en User talk:Rigaudon

AMN minuets

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I would like to ask you to please refrain from boldly making potentially controversial edits, such as the ones you did to Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach and Minuet in G major. It is better to discuss such edits on talk pages first. Petzold's authorship is now almost universally accepted; every recent book on Bach I can think of attributes the minuets to him, and I believe that even the latest edition of Schmeider's catalogue notes this (although I don't have it available at the moment). --Jashiin (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added three references, including one to Grove Online: I don't have the actual paper version of New Grove, but Grove Online lists some of the anonymous pieces as Bach's, NOT including the minuets Anh. 114-115, and then proceeds to explain that the notebook also has pieces by a range of composers, including Petzold. The other two references are to Williams and Schulenberg, who specifically mention the minuets in question. You are probably right about the "relatively recent" bit (I couldn't find any early sources for it), but when the attribution is accepted by leading scholars (Wolff and Williams, in this case), I think it warrants the "almost universally accepted" bit.

And I'm sorry if I overreacted - its just that we had a somewhat painful authorship question situation at another article recently, and I guess I'm still feeling the after-effects. --Jashiin (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the books at the moment either. I looked them up at Google Books and Amazon. You can read little fragments in both cases. Schulenberg writes that the two minuets 114-115 are "from a suite by Pezold." Williams states "by Petzold" and gives his source as Bach-Jahrbuch 1978, p. 54. (Bach-Jahrbuch is an annual academic journal dedicated to Bach). --Jashiin (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings...

Hello, Tempo rubato, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project tags

Hello again!

I'm very impressed by your edits. New editors who actually add new material and create new articles are relatively rare, I can't really remember the last time I saw one... Well, I just wanted to say that your contributions are appreciated. As for the project tags I've added, you can read more about WikiProjects at WP:PROJ. Adding tags to talk pages and/or joining the actual projects is not mandatory, but the tags do help: they eventually alert people to new articles, let people (or bots) assess the articles and provide statistical information useful to editors of a particular project, etc. As for joining the projects, it kind of makes editing a little easier, as you can alert people to articles in need of attention, new AfD's, potential candidates for FA, request help, etc. You can look into the individual projects for more information, i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music, and others. The discussions are at the respective talk pages.

Best,

--Jashiin (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the WikiProject Classical Music!!--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username

You will have to contact DeWiki, or maybe a steward and let them know about the stolen username. If they have questions, please tell them to contact me. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global accounts are handled by stewards on meta; they would be the most likely to be able to help. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think m:Steward requests/SUL requests is a good place to start. -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; good luck! -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ginette Martenot

Re your comment on my talk page: you are welcome! I actually was more interested in the "She" that started the following sentence, apparently referring to the wrong person! David Brooks (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard

Hi there Rigaudon, I wanted to let you know that you are currently being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard. The specific matter under discussion can be found by following the link in the previous sentence. Discussion is not restricted to administrators, and you are welcome and encouraged to comment with any relevant information you have. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen cadence

From what I remember, the Amen cadence is IV-V-I and the melody is "la-ti-do". Am I wrong? 87.69.130.159 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you are. The Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians entry for "Amen Cadence" simply says "See Plagal Cadence." The entry for Plagal Cadence places "Amen Cadence" in square brackets immediately after the title of the entry - as "Plagal cadence [Amen cadence]". And the definition given is "A Cadence consisting of a subdominant chord followed by a tonic chord (IV–I), normally both in root position." Also, the Oxford Dictionary of Music entry for "Cadence or Close" says "Amen Cadence = Plagal cadence", while it defines Plagal Cadence as "Chord of the Subdominant followed by that of Tonic."

Speaking just as me, without looking for references, I'd say that the melody for the A-men is doh-doh. Rigaudon (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, I guess I simply confused it with the Hebrew version. By the way, I've answered in regards to the other edit on Jerome Kohl's talk page. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute: Thirteenth

With User:87.69.130.159. I'm citing sources, anonymous is not and is accusing me of making invalid contributions and describing those and describing those as incivility. Also So What chord, chord-scale system, Parallel harmony, and less so with Petrushka chord. Hyacinth (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review these proposed changes

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#Proposed_changes_to_lead_section. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CTM election notice

WikiProject Contemporary music

Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator.

P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

CTM scope review

Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:

We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:

It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 13:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes

In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 06:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]