will also find the writers I have mentioned in the Bibliography at the end of that article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look them up. Duchesne-Guillemin and Güterbock I've come across. As I've mentioned previously, the muddle has forced me back to the books.

That Hurrian music stuff makes a fascinating read. I find Martin West's arguments the most carefully reasoned (and he is building critically on the earlier work of Wulstan), but it is not so overwhelmingly convincing that the four or five opposing views of the other writers can be simply dismissed. The Hurrians article originally accepted Duchesne-Guillemin at face value, perhaps in part because her work is the most easily accessed on the web. I was dismayed to discover this one-sidedness, especially because I was more familiar with Kilmer's quite different interpretation, but a little digging soon led to the other sources and a much more complex picture emerged.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you read German? Not sure if this is useful but it appears to be a relatively inclusive overview of the literature... http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/2601/pdf/Zur_Musik_Mesopotamiens.pdf

Yes, I read German with some proficiency. Thank you for pointing out this bibliography, of which I was unaware. It is certainly thorough, as one expects of German scholarship, and there are a number of intriguing items listed in it that I did not previously know. The book on Babylonian/Hurrian theory by Bielitz looks particularly interesting and I look forward with relish to reading it!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've finally jumped in with both feet. I've started the Musical_system_of_ancient_greece page. Once have it finished, I'll collapse the Mode section in Mode down the the most salient bits and refer to the system page. I'm also going to try to incorporate sections from the german Music of ancient greece page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musik_des_antiken_Griechenlands and then cross reference in the english ... Then I'm going to write some music in the most common greek modes. dythrambs most likelyMwasheim (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC) :)

Well, buona fortuna. Just one thing, though: as a proper noun, "Greece" ought to be capitalized in the new article's title.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I notice you've visited already. It's gradually taking on some form. I'd like to ask you if: 1) it's not a good idea to move the ethos/melos bits into the Music of Ancient Greece article which is clearly cultural historical rather than technical? 2) the sense in which 'modal' ist a common functional aspect of the greek musical system and the Byzantine/Roman church systems can't be described in one paragraph? I think the 'probable' composition of the octave through con-, disjunction can be summed up in regard to the Greek system without going into 'too' much detail. What the modes article then needs, imho, is that we add Greek Orthodox and (some) Turkic relatives. The later since it seems that which we 'came' to know as modal 'does' originate in the Greek system and that (especially Aristoxenos) over Ptolemy has a direct relation to the Turkic and Arabic systems (in so far as they are 'modal') ... whewwww. Mouthful. Regards, Mwasheim (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

de:Klavierstücke (Stockhausen) now lesenswert

FYI, in the German combined rating process for lesenswert (good article)and exzellent (featured article), the first step has been taken. As there were three votes for exzellent, one for lesenswert (with expressed non-objection for exzellent) and no against, the track has been prolonged by another ten days to reach for the exzellent rating. We are still below quorum for that rating, two more would be needed. During the review and rating time, the article experienced a moderate amount of re-ordering, a bit of adding/editing and three short score examples and another illustration. --Joachim Pense (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this, and congratulations on your hard work! I shall see what can be reincorporated from your version back into the English article. I am particularly keen to see the score examples, which I presume are linked from Wikipedia Commons.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No they are not, because they are obviously copyrighted material, acceptable only because short quotes are legal—I could not even use scans, I had to re-type the stuff. But you can export it and upload it to the English WP (or I can do it, if you prefer, just tell me). I don't know the copyright regulations for that sort of thing in the English WP. In Germany we have this special "Music quote" indication; I guess in the English WP something like "fair use" might apply (which is a no-no in the German WP). --Joachim Pense (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking about score examples, if you look at XIII, you see that I did not use Stockhausen's boxes but traditional Tempo indication, replacing the use of fractional tempos by varying the unit length (so instead of 75.5 per quarter I write 151 per eighth). I did so because that way no extra explanation was necessary, but I am a bit uneasy if this decision, because it overrides (possibly innappropriately) Stockhausen's notational decision. --Joachim Pense (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid that the copyright issue might be a problem, and I noticed the warning message about not uploading the examples to Commons. I'm not sure whether the "short excerpt" principle is valid outside of Germany or, if it is, just how universally accepted it might be. I do know that, when we published such examples in Perspectives of New Music, it made no difference at all whether we used scans or re-set the examples—permission from the copyright holder had to be obtained. It may be that we were just being extra-cautious, I don't know, but because we regarded ourselves as an international journal, "world rights" were needed (such considerations are particularly complicated on Wikipedia, because of the world-wide availability of all articles, regardless of language). "Analytical diagrams" (for example, showing pitches but not rhythms) did not require permission, however.

I especially like your use of colour to illustrate the pentachords in Klavierstück II, but I share your uneasiness about changing the notation in XIII—especially without adding a note explaining the deviation from the score. I did not look at the score and so I was unaware that anything had been changed. Of course, since your main point seems to be to demonstrate the change of central tone, the change in rhythm/tempo notation is not particularly important, but it is customary in such cases to make a "full disclosure", in order to avoid having someone later object that the example is inaccurate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I will change the tempo to something closer to Stockhausen's original. --Joachim Pense (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modernity#Citations_and_recent_edits_-_revisited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.198.95 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time...

Hi again Dr K,
If you have the time, could you possibly have a look at the Genesis Suite article? I'm pretty sure I've made a dog's breakfast of it.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You do yourself an injustice. Either that, or your dog dines exceptionally well! I found only a few minor spelling and syntax problems—no factual errors that I could detect, nor were there any unsourced claims requiring verification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A Brief history of Anti-Records and Conceptual Records

Hello Jerome.

For some reason I do not understand, "A Brief history of Anti-Records and Conceptual Records" by Ron Rice is on the web here http://ubu.com/papers/rice.html when you paste it into the browser -- but not when clicked on at the Noise Music page.

However I just clicked on this link and it did work. ?!?!? It is listed under Sound at http://ubu.com/papers/

Best Regards Valueyou (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not find a link on the Noise Music page, which was why I marked it as I did. Perhaps it is a browser-related issue, but what I find works best in these situations is to use the "tagged external link" format, made by placing an opening square bracket before the URL, following the URL with a space, and then the tag and a closing square bracket. The tag in a case like this is usually the article title. Let's see if we can make this work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Siegfried Palm

You were observant to find that Stockhausen is not specifically cited in the list of music for Siegfried Palm. When I translated the German article (that comes without any citation, btw) I didn't find any, so just trusted the sources 2 ("un spécialiste de la musique moderne (créateur d’œuvres de Stockhausen, Bério, Pousseur et Bussotti)") and 4, the one you added to Weblinks. I rephrased the opening of the list to "premiered" rather than "written for" and wonder if music by Stockhausen fits that category (as source 2 suggests). The weblink you added is not needed, I think. If you want to keep it, at least the link should work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I came across this curious statement indirectly, while editing the article on Aloys and Alfons Kontarsky, which led me via a link to the English obituary claiming that Stockhausen composed a cello concerto. What the French article says does sound more likely, though what work by Stockhausen could have been premiered by Palm puzzles me. Stockhausen did not write much solo or chamber music featuring strings (other than the viola), and Palm was not involved in the premieres of the few exceptions I can think of (In Freundschaft version for cello, Amour version for cello, Orchester-Finalisten, the Helicopter String Quartet, or Hoffnung for string trio). There is an important cello solo in the orchestral work Trans—perhaps Palm played this part at the world premiere, though I doubt it. Of course, there are variable-scoring pieces such as Solo, Spiral, and the text pieces from Aus den sieben Tagen and Für kommende Zeiten. Palm did not premiere either Solo or Spiral, and had nothing to do with the first set of text pieces, but it may be that he participated in the premiere of something from the Für kommende Zeiten. It is also possible that Palm participated in one or both of the Darmstadt collective composition projects Ensemble and Musik für ein Haus, which are not works listed in Stockhausen's catalog, even though he had more to do with their shaping than any of the other contributing composers.

Oh, yes. Please feel free to delete the external link, which I added before noticing it was already embedded in a footnote.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation that I would like to see on the Siegfried Palm discussion page. The article will do without a dubious Stockhausen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall transfer the discussion there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bartok 2nd pno conc

Dear Jerome Kohl,
Thanks for your prompt edit of my "addition" to Bartok, now removed. This happened because I had just responded to a tag request to translate the Andor Foldes article, and this statement was contained within it. Not finding any reference in the Bartok article to a premiere of the 2nd I used the information (misinformation) as a means of linking Bartok to Foldes, which seemed a desirable end. The means, alas, was corrupt and I am grateful for your immediate correction - I will be more careful. Do you think Foldes SHOULD have a mention in the Bartok article? Would you mind glancing at the Foldes article to see if it is full of similar junk? I wonder if the German author of that text was referring to a USA premiere being in 1947? respectfully (and in gratitude), Eebahgum (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy to have been of service. I confess that I was mystified by that claim. Clearly it could not refer to the Third Concerto, and it would have been unlikely that the Second Violin Concerto would have been premiered by a pianist! I will take a look at the Foldes article, as you request. You may well be correct about this meaning the US premiere. (I wonder when the Swedish premiere was, and the Japanese one, and the Mexican one, etc.?) I have noticed that the German Wikipedia has a much higher percentage of unreferenced or under-referenced articles than is the case with the English Wikipedia, which makes cases like this too easy to come into existence, and more difficult to correct than one might like.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jerome,
If you would kindly glance here, you'll see the full text of the account from classicsonline which does indeed state exactly that the comment referred to the Cultural Revolution - hence I was flagging this as the source. I don't take an anonymous writeup in classicsonline as a legitimate source but I am interested in trying to find out where the German author has got it all from, and I suspect much of it is from this text: the footnote was a working link/tool. Frankly I now regret having translated it at all and am inclined to delete all but the opening as I have no franchise to defend this text. If you have no objection, that is exactly what I'll do. Yours, Eebahgum (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! WHOA! Please don't overreact! I do see now that there is a "read more" link on that site. It did not show up when I linked to it from the footnote (I looked especially for such a link, and it was not there). I take your point about anonymous classicsonline writers, but let's try to wrest the truth from the handwaving in this article. The subject deserves that much, at least!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The subject deserves much. I support(ed) that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry the lack of a line break in my last posting to you does make it read (I see now) as if I had been in a fit of pique!! Not so! I have more of a sense of humour than that and (sometimes) a quakerly spirit of patience, none of which is easily conveyed by electronic communication.
When we talked recently about the Bruno Maderna article (see above) I shared your feeling strongly about the bad effects of worldwide cloning of wikipedia articles which are inaccurate. Therefore having carried over this German text, it took a moment or two for my numb old skull to cotton on to the fact that I was guilty of the very thing we were speaking of - so my reaction was of disgust with myself, not with anyone else!
Yes, Foldes DOES deserve proper treatment - all the more reason to keep this poor text out of article page-space, I'm thinking... So the info is at hand, safely in that sand-tray for reference, but I think an article should proceed de novo, don't you? Seasonal duties are intervening but I'll certianly be back to this page and hope others will erelong.
Please accept my compliments of the Season, the joys of which will be unrestrained in the knowledge that the world will NOT be reading those inaccuracies. Cordially, Eebahgum (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I did add a "Further reading" section including amongst other things the New Grove article on Foldes . I did not have the time to read it carefully at that time, but I expect it will provide at least some answers. If we are very lucky, there will be a New York Times review of that 1947 premiere to a half-empty auditorium, and that might throw some light on whether or not it was believed at the time to be an Uraufführung.

Very best of the season to both of you as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked the German author about his sources. The last question on his user page - April 2008, unfortunately - was the same. - Btw I received a little gift for Chrismas: DYK for Adrian Beers on 24 December, HE deserves it - as would Andor Foldes, some day, smile. - My Christmas words this year: Von einer Jungfrau rein und zart / Für uns er hie geboren ward, / Er wollt der Mittler werden. (Imagine Bach's music, St. Matthew Passion, conclusion of part I) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to continue this discussion on Talk:Andor_Földes where I placed a link to a first answer of the German author who knew Foldes personally and started changing the German article. Best wishes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent news! Thank you for making this effort, and congratulations on your success.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hope you have a great new year too! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ding dong merrily on High!" (and all that).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice

WikiProject Contemporary music



Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator.

P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

Flute/Clarinet

No article for Kathinka and Suzee? How is that possible? --Joachim Pense (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is virtually no literature at all on these two performers, which makes it difficult to establish notability by Wikipedia standards, let alone produce any but the most sketchy biographical details. There are of course some scattered newspaper reviews of performances, but Suzee in particular has been very deliberate about staying out of the limelight. As for Kathinka, at the world premiere of Urantia in London in November 2008, she did not acknowledge the audience applause after the performance, even though it was her voice on the tape, and she was the sound projectionist as well. When I asked her why she had not take a bow, she replied: "I'm too shy."

As a matter of fact, a similar problem arose a year or two ago when someone (not me) created an article on the English Wikipedia for Simon Stockhausen. Literature on Simon is somewhat easier to find than for either Suzee or Kathinka, and yet that article was deleted on grounds that notability had not been demonstrated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The German article on Simon has an impressive worklist. As for Kathinka and Suzee, I suspect their short articles might well be thrown out if someone notices, so let's not wake up sleeping dogs. I wonder, though, if being the primary clarinet/flute players of KHS for many years might establish sufficient notability, but it apparently didn't in the English WP. Strange, there's a discussion/fight going on with people (mostly non-Wikipedians) challenging the notability criteria. In this discussion, a standard argument is that the EN WP is very inclusionist, while the German is exlusionist. Doesn't seem to apply in this case. --Joachim Pense (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, there is an impressive worklist for Simon on the German Wikipedia, but this does not constitute a criterion for notability. There is not one single third-party reference—only weblinks—and no inline citations at all. In my experience, the English Wikipedia is maintaining on average a higher standard for reference citations than the German, French, Italian, or (especially) the Dutch Wikipedias. There are of course many well-documented articles in those languages, and there are some terrible ones in English, but if the English Wikipedia is more inclusionist, it is probably because more editors are contributing in this language. I will have a look around, and see what literature may have been published in the last year or two, but I don't think Suzee would thank me for creating an article about her. I'm not so sure about Kathinka's feelings on the subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you uploaded a couple of photographs by Kathinka recently. That was certainly a very valuable contribution! --Joachim Pense (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It was very generous of Kathinka to provide those photographs, but I'm afraid it took me a very long time to actually get them uploaded. Even then, four of the seven images displayed as negatives (except in full-size mode) when using Safari as my browser. Firefox works fine, and Michael Bednarek worked some magic on two of them that seems to have repaired the damage. Something to do with the colour calibration, but I understand nothing about this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)