Talk:Secondary development

Ummm

Ummm... This is certainly an important topic; alas, and with all due respect, the page that's just been created is poorly written; extremely confused; doesn't recognise the most usual use of the term 'second development'; fails to acknowledge the extent to which the idea is disputed; is over-reliant on the work of one rather controversial writer, and actually reinforces an accidental contradiction of him. Seriously: can someone please go and consult a few more books and papers before the trusting public is more tortously misled...? What appears at the moment could hardly be worse... Pfistermeister (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind remarks. Unless you provide some appropriate references to that support your remarks, I will assume that you are venting, or have some weird hidden agenda. Opus33 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you want: if you aren't able to read the bit in Rosen where he specifically says that the term doesn't mean something wikipedia now says he says it means, I really can't -- and won't -- help you. Pfistermeister (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Not exactly a team player, I see. Aren't we on the same side here? This is a brand new article. Anyone have any constructive ideas on how to make it better? DavidRF (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey -- this 'Opus33' character wrote: "However, simply facilitating the different arrangement of keys is not the only function of a secondary dominant". Are you gonna pretend that that means something? If so, kindly explain -what-... Pfistermeister (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It does look like he meant to type "secondary development" instead of "secondary dominant". Your tone is unbelievable, though. What's your beef here? Seems like too strong of a reaction for this type of thing. This is wikipedia. Articles don't come out journal quality on the first draft. Screaming insults at people on talk pages won't get things done, it chases them away. If you really hate the article that much, then either fix it yourself or erase it and redirect the page to Musical development because no one is going to want to edit it with you shouting at them over their shoulder.DavidRF (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

With great repect, David, you have failed to grasp just how pestilentially dreadful this page is. If a student presented it to me, I would put a line through it. For example, and far beyond the mere proof-reading errors, compare the following extract --

"Often the secondary development serves a kind of structural function. In a sonata form recapitulation, the musical material that was laid out in the initial exposition section is restated so as to occur entirely (or almost so) in the main key of the piece. This differs from the exposition, which involved a shift to a new key. Thus some kind of alteration is needed to keep the music in the original key, at the spot in the recapitulation that corresponds to the place in the exposition where the music changed key."

-- with what the cited source actually says:

"It would be a mistake to identify the appearance of the subdominant in the secondary development section with the necessary alteration of harmony to transform an exposition that goes from tonic to dominant into a recapitulation that remains in the tonic ...[etc]"

The thing is *complete rot*. Pfistermeister (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for elaborating specifically what you don't like and how it can be improved! It does look like the article could be helped with some more discussion on the difference between (a) harmonic changes made so the "second theme" can be in the tonic instead of in the dominant (as it was in the exposition) and (b) more elaborate changes that are more worthy of the "development" label. DavidRF (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually pretty specific at the very start: things still remaining to be acknowledged (let alone fixed) include "doesn't recognise the most usual use of the term 'second development'; fails to acknowledge the extent to which the idea is disputed; is over-reliant on the work of one rather controversial writer"... But thanks for your communication! Pfistermeister (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It ought to come straight out of Rosen, via quotation, which I will do next time I have time to edit. Also, I repeat my invitation to Pfistermeister to provide citations of scholars who disagree with Rosen on this topic. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

'Scholars who disagree with Rosen'..?!? Listen: you haven't even got *Rosen* right yet. For starters, what the hell is *this* supposed to mean: "However, simply facilitating the different arrangement of keys is not the only function of a secondary dominant". You wrote it; Rosen didn't. It's *garbage*. Stop preaching at me, and FIX IT! *Then* we'll deal with what Rosen says; and *only after that* will we deal with what the literature says about what Rosen says. In short, I'm not going to run before you can walk. All right? Pfistermeister (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with what you are saying, object strenuously to your behavior, and will not be discussing this matter with you any further; clearly there is no point. Opus33 (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask again: what is the following supposed to mean?

"However, simply facilitating the different arrangement of keys is not the only function of a secondary dominant".

Tell us! You wrote it! Pfistermeister (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)