Talk:Adiemus (albums)

hi, OmegaWikipedia... think you may have labelled this article a stub by mistake! I wrote it as a complete article, it's miles longer than anything else in Category:Album stubs, and it's not the kind of album that warrants a full essay in any case. I've removed the stub text. Chi Sigma 14:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not latin?

The article says that the words are made up, including presumably the titles, and that the word "adiemus" is similarly made up phoenetically. As a Latin teacher, I can vouch that almost every one of the song titles are straight Latin--I can read them perfectly fine--and there can't be any statistical merit to saying that's a coincidence. Not only are they straight plain Latin, but they all have meanings correlative to music or the heavens or other correlative topics. --Mrcolj 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name does not really sound like a Latin word meaning "we will draw near" (that would be adibimus); rather, it looks like a form meant to mean that, but formed after the wrong conjugation pattern. 84.58.225.151 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant there are ubiquitous articles on google asserting that "Jenkins didn't know it sounded Latin" or "didn't know that it was close to adibimus" or the like, and that's simply not the case. From the article, "The word Adiemus itself resembles a Latin word meaning 'We will draw near', though incorrectly formed; Jenkins claims to have been unaware of this." That's impossible. He may have made a mistake in translating the title, but it's still Latin. Whether from adire or audire, or anything else, if he made it to sound Latin and it's coincidentally a Latin word that means exactly what he pretends he made it up to mean, something's fishy... It'd be like if I made up the word "computro" and said it meant a box that does math really fast--especially after having made up 20 other words in the same place that are all exact computer words. It's possible, but so statistically irrelevant that we have to put a one-word disclaimer in the article. --Mrcolj 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-modern?

I'm not sure it is at all accurate to describe the instrumental use of the voice as "post-modern". The article at present mentions Vangelis: not only was it done over 20 years earlier by Pink Floyd, but also by classical composers such as Giles Swayne and Olivier Messiaen, not to mention the whole tradition of Scat singing in jazz. Myopic Bookworm 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unusual time signatures

Okay so 5/8 is a bit odd, but 3/2 and 6/8 are extremely common in my experience, and 9/8's not all that unusual either. The time signatures are part of the character of the music, but they shouldn't be mentioned as unusual when they aren't, I think. Mawich 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree. I remember having to be able to recognise 6/8 and 3/2 time in aural tests while doing my cello and piano grades as a child in primary school. They're extremely common. - 79.69.121.249 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/8 is common but 3/2 is not so frequent, I've played music for 8 years or so and I met 2/3 but not too often.188.36.17.11 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

There are many opinionated statements in this article, with few references to support anything of note. Please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before editing further. Also, on first reading, it is not easy to ascertain whether this is an article on a group, a composer's work, or a series of albums. I think that needs to be made clearer, and the categorisation of the article amended to reflect this. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I am removing some of the worst of it. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adiemus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714051413/http://www.karljenkins.com:80/adiemus_story.php to http://www.karljenkins.com/adiemus_story.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating subsections

Is there a better way to handle the subsection titles that keeps them all unique (per MOS:HEAD) while avoiding annoying redundancy? "Track listing for Adiemus [1/2/3/4/5]" doesn't strike me as ideal. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]