User talk:DavidRF/archive 3

{{Vacation}} DavidRF (talk · contribs)

Classical Music assessment page

In view of your past interest in this, I wonder if you can have a look at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#New_Assessment_page_by_NocturneNoir? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme

'(rv - sorry, looks like its just an arrangement. Stuff like this happens all the time.)

No, this was a completely different composition, not just an arrangement of Bach's work - in fact, the Feb. 28 performance featured the Bach version first, then Sandström's version. Beyond the text, they are not at all alike; the musical structure is vastly different. I attended it, and have a recording of it, but it's not something that I can redistribute. SIGBUS (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi

You once suggested that a table might be a better way of representing the List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi. I have now published my second draft on that article's talk page and I would welcome your comments. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Trumpetrep

This user created two categories, Trumpet repertoire and Trumpet Repertoire, both of which need maintenance, if not deletion. I am not familiar with WP's CFD policies. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 03:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I kinda like what's he's done to the sandbox page, might move/merge that into what's on the article. Q T C 05:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn Scores

David, do you have any idea whether we can excerpt the scores from muse under the GDFL? I was thinking it might be nice to expand our Haydn set with some examples. Tx for the backup at the Mozart page, btw. Also, could you dig up the ref for the obbligato on 98 and add it in? I think it should be in the article I sent you a while back. Ta! Eusebeus (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

David, I just became a member of both CM and DG. I think discographies have the potential to illuminate the performance history of a piece of music, because they usually 'freeze' the thoughts about performance at the time they're made. They also have the potential to get out of hand. Katalogo Kochela (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the Haydn 30th, the trumpet and timpani issue is interesting. As for the 'farm,' I think it's kind of sad there are a lot less of us than it would seem. And as for advertising, unlikely as it is, it might not be such a bad thing for classical music (that's supposedly dying). Katalogo Kochela (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get caught up in any witch-hunts, so thanks for the heads up. Maybe I should just find something else to do with all my free time. Katalogo Kochela (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I can just stay out of that guy's way. Just the music part of this site ought to be quite big enough for me to do some small good and not have to fight anyone. Katalogo Kochela (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bye

Just recently I realized that I have lots of miles rewards I need to redeem, and plenty of time to travel. I would get more enjoyment of my free time writing a travelogue (on paper) that no one else would read than of worrying that my contributions to Wikipedia will be completely annihilated by wikiwarriors and boogeymen.

So I'm taking a trip to Germany, Austria, and Italy. I'll be back here before Independence Day. But I don't know if I'll want to edit Wikipedia again, since people like Eusebeus will probably have more power and reach in a few months. Besides you, no one will miss or even remember what I did here. Thank you for the hospitality you have shown me, it has been the exception rather than the rule. Katalogo Kochela (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with bullies

I went to Schissel for help first, but maybe you can help. I don't know how to deal with Eusebeus the bully. Wikipedia shouldn't be held hostage by one person's creative interpretation of the policies. One person shouldn't just get to decide that thousands of true, verified facts should just get deleted. That one person shouldn't be able to cite any policy and have no one challenge him on that the policy doesn't actually justify what he pretends it allows him to do. That one person shouldn't be able to make the rule that he can make any changes he wants to, but anyone else must get his approval to make those changes (especially when those "changes" are merely restoring the concensus of everyone else). That one person shouldn't be able to use boogeymen to threaten those who disagree with his misinterpretations of the policies (and he probably created those boogeymen in the first place). Nor should it matter whether the true fact is added by a boogeyman or by anyone other than him: if it's true and verified, even if the spelling is wrong and the grammar bad, it should stay. Is there any way to stop that bully? For added poetic justice, is there a way to bring him down using a policy he has used against others? KK predicts that Eusebeus will have more power in the future. He certainly will if we allow him. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know who else used too much sarcasm? Dmitri Shostakovich. He lived much of his life under Stalin's regime. Stalin knew little about music yet made important decisions about it, and no one could challenge his ignorance.
I didn't mean to insult you about not seeing the Goddard film. I was just giving you my opinion of it. If you still want to see it, I can't stop you. You might even like that film. Which is why I don't have the right to impose my opinions on others, and neither should Eusebeus.
You've called Eusebeus "draconian" on at least two occasions. Doesn't that indicate some excess? Wouldn't you also consider Senator McCarthy and Attorney Ashcroft draconian? Whether the fear tactic involves communists, terrorists or sockpuppets, it's still a fear tactic. (Which of those three should be the scariest, by the way?) You've also said that Eusebeus "often he reverts before he thinks"'. Isn't there something wrong with that? Maybe he does think before he reverts, and maybe it goes something like this: "That edit is an affront to my authority/ownership. Revert." How do you explain his removing of the fact that in Haydn's 30th the flute is only called for in the slow movement? Do you think that that's trivia (given how you don't find the timpani issue to be trivia)? No, it's just to show his authority to remove any fact, no matter how well-documented.
In the end it's the content that will suffer. From Shostakovich we at least have the Stalinoid scherzos. There won't be any Eusebean scherzos. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I don't use sarcasm, I might be able "to tip an edit-revert debate in your [my] favor"? I don't want to tip debates in my favor. I want to tip debates in favor of giving the facts. I want to tip debates against allowing anyone ownership of articles, especially on topics they know little about. I want to tip debates against suppressing content based on flimsy interpretations of the policies. I want to tip debates against shutting out any editors who give facts and can back them up.
It would be easy for me to see Wikipedia as a hobby if it was some obscure resource only a few specialists used, specialists aware of its flaws (and it has many). But that's not the case. Do you know how many people blindly believe Wikipedia? Worse, they think it's as true and complete as a general reference can be, which is far from the case.
But even though this is a hobby for you, you have a lot more time to spend on it than I have. What hope do I have of defeating article owners, even in a very limited topic? Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haydn's No. 48 is an extremely rare example of Eusebeus not asserting his ownership as flagrantly. The Grim reference was added by one of those big, bad, evil sockpuppets (worse than Hitler!). Any reference that doesn't come from Eusebeus is derided as not being 'scholarly enough' (code for "it comes from my enemy"). Now, he's trying to hang a sock jacket on me, so anyone who disagrees with him must be a sock. I wouldn't put it past him to create socks in order to pin them on me (which might explain Gulp.seven up). This supposedly gives him the right to remove anything on his say-so alone, regardless of truth or verifiability. My sockmaster is a Jupiterian who's set up base on our Moon. Anyway, even with the 48th you saw how Eusebeus chucks useful information only on the basis of who added it. This keeps Wikipedia safe from terrorism somehow. It's in the interest of national security to let Eusebeus do as he pleases.
By the way, the 48th would be my favorite C major symphony if it weren't for the 97th. I say this without any sarcasm whatsoever: thank you for sharing your opinion of the 27th as Haydn's worst symphony. Do you have any opinion on what is Mozart's worst symphony? Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of explanations

On account of how nice you were to me and how nice you're to others, even when it's hard (when others would respond with the same acidity they received), I feel I owe you a few explanations.

I'd been consulting Wikipedia for about five years now. Its coverage of traditional encyclopedia topics is very good. But I have a traditional encyclopedia, and I prefer to use that for those topics.

Where Wikipedia could excel is in all those topics that there's no room for in the traditional encyclopedia. But for those topics, at least in music, the coverage is a lot less than the corresponding article in any one of the specialized books I have. (The articles about small towns in Europe, however, do seem a little more useful than the travel guides I bought earlier today).

It wasn't until recently that I started looking "behind the scenes" at talk pages and edit histories, and it seems to me that if I had contributed anything substantial it would've just gotten deleted without any evaluation of whether it was any good.

Let me be clear that I wouldn't have minded my writing being reworded. But to just see it deleted completely as if it was vandalism, that would have been annoying. Most other people in that situation then fight. In fact, I foresee that 95% of the little I did will be reverted, possibly by Eusebeus and any socks he might have, and it will be as if I had never edited Wikipedia.

But I don't want to fight at a computer screen, it's just not how I want to spend the time I have left on this earth. I will pass my library in my inheritance. Here at Wikipedia, I will probably only leave a cryptographic challenge, if that.

Well, I gotta get back to packing. Katalogo Kochela (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments tacet

Technically it's correct to just list instruments without saying when they're silent. The issue of the silent flute in the Haydn 30th is not a big deal in relation to contemporary works. But more people would probably take it in relation to Beethoven. By that standard, omitting a flute in a first movement is kind of weird, and one would think worthy of at least a little comment. This particular issue, however, is just one small detail of Eusebeus asserting his ownership of that article by deleting anything he wouldn't have written. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barber's Excursions page

Hey thanks for the help. Obviously I'm new to writing on Wikipedia, I had read about the single/double quotes and I forgot about that. Thanks again for the help. Insertalias (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to John Serry, Sr. article

Dear DavidRF: Just as a quite note to thank you for removing several Category designations from this page (Category: Concertos, Solo piano pieces ect.) These designations were posted on the page unintentionally as a result of a merger between two musical composition articles: American Rhapsody, Concerto For Free Bass Accordion and the parent article about the composer of these works John Serry, Sr. I am an inexperienced contributer so please forgive the error. I have attempted to re-list these compositions on the category pages for the following categories: Concertos, Solo piano pieces, and Accordion Compositions. I hope that this is permitted. In addition, I would be grateful if you could examine the parent article John Serry, Sr. for any improvements and/or editorial enhancements which you might suggest. Apparently the article is now subject to extensive re-editing since it has been determined that I am the principal author who is related to the subject of the article (son)--raising objectivity concerns. Alas, this somewhat puzzling since I identified myself as the author when the article was first submitted as a biographical article and rated as a B-class submission by the editor. (It has now been reclassified to a lower level and appears to be poised to undergo extensive revisions after several attempts were made to challenge the listings of American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion in a deletion review. I suspect that some of the current editors lack sufficient expert knowledge of the topic and the history of music discussed in the article. Perhaps you could add the article to your TO-Do List for expert analysis by a musical editor who has a more thorough understanding of the evolution of the instrument and the musicians who utilized it during the early 20th century. The resulting analysis might prove to be helpful in maintaining a balance between the twin themes of the article: the biography of a noted musician and his contributions to the advancement of an instrument which was largely ignored by classical musicians of the early 20th century in the USA. It is not intended as an attempt to eulogize and/or memorialize an individual as several editors have concluded, but rather to document his efforts to engage and collaborate with other artists of his era in the advancement of an orphaned instrument on to the classical concert stage. Thanks again for your consideration and interest. Respectfully:--Pjs012915 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[[User:pjs012915[reply]

  • Hi DavidRf: Many thanks for your prompt reply. I appreciate your insights and thanks for responding so quickly. After submitting several

revisions of my dad's (John Serry Sr.) biography I have decided to abandon any further editorial attempts. I rather suspect that I lack a comprehensive understanding of the editorial process and the manner in which articles are subjected to authoritative review. In so far as this article is concerned with an unusual topic in the history of music in the USA, I believe that it should be reviewed by at least one individual who has an above average knowledge of the era. In the event that you are familiar with such an editor, feel free to forward my thoughts about the article for further consideration before the cleanup process is finalized.

  • Alas, I agree with your assessment that the article is quite long. This is due in part, however, to the prolonged efforts which the musician made to gain acceptance for his instrument among professional orchestral ensembles and the resistance which he encountered from publishers and

even fellow musicians who looked upon the instrument in purely ethnic terms. Having achieved success at the CBS network ( which was known to uphold some of the highest orchestral standards of the era in the CBS Orchestra), these endeavors continued for decades -- a considerable achievement for an independent soloist and musician. If you enjoy learning more about this era consider reading the following articles which I also authored for Wikipedia: Alfredo Antonini (conductor and musical director at CBS; Robert Strassburg - a music educator, composer, classmate of Leonard Bernstein, Edmund Chester, broadcast executive at CBS and Viva America which was produced at CBS during World War II to foster better diplomatic relations with South America and in order to showcase professional musical talents from both North and South America. I hope you find them to be enjoyable! In the event that your musical interests extend into the realm of modern fusion jazz piano, consider downloading some samples of my brother's John Serry, Jr. CD's (which can be found on MySpace.com) under the name John Serry --You might be surprised to find musical elements from Bach, Mozart and Stravinsky synthesized with modern jazz harmonies. Enjoy!

  • Once again, many thanks for your thoughts and best wishes for your future endeavors on Wikipedia. With respect : --Pjs012915 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)User;pjs012915[reply]
  • Dear DavidRF: Many thanks once again for your reply. I could not agree more with your observations. Evidently poor editorial practices on the part of past users is having its effect on current editorial practice. Hence, my interest in directing editorial control of the article into

the hands of an experienced musicologist. Feel free to direct such an editor to my talk page in the event that one can be found. Thanks again for your help! Best regards----Pjs012915 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915[reply]

The Storm (Tchaikovsky)

Minuet form

Yes, quite correct. As you also know, in an analysis one can pick a middleground layer in which the first and last movements of a symphony each get two or three notes. In such a layer, the trio of a minuet might register as a single note, e.g. a neighbor note to the dominant scale step. But this particular example is likelier in Beethoven and more so in Schubert. In Haydn and Mozart, the trio might not even register this close to the background layer. So, if we move a few middleground layers closer to the foreground in an analysis of a 4-movement Haydn symphony, we might find that the trio is a 3- or 4-prg or an arpeggiation of the minuet notes. But I haven't performed this kind of analysis for any Haydn symphony.

In the case of I:5 in A, it's possible the 2do menuet registers in the middleground in a radically different way than a typical Haydn trio would. Haydn of course would have been unaware that it would so appear as this method of analysis hadn't even been invented in his time. In any case, this style of analysis is perhaps still too new to be applied to Haydn's earlier, less popular symphonies.

It's also possible that there is a much simpler explanation for the different terminology: perhaps with I:5 we catch Haydn at a time when the term "trio" was evolving. So, some modern editors, finding it a regular trio, label it as such. Other editors, however, prefer to come as close as possible in every detail of the original manuscript, even in regards to notational quirks and archaic notations.

If you find an explanation already published, please add it to the article. But if instead you figure out the explanation yourself, you should publish it as a paper. Shteblin (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi David. Good Lord, do you have any idea what on earth this comment is supposed to mean? "The trio registers as a neighbour note to the dominant scale step"??? Sounds like Schenker on acid. Anyway, I actually came by to thank you for the recent edits across the Haydn symphonic corpus. Well done. Eusebeus (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Went a bit over my head, too. Sounds like its referring to some hyper-unified symphonic form where everything form all the movements related. Anyhow, the editor is well-meaning enough and who knows, he might be onto something. Not my concern as the editor seems to have retired due to worries about his reputation (my guess is he could be an assistant musicology prof somewhere) and there's a no WP:OR policy. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quit joshing, Dave, you understood everything she wrote. I know next to nothing about Schenkerian analysis (besides that it has to do with Schenker), but I bet you a shiny sixpence Shteblin's a woman, and she sells seashells by the seashore. You didn't really think you were telling her anything she didn't already know when you talked about trios being orchestrated lightly and so forth. Even I knew that, and I can't tell A flat from B flat! Willi Gers07 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster-Valois

Sorry but you have to remember Henry V was adopted Charles VI and Isebaue of Bravia and appeared as the valois Heir to CharleS VI thus abandining his plantagement claim.Your statement of it bieng wrong is wrong.Dont take it as offence.I will provide you reference.


1.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read a few pages back and you will notice there is no contridiction with salic law.This salic law contridiction has nothing to do with the treaty.This missconseption is made by average users whom just look at the treaty without even studying it with detail.If you still need more confirmation I wil be sincere enough to provide you with more.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is more:


http://books.google.com/books?id=gFfaD4JdZhwC&pg=PA45&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA601&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=


main book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PP1&dq=contending+kingdoms+of+England+and+France&lr=#PPA23,M1 .



I hope you now understand my point.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music template

Hi, I noticed that you changed direct uses of ♯ and ♭ to use the music template instead. Just curious what your reasoning was? Is there a guideline on this? It just seems to make the wikitext harder to read, to me. Stevage 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for that explanation - that makes sense. I didn't know the music template was doing so much. Stevage 04:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonies by Haydn

Could you check the introductión of No. 40, I think there is a sentence missing somewhere. Cheers! OboeCrack (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Established Editors

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "bad link" templating

How is the Associated Press not an acceptable source? A convenience link is not required. You could also take a look at, say, Google News to find a convenience link for an AP wire story rather than just templating. In this case I added one to Houston Chronicle as soon as it went online following the initial AP Google News result. Also your {{badlink}} template effort does not show up as a template. Formatting problem? Edison (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was funny. I heard Coleman concede on CNN, and added the info to the article, since hundreds of thousands may click on Wikipedia to find out if a Senator has been determined for sure yet after hearing of the court ruling. But for several minutes, there was nothing about it on the internet, and I was left without anything but a live broadcast to cite. I had about decided to revert the addition when the AP story came up. AP direct links go away after a few weeks, so the trick is to find the AP piece on a newspaper site which may persist. (I know, we're not on deadline). Edison (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and goodbye

Well, David, I'm back. It was a nice trip. My wife thinks I wrote a very good travelogue and it's worth publishing, I don't know. (If it does get published, look for an author with the same initials as the author of a book on orchestration). I hope you're doing well. Wikipedia has helped me appreciate writing by hand again. I didn't realize how gratifying it could be to write something without worrying about it getting deleted arbitrarily.

There were a couple of times that I got on a computer while I was over there. But the connection wasn't fast enough to do anything besides check my personal e-mail. Now that I'm back, I see that even though I got dragged into the witch-hunt, there's still a tiny bit of what I did left on here anyway. Perhaps Eusebeus is still too busy undoing more prolific departed editors.

My wife also suggested that you might be the real Floristan to Eusebeus. I really doubt it. Even if she's right, there's still a real human being on the other end, not a rissole or a spambot. Actually, I hope she's wrong. You've got at least a little power in this dump and hopefully you'll continue to use it to be a beacon of commonsense. Bye. Katalogo Kochela (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gosh David, is this nonsense still going on? Lots of socks down on the farm I see. Let's rd the Requiem sub pages. The text is more appropriate for wikisource. Eusebeus (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd character

Hi, You helped me out with an "odd" character in the List of recorded compositions by Ferruccio Busoni. I was hoping you could give me some feedback on another one: it's supposed to be an asterisk (＊). Does this display correctly for you in your browser? Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "<nowiki>*</nowiki> depicting as (*)" - [Wow! My brain has some trouble getting around this.] Thanks for checking, and the "nowiki" tip. I hadn't realized that the unicode special characters could be a problem. BTW, the character is named FULLWIDTH ASTERISK with unicode: FF0A. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sessions

Many thanks! Thinking of starting something with his When Lilacs next, depending on a few things. (And really hoping sometime to find Prausnitz's book in a used bookstore, but that's neither here nor there) Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]