User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jerome Kohl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

More modern cantatas

Back to Cantata: Because I don't believe that cantata composition stopped with Brahms, I created a new section I wanted to call 20th century - until I noticed that it would not include Mahler. Please have a look, for a better title and for the compilation of pieces - I'm not an expert, remove what you think should not be there and add what you know. I wonder if Britten's The Company of Heaven would also qualify? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cantata composition certainly did not stop with Brahms! The Britten example you cite points out one problem, though, and that is: by what criteria is legitimate to call a work a "cantata" if that word does not appear in the title (as it does in Britten's Cantata Misericordium and Cantata Academica) or in a descriptive subtitle (as in Britten's Phaedra). In any case, I shall not fail this time (as I did previously) to look at the Cantata article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the additions! Criteria: The Company of Heaven is sung - but for the speaker(s) who talk a lot as it was written for radio. It is not an oratorio, I would say, lacking a coherent story. What is it then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A difficult question. In one sense, every musical composition for singing is a "cantata" (even, or even especially, with instrumental accompaniment), but that is too loose a definition. Operas, operettas, musicals, oratorios, Lieder, motets, madrigals, part songs, chansons, mélodies, songs, are all vocal works, but are generally excluded from the category of "cantata". Are we entitled to use "cantata" as a catch-all for any vocal work that cannot be assigned to one of these categories? I think not. I would class The Company of Heaven as a radio play with music, or a musical entertainment for radio.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment is an interesting word for a work treating stories about angels, company also as Kompanie, quite a battle with the men of the choir speaking over the orchestra, stories including the deadly accident of a child. If it's a radio play it is so in a quite modern sense, the single elements (including an a cappella chorus) not connected to each other, only to the general theme, and this in 1938! - Thanks for adding to cantata, I didn't look yet but am sure already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Impressed by what you keep finding in a kind of Schatzkiste for cantata: the cantata with those world famous triplets just went on the Main Page. Do you think you might also write about the Differences from other musical forms in a more general way. The - very special case of the - Christmas Oratorio is rather confusing there and could go to Baroque if kept at all, I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It has mostly been off the top of my head, which means there may be challenges for sources in the future. I think before addressing differences from other forms it will be important to treat the early history of the cantata. For example, at the moment there is no mention at all of Alessandro Scarlatti or Benedetto Marcello. The impression is left that the cantata remained an obscure if locally popular Italian form cultivated by composers of whom no one has ever heard, until "in the Baroque" it was raised to prominence by the Lutheran church! The "differences from other forms" discussion will also have to confront the present assertions that a motet (Handel's "Silete venti") or the Chandos Anthems might be regarded as cantatas, not to mention the untenable assignment of the form to Purcell songs, referred to by dubious titles ("Mad Bess" must mean "From silent shades, and the Elysian groves", also known as "Bess of Bedlam", while "Mad Tom" is a famous example of disputed attribution—see The Musical Times, 1 August 1897—now long since disregarded as Purcell's work). I suspect these claims must be remnants from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Many attitudes to music history have changed considerably in the last hundred years. Bach's Christmas Oratorio is indeed a delicious conundrum. Your suggestion that it could be moved to the "Baroque" section prompts me to observe that "differences from other forms" varies considerably from period to period. What constitutes a cantata for Carissimi or Handel is not at all the same as for Elgar or Prokofiev, and we could even observe that Handel's cantatas are very distant in form from those of J. S. Bach.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your recent help. This article has been "discovered" by someone, combined with 2 other shorter ones and published as a book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1158406029/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new Now I am trying to improve it and I am grateful for your help. Do you have any suggestions on how I could improve the biography ? Cote d'Azur 04:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

You are welcome. There are two things that would improve the biography, in my opinion. First and most important is that there is little evident connection between the long list of Sources and the article text. I suspect that the majority of these items really belong in a "Further reading" section, but the ones that really do form a basis for the biographical information need inline citations at appropriate points. Second, the prose portion of the article is presently overwhelmed by the very long catalogs of compositions, recordings, etc., which gives the impression more of a resumé than of an article. A new section discussing some representative compositions (style, form, substance of librettos, etc.) would be very helpful in establishing some balance. Keep in mind, though, that new material should also be documented with inline citations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, I will bear it in mind. At the moment it is not possible to get more biographical information but the time will come when passages from the books will be integrated in the article text, together with some new data. Thank you very much indeed and apology that my signature is not working Cote d'Azur 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

Romantik

Just now, in a discussion about whether to link from Tosca to cantata (because she is singing one), I recommended to do so because cantata is greatly improved, thanks to you! Now that I installed a piece written in 1915, Requiem (Reger), I have a few questions. I didn't call that CM, right? But it is 20th century. I wonder how to say something about Late-romantic music, at least when the size of the orchestra is mentioned, but there is no article like that. There is Romantic music which doesn't quite fit and has problems, as discussed here, talking Gustav Mahler. What do you think? - If you want to please me more, look at the score of the Reger and improve the music section, which at the moment is written from a singer's pov. (We will sing it in August.) More specific: I heard Reger's op. 83/10 once and remember it as very similar in musical means, but don't have access to a score to substantiate that. Do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that by "CM" you mean "contemporary music", and Reger certainly does not fall under that heading today. Are you asking for an article to which to link, for the benefit of readers who might like to know more about the general style and context of the work? If so, then I agree that the Romantic music article really is not very suitable. The section on Romantic style in the early 20th century is not very substantial, but certainly more suitable than "Romantic music". I'm afraid that Reger is outside of my areas of particular interest, but I do have access to volume 27 of Reger's Sämtliche Werke, which includes the op. 83. What exactly do you need to know about the "musical means" of op. 83/10?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the 20th century music article that I had not noticed before! What exactly? Good question about something I remember only vaguely, a performance of that op. 83/10 with the Thomanerchor Abiturienten (they form a group, learn a program and tour, students conducting and playing the organ, for the few pieces not a cappella). I would like to know if the resemblance that I remember is more than the same words, something like also chords in the beginning (that our conductor terms "fast impressionistisch" ("almost impressionistic"?), the same fortissimo chords on all syllables of "erstarren", the theme of "dann ergreift sie der Sturm der Nacht", the chorale quote? But don't dig into it if you a not curious yourself, please. - One more language question: what is Romanticism? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that knowing about similarities between the two Reger works would be of much use on Wikipedia. Without corroborating sources, it would amount to original research. From a language point of view, "Romanticism" is (in German) "die Romantik", but surely you know that already?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, no, I was sure, but less so recently. In German we differentiate Klassik and Klassizismus; romantic and romanticism could be similar, the latter would make sense to me applied to pieces written even now in romantic style. - What do you think about naming the section you gave me above: Late-romantic style? And what is Spätromantik in English, please? It looks to me as if Romantic can't be used as a noun (unlike Baroque) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. The distinction between Klassik and Klassizismus is not so easily made in English (we have to say "Classical Period" and "Classicism"). On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen "Romantizismus" in German—only "Romantik". "Spätromantik" can be either "late Romantic" (adjective) or "late Romanticism" (noun) in English, but this is complicated by the fact that some writers use the term "post-Romantic" (that section of the Wikipedia article is too brief and very one-sided, by the way, and needs work urgently) to refer exactly to those composers (Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms, Mahler, Sibelius, etc.) who are described by others as "late Romantic". Still other writers use "post-Romantic" to describe slightly later (especially English and American) composers who tried to "carry on the tradition" of the late 19th century: Howard Hanson, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Samuel Barber, William Walton, while still others apply the term neoromanticism to them, though this term is also used for post–World War II composers who tried to "turn back the clock" in the wake of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Bartók (not to mention the postwar avant garde)—composers such as David Del Tredici, John Corigliano, George Rochberg, (some of the works of) Ladislav Kupkovič, or (allegedly) Wolfgang Rihm. It is all very confusing, and I think just as much so in German as in English.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying a lot! I prefer late Romantic music then. Had a great evening listening to Mahler songs, Sieben Lieder aus letzter Zeit and parts of Das Lied von der Erde (Gerda, smile), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clarification I really made, but you are very welcome. For music from the last quarter of the 19th century continuing more or less in the same tradition up to the First World War I, too, am most comfortable calling "late Romantic" (I could almost say I was shocked when I first learned that some writers called this "post Romantic"). I suppose that "neo-romantic" is acceptable, so long as it applies to any revival after the style passed out of fashion. The problem only arises when we try to limit it to a particular time period, which would raise the problem of having to label later manifestations "post-neo-Romantic" or "neo-neo-Romantic", or some such rubbish.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bartók

Once you are looking at him, could you also look at his Viola Concerto, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall do that.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Boulez Anthèmes

Hi Jerome,

Thanks for noticing my updates on the Boulez Anthèmes page, and also the citation shortcomings in it! I spent four summers at the Lucerne festival with Mr. Boulez, playing Anthèmes for him twice and interviewing him about it twice additionally. Some of this I have recorded, and I used the information I learned towards a lecture recital of the piece in my DMA programme at Stony Brook University.

As I can see that you have used and edited Wikipedia much more than I have, I would be glad to learn from you what the proper way of citing these interviews in Wikipedia. I am sure that my interviews did not bring new information to the fore, but rather are transcripts of information that he would tell any performer who cares to ask.

Sincerely, CCCCAASS (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Claudia Schaer

Ahh! Sadly, unless these interviews have been published somewhere (either in print media or in a reliable online source), this falls under the category of original research. Have you finished your DMA thesis yet? If so, and if it contains these statements from Boulez, you can cite it as the source. Otherwise, we have a problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

- Unfortunately, the interviews just went towards a lecture-recital that I gave as part of my programme, no publication or thesis. However, I'm confident that any violinist who has played the piece for him will encounter the same directives, and the interviews are recorded - so while I am confident of the truth of the information I have written, I suppose I cannot prove it in the wikipedia forum other than by citing it as Original Research. CCCCAASS (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You really should read the Wikipedia guideline on original research, which requires reliable, published sources for any claim made in a Wikipedia article apart from the most self-evident everyday facts ("the sky is blue", "water is wet", etc.). The operative phrases are "Wikipedia does not publish original research" and, from Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I myself know only too well how very frustrating it can be when an editor has got the hard evidence but it has not been made publicly available.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying - and also for sourcing my Boulez statements to very similar ones Goldman quotes from him! I had read Goldman's paper on Anthèmes several years ago, but interviewed Boulez more recently, and without having my own notes in front of me had Boulez's more clearly in my ear. Again, I appreciate it! Best, CCCCAASS (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. I had not consulted the Goldman paper myself until prompted to do so by our exchange here. The first ptoblem was that the link was dead (and had been for nearly three years!). The Internet Archive Wayback Machine supplied an archived copy, and the rest was easy!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK five composers

Did you know ... that the 80th birthday of Walter Fink is celebrated on 16 August 2010 at the Rheingau Musik Festival with compositions of Kirchner, Lachenmann, Rihm, Widmann and Hosokawa? (for that day) - Would you have a look at the composers mentioned, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

One supposes that "Kirchner" means Leon Kirchner. The others seem unambiguous. I have checked Leon Kirchner, and will look at the other articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Volker David Kirchner, sorry. All the links are in the Fink article. Thanks for working on it. The Bartok viola concerto went to the Main page with the tag ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Watkins edit

The link you deleted is very much alive--someone edited it by adding text in a way that mucked it up.

Check this: http://www.music.umich.edu/faculty_staff/bio.php?u=gwatkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.116.119 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work! I hope you have repaired the problem; if not, I shall do so. Thank you very much!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR

I warned you about 3RR. Unfortunately you didn't listen. I have now made a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I am surprised that an editor of your experience whom I personally have always found to be rational, easy to work with, productive, and a valuable resource has persisted in an edit war beyond the three revert rule. I know you are better than this.4meter4 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jerome. Further to the above, it does look like you broke the 3RR rule on the article. However, I do not feel you were adequately warned about this. Self-reverting your last edit to the Antony and Cleopatra page would be the best thing to do and will avoid a block. I strongly recommend you do this asap. Then all the editors can discuss what to do about the referencing problem on the talkpage and come to some consensus. --Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule on Antony and Cleopatra (opera). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 14:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In defense of parenthetical citations

Somewhat to my surprise, the immortal but departed User:Geogre has returned as an anon. You may find this section to be of use. Go down to "Oh, this will go to FAR!" Geogre was one of the most persuasive writers I have met on the project; have a look at his arguments in favor of parenthetical referencing. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Antandrus. I don't believe I ever came across Geogre, who seems to have been largely before my time but, by a fantastic coincidence, when I opened your message I had just set down Howard Pollock's book on Walter Piston where, on p. 48, I had noticed a typoed reference to a 1938 newspaper review attributed to a "Geroge" Smith. I look forward to reading his orthographical cousin's ruminations!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonatina for Violin and Harpsichord (Piston)

Hi Jerome, I always read classical music articles thoroughly. There is not one single inline reference in your article that complies with WP:CITE. Please read it thoroughly before making inappropriate edit summaries. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you've read this one, at all. It is true that the lede lacks inline citations, but that is normal, since the lede is only supposed to summarize the content of the article that follows. Allow me to lead you through the rest. The History section begins with two sentences, both referenced to Pollack 1982, page 80. It concludes with a third sentence, also referenced, to Pollack 1982, page 82. Th first sentence of the Analysis section is referenced to Yardley 1990. The remainder of the paragraph is referenced to Pollack 1982, pages 80–82. All of these conform to WP:CITE. All that remains is the Discography. Do you demand inline citations for these?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Jerome. I don't demand anything, I am not one of the (too) many pompous adolescent page patrollers we have here! I'm just surprised that you don't use the regular intext system of clickable links to the footnotes. I'm not even suggesting you use the Harvard system that is required, for example, by some GA reviewers as being what we should/ought to/must use. The discography list AFAICS, is perfect. --Kudpung (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha-ha! Yes, there are far too many "pompous adolescent page patrollers" on Wikipedia! I'm afraid I mistook you for one of them. However, I am puzzled by your reference to "the regular intext system of clickable links to the footnotes". What "regular" system are you talking about? Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations, to which you refer, mentions no such "regular system". It does, however, specifically sanction the reference format system I have used in the article on Piston's Sonatina. Permit me to call your attention to Wikipedia:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Future Walter Piston Additions

I've added a stub article on the Serenata for Orchestra, which seems to have attracted a lot of unwelcome attention and hope to have a good summary article on the Violin Fantasia ready soon. Then I can move on to the QuartetsGraham1973 (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Delta means major of major seventh?

Hi Jerome, I spotted an inconsistency which I cannot solve. Do you happen to know whether CΔ means CM or CM7? (see Talk:Chord (music)). Please feel free to answer here, or to ignore my request if you are busy. Paolo.dL (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with most of these chord symbols is that they are specific to a particular theory book. I am not familiar with the delta symbol, which is certainly not in widespread use. The other notation you cite (CM and CM7), on the other hand, is known almost everywhere. To give some idea of how confusing this can be, once upon a time there were different theory books that used the plus sign to mean quite different things. One book (I'm not sure, but I think it may have been Allen Forte's harmony text) used plus and minus to indicate major and minor, while the plus sign was used by others to indicate augmented triads (the "plus/minus" textbook used the letter A for this, and d for "diminished", instea of the more usual raised circle). More traditional harmony texts (Schoenberg, Piston, Goetschius) resolutely refused to identify chord types at all (not even the cap/lowercase convention for major/minor so widely used today), insisting that the student should know the quality of the chord automatically from its position in the key, together with any figured-bass modification signs added to a Roman-numeral analysis. Naturally, this assumed an awfully old-fashioned repertory with completely unabiguous keys, and I shudder to think what a poor undergraduate theory student did when confronted by anything as "advanced" as Chopin!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ilaiyaraaja

Hi. Firstly I feel very shocked that experienced wiki users like you making such a edit on article that is rated as good one. How can you argue saying many blogs regard ilaiyaraaja as fairly good composer. It is nothing but you are insulting the person involved in the article. The world knows India knows and people in music world knows and lastly all general public knows he is a born genius. The source given are all valid ones & how come you say those are mere blogs. Some times wiki admins make normal users like me to go hanged with there irrealistic and inrationale approach.

You have a proper right and as a rollbacker & reviewer you please do not mistake here. He is regarded as the greatest/finest music composer of india with no doubt. Common man he is composer who is welcomed everywhere he goes. Saying under the names of rules and rollbacker power please do not break the article good content, which many like me see as a bible of information. Expecting a edit change from you. Please please for God sake try to understand me here.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 07:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

All that is required is a reliable source. Blogs are not regarded as such, for the most part. Seeing five blogs piled one on top of the other simply makes the claim look hysterical and without sound basis. Please try to find a reliable source (as defined in the Wikipedia article at the link above). If "the world knows" this to be true, it really should not be very difficult to find such a source.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Try to understand. All are reliable and acceptable and do you think those websites have no other job/role to play other than explaining about illayaraaja. Think man and be broad-minded. Try to respect others intention. I am very patiently replying you with courtesy for your position in wiki where I am really not impressed on you. Review others interest and what they try to say. Take your time and research. See this link,

   http://www.famouslikeme.com/Composer/I/list.html
   http://www.famouslikeme.com/46750/article.html
   http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us/features/topten/
   http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?id=ENTEN20100153629&keyword=music&section=Movies&subcatg=MUSICINDIA
   ----- all these are most trusted and accepted ones.

Again you are breaking the articles good content and disturbing its issues. I have no idea where you are from. Since you are not aware of him, its better give some respect for which others including me trying to explain you. He is master and a great composer India has ever produced.

Do not break further more than this. What I did not understand is: editors like me can edit more fastly but you reviewer/rollbackers why are you in a hurry to do actions. Take time and consider and review what others claim. Do not be aggressive here.

This article is very very very important one and look at it at this importance. Please try to understand me. I am not here to fight and I am here to explain you.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 03:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

Please take this discussion to the appropriate talk page, and do remember to sign your contribution. I had composed a lengthy reply, which was interrupted by SineBot, and I am not amused to have to re-edit for the purpose.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly I accept that people who have no idea about illayaraaja will tend to think in your way. In india two forms of music style is there. One---> Carnatic music ; Two---> Hindustani music. He is a master in both versions. In carnatic music he created many new ragas and integrated them suiting its need in composing for films in his own style. No where any other film music composer can do in india. And one more Some musicians are skilled in certain areas, but he is a great musician in all forms: western, classical, regional, folk etc., which is an unusal gift. Again you may have disbelief and I respect you. But just think why should I be here in explaining all these, becoz there are hundreads of secrets kept behind this man as he never comes out,gives interview. Please do your own research about him. You will accept me in more ways.

In a time in india where there was no one to have idea on symphony. He did that first from a very very remote back-ground. He composes tunes within 20-30 min for a film with 6-7 tracks and he will leave. He did movies at a scale that even his guru/rivals would get proud of. Almost he did 400-500 films in a span of 7-8 years at his peak from 1985-1994. these facts are all not easy/simple to do. And so even other known music composers/singers give respect for him. My friend he is a composer more than films. Please do a little more research. Do not feel bad. I just wanted to share my idead with you. So did. Thats it !!!. Many thanks.. !!

--Ungal Vettu Pillai 22:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be reassured: I do not feel bad at all, and I am quite familiar with Carnatic and Hindustani music. I'm just puzzled why you keep posting these comments on my talk page. There is absolutely no doubt at all (to judge from the sources) that Mr. Ilaiyaraaja is a very important film composer in India. Please do not ask me to do research on him, since I lack the requisite language skills, and am not in any case an editor deeply involved in the article on him (nor am I particularly interested in film music). I simply have found some seemingly overblown claims that are not supported by the cited sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hai Jerome. You are not satisfied with the sources it seems. Well common man understand the times he was popular and big, he was a sensation for every film. 100's of Producers waited hours to meet him to discuss. As I told before during 1985-2000, the establishment of WEB sites,WEB articles was not that much. So giving you a site owned in those period is no way and asking for it is unfair. But I will provide you a very famous Indian article FRONTLINE by HINDU published in 1987 link here,

     http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bD7IoPbVPM4/Sqneha5BP9I/AAAAAAAABSE/Zq4LKTLnQZY/s1600-h/Ilayaraja-Frontline_19870001.jpg
     http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bD7IoPbVPM4/Sqneg2NSaGI/AAAAAAAABR8/84qgOQzxIYk/s1600-h/Ilayaraja-Frontline_19870002.jpg
     http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bD7IoPbVPM4/SqnegVIi12I/AAAAAAAABR0/2DvQBMcO0TE/s1600-h/Ilayaraja-Frontline_19870003.jpg
     http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bD7IoPbVPM4/SqnegHcE3OI/AAAAAAAABRs/mcFrLZrJ63s/s1600-h/Ilayaraja-Frontline_19870004.jpg

--Dont see this as blog but see the content as it is a verifiable source/proof. Indeed this is done using a scanner and uploaded. Again Content is true !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ungal Vettu Pillai 04:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Enharmonic

Hi Dr. Kohl. I would appreciate if you would review my comments at Talk:Enharmonic under "Disagreement Upheld" before I make efforts to change (correct) the article. I am not a Ph.D in music theory but did a Theory Pedagogy Cognate while doing a DMA in Piano. But all of that doesn't matter because it regards stuff I was taught before I started college. I hope we will be in agreement. Emdelrio (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Enharmonic 2

Ah yes. Thank you for the clarification. Emdelrio (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Music therapy

I recently placed some tags on Music therapy, and thought that you may be interested. All is One (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks for calling this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Immanuel Liebich

Dr. Kohl, I wonder with your resources/access if you might be able to help me with finding the dates of the above named composer. He must have been a very minor one in that it has been impossible for me to find anything. I know of him in that he wrote a delightfully picturesque piece which serves as a wonderful encore (in the "after-dinner-mint" vein, evidently his only published work) called "The Musical Box: A Caprice" dedicated to Isabelle Schuster, and published by Robert Cocks and Co., London. I was able to purchase a PDF of it from the National Library of Australia which lists the date of publication as "187?". I already checked an old 3rd edition of Groves. (This work was transposed and simplified slightly by William Smallwood and published by the same publisher as No.14 of a series called "Home Treasures.") Don't knock yourself out over this, but if you find this I believe you will be the only man on planet earth alive who knows it ... until you share it with me :) Emdelrio (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, very interesting. "The Musical Box" was far from being his only published work. The Library of Congress Firstsearch catalog turns up 140 publications (including many duplications), starting in 1861 with an exercise book, The Most Important Cadences & Modulations through the Major & Minor Keys, with Harmonised Scales, etc., and a collection of Six Operatic Recitals for Pianoforte. These were mostly published in London (a very small number from Germany) and almost all are for the piano, either solo or duet. There is one exception for string quartet, and an arrangement of Auf Wiedersehen ... for violin & piano, Easily arranged & fingered (London: E. Ascherberg, 1901). He also published a theory book, Harmony and Modulation on an Entirely New Principle, etc. (Montreal: W. Drysdale and Co., 1896; London: C. Jefferys & Son, 1897).

There are other Liebichs in music history, in particular one Karl Liebich who was director of the German Opera in Prague in the eatly 19th century, and Gottfried Siegmund Liebich, who apparently died in 1736, but whether Immanuel was any relation, I cannot say. Immanuel's publications thin out after 1890 and, although I find several more up to 1913 (not counting recent reprints), I would guess that these later publications may be posthumous. He must certainly have been born before 1840, and probably died in the 1890s or early 1900s. If this web posting:

<http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/PRUSSIA-ROOTS/2009-01/1232233898>

refers to the same person (as seems likely), then his full name was Immanuel Christoph Albert Erdmann Liebich, and he was born in Silesia or Prussia in 1823, was married in London in 1856 to Agnes Julie Mehlhorn, and they had at least two children, Rudolf (christened in 1869), and Franz, However, since this Franz seems to have been listed in Who's Who already by 1860, there may be something wrong with this evidence. I have checked the first edition of Grove's Dictionary (vol. 2, 1880, which includes entires beginning with L), with no result. Still, it's a start.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Most impressive indeed! Emdelrio (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing miraculous, I assure you! Access to the Library of Congress Firstsearch (OCLC) helps enormously in such cases, but I found the geneology-search page simply by doing a Google search for the name—I didn't even have to go so far as to try the variations on the spelling of "Immanuel", which is a notoriously difficult name to trace. The other Liebich's showed up in a New Grove search online, which failed to find Immanuel/Imanuel/Emmanuel/Emanuel.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Metrical errors in Beethoven's Op.111

Dr. Kohl -sorry to bother you again- I have an "article" that I wrote a LONG time ago (can you say dot-matrix printer) on the subject of (shall I say it) my perceived error regarding the meter of *a portion* of the Op.111 (came to face with the issue when I learned the work to perform it in a doctoral seminar for the DMA at the Cincinnati CCM). I intended to try to publish the article in some piano/keyboard rag but my life went on in other directions (I'm now a physician and am joyously reawakening my performing again). Anyway, with the invention of the internet and scanners and Wikipedia (of course) I may now have an easy possible outlet for the concept. I wonder if you would read this (in its unvarnished 1st iteration version) and tell me if you think it could serve some purpose here on Wikipedia. I will provide you my email (edelrio3@cox.net) to which you may reply if you would accept a PDF scan or a hard copy sent to an address. It is almost 6 pages in length. Thank you for your consideration. Emdelrio (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Six pages does not seem too much to ask. I shall contact you offline about this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hyacinth

Hello,

just in case, the same user has added more tone row pictures to Wikipedia, apparently all referenced to the same book. I'm no expert, unfortunately, but to me there seems to be a problem with his picture for Variations for piano (Webern) at least; the analysis I've seen in a Bailey book is different. It would be great if you could take a look at the article; I've explained my concerns at the talk page there. There may be problems with other pictures, too. --Jashiin (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jashin, for calling my attention to the Webern Variations article, which is not on my watchlist. (It will be, now!) The tone row for the Variations is not at all problematic, and is documented in dozens of sources. It should be easy to discover if there is an error. Hyacinth is a very experienced editor with an excellent track record in the area of atonal and twelve-note theory, but in this case he may have found a duff source. I noticed the similar additions to Gruppen (Stockhausen), Luigi Nono, and Piano sonatas (Boulez), which all seem OK to me (except for the misrepresentation of the registrally fixed rhythm row for Gruppen as if it were the basic pitch series of the work), but the addition to Klavierstücke (Stockhausen) has severe problems, as I have already noted on the Talk page to that article. I suspect the problems are in the Leeuw book itself, possibly the translator's fault rather than the author's, but unfortunately cannot quickly access it, since my institution's library does not hold a copy.

Vivaldi's flautino

Hi Jerome, I was pointed to you. I am surprised because there are five composers on the CD in question, Vivaldi is the one I would not have associated with you, but let's see. On a high pitch, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Colour ref

If I were reviewing the article at GAN or FAC, I would not question a ref either to the cover of the score or to the colour wheel. I don't see either as significantly different from using a map as a reference, for example. They all require more interpretation that plain prose text, but I think that's fine. A claim of "deep violet-blue" probably won't lead to an argument. (I hope I have answered the right question.) By the way, I like the addition of the names, Himmelfahrt and so on, to the heads. Finetooth (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that puts my mind at ease. I shall add the scores to the ref list and cite them for this purpose. To add a belt to the braces, I think I shall also cite the colour wheel. And thanks also for endorsing my decision to add the names to the headers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Award - you are appreciated

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I've never awarded a barnstar before, but that's some mighty fine looking cleanup you've done at Milton Babbitt. Good stuff! -- WikHead (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel very honored, thank you!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

9/4 belonging

I am new to wikipedia and not sure what I did wrong on one of my first ever edits but * "Belonging: Lopsided Lullaby" by Joshua Redman is definitely in 9/4. It is hard for me to find a satisfactory reference being an enthusiast, not a professional, and hard to understand how unusual an example of 9/4 needs to be to be unusual enough. That criteria isn't specified in the article. Please can you help keen contributor by explaining etiquette and rules here?

Certainly I shall try to explain, but first: welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope experiences like this do not dim your enthusiasm! The problem is that 9/4 is defined in the header of that list as a "usual meter". The exceptions in the list involve pieces that consistently divide a bar of 9 into groupings other than the usual 3 + 3 + 3 (such as the 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 of "Blue Rondo a la Turk"). It is entirely possible that the example you offered does have such exceptional groupings (what are called "additive rhythms"), but the source you offered does not say so. As far as I can tell from what the source says, the piece is in common, garden-variety 9/4. On Wikipedia, it is important to remember that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth", which means that there must be a source that confirms any claim made. While this source certainly confirms that the piece is in 9/4, it does not confirm that the use of this meter puts it in the "unusual" category. I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In Freundschaft

Thank you for In Freundschaft! (I don't understand the footnotes tag.) It was played in Berlin, in memoriam William Waterhouse, because he admired it (s. Programm). In Freundschaft, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ich freue mich, daß es Ihnen gefallen hat! The footnotes tag was placed by a bot—this happens every time I create an article, because the bots can't read. They look for certain templates and—when they are absent—clamp a banner on the article. I don't use templates (despite the claim that they make things easier for inexperienced editors, I find their syntax impenetrable, and their formats are usually seriously defective), consequently my articles always get this treatment. As it happens, I had just recently (29 October) heard In Freundschaft played in the bassoon version by Pascal Gallois. He was unable (or unwilling) to perform it from memory, but that didn't stop him from making all the prescribed movements, and what fabulous technique! (No teddy-bear costume however!) I had been meaning to write that article for a long time now (In Freundschaft is, after all, Stockhausen's second-most-popular composition with performers, after Tierkreis), and Gallois's performance was the final spur I needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nachspiel: The article William Waterhouse was made a DAB - I think this is misleading all links from outside WP. Quite a concert in preparation for him in Wigmore Hall, but this time without Stockhausen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are at least four of him. Think of how much more difficult it was when I created the article on David Johnson, without at first knowing his middle initial!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for Adieu, taken to the bassoonist, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I was thinking of you and this conversation when I placed that link.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the string trios, "mine" performed tomorrow by the bassoonists children, in Freundschaft, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your enlightening operas! - The Proud Bassoon program: "In an exchange of emails following Bill's death in November 2007, Richard Moore asked Stockhausen whether he recalled working with Bill when recording Zeitmasse and Adieu. Stockhausen replied: "Not only in rehearsal, but also in many hours before and after rehearsals and recordings, and during our trips with the ensemble, I had the pleasure and privilege of sharing with William Waterhouse his rich cultural knowledge and enthusiasm. He was a musician as we all should be: excellent as a performer, open minded, curious, well educated, joyous, full of humour. I greet him in the beyond and hope to meet him again." Four days after sending this reply, Stockhausen himself passed away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome for the "enlightening operas", but they are Stockhausen's, not mine (I only wrote the articles about them)! That is a lovely tribute to William Waterhouse from Stockhausen, and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I take the full quote to the article now, noticing that it appears abbreviated in a review. (Until this was printed in the program, I thought it was too personal to be included in WP, - I knew it since 2007.) - Please excuse my sloppy language, Stockhausen's operas, of course, it was late ... A discussion about (also my) "loose language" is going on at Talk:Bach cantata, of all places, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouting

hee hee... all caps is apparently a convention cognitive linguists use for labeling conceptual metaphors, maybe to distinguish them from image schemata? I do not know. yours in considerately hushed tones, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case I stand corrected, though it does seem ironic that mere conceptual metaphors require headline treatment! All the best.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quintuple meter

You've made lots of edits to Quintuple meter. You never made a single edit, however, to Quadruple meter. Check it out. Please note, however, that I suggest that if you wish to create a list of songs in that article, please do ones written in 4/2 or 4/8. 4/4 is very common and the article should merely mention that it's the most common time signature. Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Quintuple meter" is a new article, created by yourself I believe, along with Septuple meter. They both have required a great deal of editing, partly because you did not move the references along with the lists of musical pieces. Over the long term, both of these articles need to absorb into their prose sections as much of the material in the lists as possible. I can only presume that the article on quadruple meter follows this principle, and I am opposed to amassing trivia lists as a substitute for writing good articles. Your creation of these articles offers the opportunity of addressing an issue that has been blocked in the List of musical works in unusual time signatures, in that their titles refer to "meter" rather than "time signatures". I have already seized the opportunity to point out that time signatures are not necessarily identical with meter, and further examples are in the works.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan Brothers Waterloo, Iowa

Thanks for your reference, I am from the Waterloo area and patrol the cite. There is now a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#References for Notable people due to an editor inserting the {{unsourced section}} into the Waterloo Notable people section a few days ago. My question is since it is a book and not a website I can check, does it cite the connection to Waterloo and not just Notability (the disagreement with the now used tag). I think it probably does but I want to verify. If it does just leave the reference and I will accept it as verified, if not please remove it Thanks--RifeIdeas Talk 21:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of this dispute, and had assumed the issue was primarily the notability of the individuals named (and I was annoyed for this reason, since a bluelink on Wikipedia may be taken as evidence of notability, at least until the article to which it links has been challenged and deleted). My addition of the book in question was a mechanical matter of transferring the reference from the article on the Sullivan Brothers, and it certainly does verify they were from Waterloo. The fact it is a book and not an online source should not prevent anyone from confirming this, since Amazon.com offers a preview of it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide yo do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Persephone

I saw that. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing gets by you! :-D —Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been busy these holiday seasons, and am a bit late, but wanted to thank you for all the clean-up work you did on my expansion to the Ligeti "Atmospheres" article. My own forte is writing about film and literature, not at all about music. You are clearly a professional in the music field. All your amendations to my work were much appreciated.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. That article was desperately in need, not so much of being cleaned up as of being written in the first place! You made a good start in that direction, and I tried to steer things along as best as I could. It is always good to hear that your efforts are appreciated!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

modernity

Hi. You've placed a lot of "page required" tags on Modernity now, but there is a big judgement call to be made if I try to satisfy you. As these are summary paragraphs, to correctly tag every single assertion would require multiple page references per sentence. Or I could also break up the running flow of description to help. Either way it hurts the article's readability, and WP policy leaves such things to editors to decide ("page numbers where appropriate" says WP:V). It might even look like I was being deliberately WP:POINTy. Can you guide me a bit therefore about what bits you think most in need of referencing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If the added references were twenty-page articles this might well be a case in which page references are not required, but these are all books, in the neighborhood of 300 pages each. Surely these books themselves include summaries of their conclusions. The reader should not be expected, for example, to wade through two such full-length books to verify that "attempts were made [starting with Hobbes] to use the methods of the new modern physical sciences, … [in the] humanity [recte: humanities] and politics", and that "Attempts to improve upon … Hobbes include those of Locke, Spinoza, Giambattista Vico, and Rousseau", etc. At least a page range should be given, to localize the reader's search to, say, a single chapter. Compare the paragraph on Sociology, which indeed contains "page-less" citations, but to brief articles in encyclopedias, but for book references gives pointed, single-page citations. It is especially important to pare down locations when multiple books are cited at the end of a paragraph, since only one of several claims may be covered in any one of these books. I agree that keeping the references clustered at the end of a paragraph is much better than breaking up the flow with a reference at every separate claim, but such diffuse citations really will not do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It would be good but apparently it won't be possible. I have a lot of sources for these subjects, but that does not mean I can find one page number for a whole paragraph. A sentence with a list of five political philosophers or five revolutions can be expanded out into five paragraphs each with their own sourcing. But that's something I don't think justified, or positive. So I guess I need to put footnotes after every philosopher or revolution? In a way the style you are asking for is a little bit "catch 22". You are asking for sourcing to be in Harvard style at the end of each paragraph, but also to be page specific for everything in that paragraph?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are operating on the same wavelength at all. Look: one of the books you cite (Kennington 2004) is a collection of essays. It appears to be verifying the preceding paragraph, which contains three claims: (1) Francis Bacon argued for a new experimental-based approach to science, under the influence of Machiavelli, Copernicus, and Galileo, (2) Descartes argued that mathematics and geometry provided a model of how scientific knowledge could be built up in small steps, and that human beings could be understood as complex machines, and (3) Newton provided the classical example of how mathematics and experiment could lead to great advances in scientific understanding of nature in terms of "efficient causes". Now, I cannot believe that it required Kennington 304 pages and fourteen different essays to make these three simple points. At most, three different essays should be required, and that should cut down the reference to a maximum 65 pages. There is absolutely no need at all to break up the paragraph into tiny little pieces. Simply add the reduced page range to the reference, for example: "(Kennington 2004, 17–34, 171–93, 206–29)"—if indeed such generous spans of the book are really necessary to establish the facts in question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please understand my question is mainly just about preferred formatting. My initial insertions were all adjusted by you, and so I felt it better to try understanding your preferences. (Putting everything at the end of a paragraph and trying to avoid footnotes is not really the standard format in my humble opinion.) I'll try something, but I guess in the end you've developed a preferred method and hopefully you'll be able to adjust. Maybe if I have doubts I'll drop some direct quotes on the article talk page and ask you to help. Problem is that this is going to take time now and in the meantime I'm a bit busy with non Wikipedia things. Anyway, thanks so far, and I'll be back on to this, hopefully soon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is really all there is to your concern, I think you can relax. The reason for changing your formats was consistency with the established citation format in that article (one which I do happen to prefer myself). Parenthetical referencing may not be the standard format, but it is certainly a standard format (this is not a matter of opinion, but of Wikipedia guideline). If you are not yourself sure just how to use it, please feel free to add the requisite page numbers as best you can, and someone else will make the necessary adjustments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I continue to find your preferences a bit surprising. I know this does not mean they are against any policy of course. Anyway, I was more surprised this round by your removal of all the handy linking templates. That would seem to me to have been avoidable, and against the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) which says "build the web"? You also requested some page numbers for some essays within Strauss and Cropsey's History of Political Philosophy. I think it best you put them in, in order to get the format "right". Here they are, including the ones you did not ask for:

Berns, Laurence. 1987. "Thomas Hobbes". In History of Political Philosophy, third edition, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, ^{[page needed]}. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

369-420

Goldwin, Robert. 1987. "John Locke". In History of Political Philosophy, third edition, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226777081 (cloth); 0226777103 (pbk).

476-512

Rosen, Stanley. 1987. "Benedict Spinoza". In History of Political Philosophy, third edition, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, ^{[page needed]}. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

456-475

Strauss, Leo. 1987. "Niccolo Machiavelli". In History of Political Philosophy, third edition, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, ^{[page needed]}. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226777081 (cloth); ISBN 0226777103 (pbk).

296-317

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the page ranges. I have added these to the list of references. I have no objection in principle to the links—in fact, I think that they are an excellent idea. The trouble has to do with the fact that the template you used imposes quite a different format on the references, and I could not find a way of subverting it entirely to match the one in place. In particular, there seems to be no way of suppressing the parentheses around the year of publication without breaking the links. FWIW, reference formatting does not simply fall into two broad categories ("Harvard" and "Footnotes"). In fact, these two categories are not mutually exclusive: "Harvard" references can be placed in footnotes, though they are really meant for use with Parenthetical referencing; conversely, parenthetical referencing may employ author-page or author-title format, one variant of which is MLA style. The real problem is that there is no such thing as a Harvard format. Instead, the term covers a broad variety of reference formats that use "author-date" citations in the text (with some variations even there), but have quite distinct formatting in the list of References. The one found in the "Modernity" article is Chicago style, whereas the linking template appears to use some dialect of APA style. Perhaps someone with the requisite skill will adapt this so-called "Harvard template" to accommodate referencing formats other than the particular variant that it now imposes. In the meantime there are whole categories of information that cannot be inserted at all (series titles for books, for example), not to mention the correct ordering and punctuation of multiple author names, representation of volume and issue numbers of journals, placement of editor and translator names, etc., all of which are part of reference formats—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the harv family of templates, for your reference (I actually found the "nb" version while editing this article):

{{harv|Smith|Jones|White|Black|2010}}: (Smith et al. 2010)
{{harvnb|Smith|Jones|White|Black|2010}}: Smith et al. 2010
{{harvtxt|Smith|Jones|White|Black|2010}}: Smith et al. (2010)
{{harvcoltxt|Smith|Jones|White|Black|2010}}: Smith et al. (2010)

There are more options.

Concerning multiple author names, volume and issue numbers of journals, editors, isbn numbers, etc these are all standard parameters in the Citation type templates. Some of the ones you removed showed how these work. I think the only one I have not worked out is translator, but I notice the Modernity article right now is not generally mentioning them. Such extra parameters can be added at the end outside the template. One of the things I like about the Citation templates is that they ensure all references will have the same format, making it easier for lots of editors to work together without lots of extra work.

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidently some considerable work has been done in the last few months on this template (which I believe was first introduced only about six months ago). I shall have to look into this, thank you. The problem with adding material "outside the template" is that it will display either before or after all of the material that is inside the template. Perhaps this can be gotten around, but it certainly defeats the whole purpose of the template (ensuring that all references have the same format, as you say) if, for example, in order to get a series title and number to display before the place and publisher it becomes necessary to remove the latter two items from the template and place them outside it. And there remains the problem of finding a template that will provide any already-established format, since there is a very large number of formats recognized as valid on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I have also had my run-ins with these templates in the past. There is one article on my watchlist where the only solution I could come up with at the time was to use "Smith et al" as if it were a last name. This is now difficult to fix, and bots just make it worse. But now the templates can create et al. references from multiple surnames, as in the examples above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's one I hadn't even thought of! Of course, the phrase "et al." should never occur in a list of references, but only in the inline citation whenever there are more than three authors. This must play havoc with these templates, though perhaps there is a way of piping, e.g., "Jones, et al. 1933" in an inline ref to "Jones, James, Everett Balderdash, William Nonsense, and Madeleine Fruitcake 1933" in the ref list. In order to get around the name-order problem for subsequent authors I have sometimes entered both first and last names in the "last name" field, leaving "first name" blank. That seems to work well for that particular situation, but is only a small part of the problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can actually be piped as you wish now. Look at the examples above where Smith|Jones|White|Black (all correctly listed in both the harv and citation templates) would give Smith et al. in the visible body text, and I believe all linking should worked so that you click on what looks like Smith et al. and come to a citation in the reference list giving a full list of authors. Still learning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a chance to peruse the template page and I now see that progress has been made. There is still a long way to go, however. The in-text citation styles seem limited to just two: with a colon introducing a page citation (I don't know whose style this is), or with the abbreviateion "p." (APA style). These are very particular formats, and the more common in my experience is to precede the page number only with a comma. I don't see this offered as an option yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

List of composers by name (Revisited)

Hi - I know you've had discussions before about the (extremely broad) List of composers by name but how would you feel about establishing some minimal criteria for inclusion in this list?

You may have noticed that I have been trying to flesh out the list over the last few months by adding a variety of genuine composers with WP biographies. Personally I feel that if this list has any merit at all it is that genuine composers can be located without having to know much specific about them (such as their dates, era, genre) - but it detracts considerably if non-composers, etc. are thrown in as well.

As a first step I'd like to suggest removing all redlinks from this list. I'm not against redlinks in composer lists generally - in lists with a narrower defined scope editors should be able to determine whether a redlink fits or not. Indeed I feel redlinks can be positively useful for indicating gaps -something which a category can't do - but in this list it's not so easy to draw up boundaries. The benefits of removing redlinks here would be to remove dubious entries from self-publicists etc. Of course there are quite a lot of genuine composers here who are still redlinks too (particularly under 'L' where someone seems to have gone through Grove and added dozens), but they could remain redlinks on more specific lists and be added to this one once someone has written a biography.

Naturally any change like this needs some level of general support and once implemented would need to be clearly stated. At this stage I'm just trying to find out what you think. (RT) (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Halleluia! The date-limited composer lists (at least, the 20th and 21st-century ones) were weeded out some months ago. This "all-time" list is a much more daunting prospect, but certainly the first step should be to remove all redlinks. I have noticed your work over the past few months, and have occasionally been shocked to see some important names that were somehow overlooked up to them—bravo!

As you say, there are a few redlinks that might serve to prompt editors to create articles for genuinely notable individuals (Reinbert de Leeuw, for example), but they are fairly thin on the ground by comparison. One important thing will be to add a warning note at the top, to the effect that "only notable composers need apply" (or however the comparable notes with the 20th and 21st-century lists go). Then there is the prospect of turning this Leviathan into a list sortable by name, date of birth, date of death, etc. But one thing at a time, eh?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree one thing at a time. And an appropriate rubric at the top. On your point about sortable lists I've taken up the challenge again of converting the Baroque (and hopefully the Classical era lists) in the near future - this should be sortable by last name, date of birth and death allowing for qualifications like 'circa', 'before', correct sorting of names containing special characters, etc. If it works well it should be a model for this one too. (RT) (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds very promising. Thanks for calling my attention to your work-in-progress on those lists, which I do not routinely watch.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've made a start. Lead paragraph of List of composers by name is rewritten - see what you think. All redlinks now removed. (RT) (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed the redlink removals and, though I was sorry to see the loss of a few favourites (Osbert Parsley, for one—what a fantastic name, and a composer of some very interesting music, as well), they can always be added back in when an article on them has been written by one of their heretofore laggard supporters. I shall take a look at your new lede, which I expect is just the thing. (You can count on hearing from me if it is not!).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I felt sorry about removing some of them too, including the said Osbert Parsley, but I think overall the list is better for the surgery. I've noted all those removed and, as you say, some should make a reappearance once biographies are written - I hope to write certain ones in due course. In the meantime redlinks of merit for the Renaissance, Baroque and Classical eras will be added to their respective period-specific lists - if not there already - with links to suitable on-line biographies. (RT) (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read your new lede and, just as I suspected, it is absolutely splendid. I think it should serve as a model for ledes in other lists of similar nature. In the meantime, I think I shall start mining the redlink deletions from the edit history for names of worthy composers for whom I should create articles. I think William Smyth Rockstro may be near the top of the list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Musical form

Please contribute to discussion at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_21#Category:Musical_forms

Thanks Redheylin (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I hope my contribution to that discussion does not disappoint you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		For your unparalleled ability to use a Wikimop in poorly-sourced music-related articles, I hereby award you with the Wikimedal for Janitorial Services. Specifically, your work on Aleatoricism caught my eye, and I was impressed how short work was made of it. It is better to have a stub and be thought insufficient than to have reams of The Truth. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am truly honoured, your Excellency!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)