Talk:Nach Bach

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Name

I don't think the disambiguator "(Rochberg)" is needed; the article should be named Nach Bach. Also, an explanation of the German word "nach" (after) in the lead might be helpful for most readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references and the facts they verify

User:Fresternoch is fully aware that this composition is performable both on the harpsichord and the piano, and yet persists in removing the second instrument both from the lede and the body of the article, along with the reliable sources (including the publishe'rs online catalog) documenting this fact. This is beginning to look like vandalism, pure and simple. Does Fresternoch have any justification to offer?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerome Kohl is fully aware that this composition is "for" harpsichord. Although, too that I know this piece is performable on piano, why not follow the intentions by the composer? The harpsichord also has louder and softer quills, so the dynamics still works. Does this look like vandalism??? Do not try to smear and insult my dignity and reputation IN THE PUBLIC.—Fresternoch (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an editor who claims a professional command of English, you ought to be able to read the instructions in the score, and the publisher's catalogue, both of which state in plain English that the work is meant for both instruments. For this reason I am fully aware that it is for harpsichord, but also for piano. In the absence of any subsequent documented statement by the composers, the published score must be taken as his final word on the subject. The Discography lists four recordings on piano, as against one on harpsichord, the 1968 review by Godwin plainly states it is for both instruments, as does the 1987 dissertation by Thomas. In sort, yes, your actions look like vandalism. It is not possible for me to "smear your reputation", since you enjoy the anonymity of a pseudonym. We can take this to arbitration if you like, but I am not convinced of your sincerity. Do please show me why I am wrong, with facts rather than vituperation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't convinced me in the discography list, because you can just hide the truth and pose only one harpsichord recording against four piano recordings. When you go to Google and type the composition name, why the first video (most popular and reliable) popped up only said harpsichord? Also, if I created this page, then why would I want vandalism on this article? And, the published score must be taken as his final word on the project is NOT true, since each publisher can publish different versions of the same score. They can omit some phrases or words from the original score. On my 1967 first edition version it indicates only harpsichord, no word about piano can be found. And according to you, the published score must be taken as his final word on the project, so I assume that it is only for harpsichord, not piano then. And, you said you are not convinced of my sincerity and claims with a professional level of English, then what are you thinking? And I had just showed you about the conflicts in you own words, so do take it seriously. As the final word, you said I enjoy my anonymity, in such a small place like South Surrey, 2 hours away from your Seattle, you can easily find me with all these unique features and hobbies. I just showed you why you are wrong, with true facts as you requested.—Fresternoch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, as you know (being a Master Editor with more than six years experience since 29 May 2014!?), bland assertions are not evidence. Only Reliable sources|reliable, third-party sources are. I have presented several such reliable source, several of which you have repeatedly removed (inclusing inline citations for Godwin, Thomas, and the Theodore Presser website). What am I supposed to make of this? Please tell me, why do you want to vandalise a page you have created? I am obligated to notify you that we are both now at the verge of 3RR. As we obviously are not making any headway, I am now taking this issue to arbitration.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was my mistake about the Master Editor issue, I admit. But I had never removed the references you just mentioned in the References section. The fact is, I am not vandalizing my own page. You said you are one of the most active 1000 Wikipedians, while I am not, so I can't really do as much edits as you can as this is only my hobby. While you might think that this is not true because I am now responding to you like every 5 minutes, I am doing this because it became my new hobby. I can't do it anymore in September since I am busy. If you can make any headway, you are welcome to present it, as long as it is about an analysis about the work, history of composition or background information. I am not trying to block your headway on purpose, just to let you know. You repeatedly spelled my username wrong in the edit summary, which I took it as disrespect just because you are a "true" master editor, and one of the "1000 most active Wikipedians". And at last, it is you who had started this battle because you started editing my article.—Fresternoch (talk

I was not aware of misspelling your username, and you have not brought it to my attention until now. I apologize for my typo. On the question of "your" article, may I gently suggest you read WP:Ownership of articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article you suggested and perhaps you are right. So do you want to start to work together and make some headway starting now instead of continue this war?—Fresternoch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can convince me that we are not at an impasse, yes. Principally, what is your considered opinion about Rochberg's intentions for the performance of his score? Is the piano a valid option, or not? If so, do you agree that this should be acknowledged in this article? Secondarily, there is the issue of your idiosyncratic ideas about formatting references. Since you seem to have been unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies regarding ownership of articles, perhaps you are also not aware of the conventions for formatting references in Harvard style?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]