Jump to content

User talk:Hyacinth/Music II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re Bertram Turetzky is the most recorded contrabass soloist in America.

Hyacinth as a matter of interest where did you obtain the information (that "Bertram Turetzky is the most recorded contrabass soloist in America") It's an interesting statment!

--Steve Abrahall 02:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evan Ziporyn

Hello. I notice that the addition of Evan Ziporyn to the list of experimental musicians is labeled a "minor" edit. Does that mean he's a minor experimental musician? Michael Hardy 15:10, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Did you notice my additions to the Evan Ziporyn article?Hyacinth 17:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

List of African American composers

Hi. You moved List of African American composers to List of composers of African descent. African American is not at all the same thing as African, and American composers who are black would surely be a different list to composers who are African or of African descent. "Composer" doesn't imply "American". - David Gerard 11:56, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Rumba clave

Hi again - I think I fixed Image:3-2 Rumba clave.PNG after a bit of messing about. I don't think you were doing anything wrong in trying to revert to that earlier version, the system just seems to have been behaving oddly for a time. Just one thing - I'm guessing you made that image yourself; if so, could you say as much on the image page, as people are starting to get a bit concerned about us having copyrighted images and so on. Should stave off problems in the future. Cheers--Camembert

Pitch accent

Re your recent addition to the pitch accent page, could you clarify what it means to have pitch accent affected by voicing? I think you may be meaning something else. "Voicing" refers to the vibration of the vocal cords (/b/ and /n/ are voiced, /p/ and /s/ are unvoiced or voiceless). I don't know about Shanghainese, but AFAIK Japanese accent doesn't interact with voice... Pablo-flores 14:28, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All I added was, "For pitch accent in music, see: accent." Sorry I can't help you.Hyacinth 08:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New Musicology

Hey, you should actually write a whole article on New Musicology - currently it's just a redirect to musicology, making its addition somewhat less interesting than it could be.

Thanks for your input on the project, btw. Snowspinner 05:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Transcribers What is a transcriber in this context? I started the other skills-based listings and was thinking of starting one for Translators (ie polyliguists). What do you think? - Gaz 16:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel minor/major

Hi, As you probably know, wikipedia doesn't like names with slashes. Do you have any objections if I rename "Relative (parallel) minor/major" to "Relative (parallel) minor" resp., and redirect all accordingly? Mikkalai 04:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of solo cello pieces

Just to let you know that I speedily deleted the above because a) I feel the name ought to be "List of" rather than "Lists of", and b) it had no content other than the category it's in. Surely to be in a category it needs some content? -- Graham  :) | Talk 06:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indonesian Spellings

Hi Hyacinth,

I'm wondering if you know of any discussions in Wikipedia about Indonesian spellings. I've noticed in several entries that the old Dutch influenced spelling is used. Indonesia reformed their spelling a few decades back, and I believe these spellings should be used in articles with the alternate spellings mentioned explicitly as the old spelling. For instance, in Kecak you mention that it is also spelled ketjak but later on you don't use the new spelling kecak. Before I go around correcting these, I want to make certain that I am not undoing a decision that was discussed previously, or if there was a decision, I want to know who to convince that it was decided the wrong way. --Samuel Wantman 10:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for being civil! I find Wikipedians a bit harsh at times. --Samuel Wantman 07:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David Cope

That's pretty cool that you were working on the David Cope page. I took one of his classes here at UCSC a few years ago... Voyager640 07:41, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Susan McClary

Hi Hyacinth, I'd like to start doing a little writing on Susan McClary. This is rather delicate, since to tell you the truth I think her work is quite wrong, in both the scholarly and the ethical sense. I really hate conflicts with other Wikipedia editors, but in this case I think I'm willing to risk it, because NPOV demands that we present both positive and negative opinions of McClary--you know, of course, that she is a very controversial figure.

At any rate, what I propose to do first is to limit the conflict zone to the McClary article itself. What this would involve would be moving the section on McClary's views concerning Sonata form to the McClary article, replacing it with a summary. Then, any negative evaluation of McClary's opinions about sonata form could appear in the McClary article, together with the other critical stuff, leaving Sonata form unruffled. Does this seem ok to you as a start? Regards, Opus33 15:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

<Hyacinth replies on Opus33's user page.>
Ok, thanks Hyacinth, I will try to proceed as judiciously as I can. There's various stuff I ought to read first, your page included. Opus33 17:49, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Blackfoot music

Talk:Blackfoot music. Badanedwa 07:21, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Reverts

I reverted your user page, as someone cleared it and asked a question that should have been placed on the talk page. Mike H 17:38, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
It's happened twice. I suggest you take this Missy Elliott thing up with the user who keeps blanking your page. I reverted it the second time as well. Mike H 19:26, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Here's the question:

Quick Question:

Why did you put information about "Back In The Day" on the Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott page? Just wondering...

I'm breaking this from Wikihate because people believe the two might be related. Mike H 19:45, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't report the user on the page you linked. I wouldn't know what to do with that. Mike H 19:51, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It did take you a while to respond, didn't it? Mike H 20:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

McClary's essay

Hello, I've two questions for you at Talk:Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music. Cheers, AxelBoldt 15:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your continued work in music related and other articles. Your intelligence and efforts are most valued, so keep up the good work that you do :) Dysprosia 09:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Hyacinth

Hello

Hi Hyacinth, I wanted to say hello. I found some of your excellent articles on music. Excellent work. I'll be adding some other composers and music-related topics. Be well! Antandrus 02:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.Hyacinth 17:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Variations on America

Hi, Hyacinth! I'm enjoying your work on List of pieces which use polytonality, so I thought I'd share a minor point of order. Ives's Variations on America as written in 1891 had no polytonal sections. The polytonal interludes seem to have been added about 1909-1910 (see stultifying detail). Make of this what you will, but it may be of importance in terms of the history of polytonal works. - Nunh-huh 22:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth--Unless you are also 209.6.196.152, my "grr" wasn't directed at you. I think your post laid out a reasonable position (even if I disagree with it), but 209.6.196.152's had a tone of "why can't the world be just the way I want it," which is what elicited a grr from me. "Grr" is a pretty mild oath in any event. Thanks for touching base, and hope I didn't offend. Opus33 23:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Women composers

Hi Hyacinth, 

 Thought you'd be interested in helping me fill out my new category, Category:Women composers.

word, Jimaltieri 08:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for mentioning the Stravinski composing in serial style in atonality, I had meant to add it later.

User:Stirling Newberry

No problem. Hyacinth 21:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Berger

Hi. Nice work on the Arthur Berger article. I caught a couple o'typos but was unclear on some meaning in the first paragraph. Studied under, graduated, etc. Could you take a look? jericho4.0 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How to send notes & other content

Hi Hyacinth,

Recently I performed changes to:

Would be very glad to know reactions on the content of these changes/contributions/remarks (e.g. also on the Vexations Midi-files I published on that page - is that an acceptable way to do that?)! --Francis Schonken 21:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-> Thanks for your answer, I kinda figured out it worked this way. btw, regarding User:Hyacinth#Top_Nine_Pieces: "3 gymnopédies orchestrated by Debussy": Claude Debussy only orchestrated two of the three Gymnopédies, changing their numbering. ;) --Francis Schonken 07:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

!!!! Hi Hyacinth, I would be VERY, VERY glad if you could have a look at Talk:Erik_Satie (and/or invite other Satie-lovers to have a look). Please send comments (or insert them directly in the Erik Satie discussion page), thanks! --Francis Schonken 13:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Erik Satie, categorization and the "classical" debates

Hi Hyacinth,

  • I recategorized Erik Satie, seeing you did the last recategorizations prior to mine: I try to explain how I approached this (in order of occurence):
    • "Business Card" type of categorizations:
      • Birth, Death - automatic, I had not to do with this;
      • French musician - NEW - for categorization by nationality: while he was both composer & pianist musician seemed most appropriate;
      • composer and pianist - again: composer "top" category, because none of the composer subcategories really fits him: he was too avant garde to fit in classical;
    • "Non-Business Card categories", according to wikipedia:categorization of people I sought for the 4 or 5 words that best characterise him, and found:
      • fin de siècle - which, in my view, characterises him best before the "cabaret" episode;
      • cabaret - the period he rejected afterwards, but was nonetheless an important factor, e.g. leading to compositions like Je te veux;
      • Neoclassicism (music) - referring to his Schola Cantorum time, and the resulting En habit de cheval. Note there are not so many neoclassical compositions by Satie (the Sonatine bureacratique the only fully neoclassical other one) - that's why I wouldn't categorize Satie as "Neoclassical composer", but he was befriended with Stravinsky, the so-called inventor of neoclassicism, who lived in Paris in those days;
      • Groupe des Six - did you know there is a book completely devoted to Satie's relation to the Groupe des six (and to Jean Cocteau, who was the driving force behind the Groupe, although not one of its six members)?
      • dada - note that dada people rejected the terms "dadaist" and "dadaism", somebody simply was dada (or he was not): again, although very involved in the dada movement at its peak in Paris by the end of WWI (and close to Tristan Tzara), there are few of his compositions that can be labeled "dada" (maybe even none, while who would tell what are the characteristics of a dada composition?);
      • surrealism - while he sticked with the surrealists when they split up from "(pseudo-)dada" shortly after the war. Yes, Satie's last two works (for the same theatre production) could be labeled surrealist (although maybe they breathe the spirit of dada more than any other musical composition).
    • Note: "Erik Satie compositions" category still links to "classical music" category: I see less a problem there, while his music was so to say absorbed in the realm of classical music (that's not something Satie is responsible for!). See also Categorisation of people guideline: PEOPLE articles are much more sensitive to categorizations than non-people articles.
  • Something else: I cut-n-paste to here a note I left for you on category talk:musical compositions:
side-note for Hyacinth: you were nearest to playing a "moderator" role in the CfD discussion on "GLB people", some time ago now - I didn't know whether you followed the coming into existence of Wikipedia:categorization of people, that is supposed to help making such discussions less cumbersome, when not avoiding them altogether. I want to move this "guideline" from "Thinktank" to "Policies and guidelines", but will not do so without your comment (good or bad).

--Francis Schonken 20:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How to define "classical"

Hi Hyacinth,

First consideration: I try not to discuss this (nor, generally, anything else) in terms of who's right and who's wrong - that would probably not help in the long run. E.g. above I explained what I was thinking when categorizing Erik Satie. If you think, after that, you can improve categorization of that article, I have no problem with that, by definition, while that's the wikipedia system.

Second consideration: the term "classical" is one big borderline issue. At a certain moment in CfD discussions people were saying that categories with borderline issues could not be used. I don't know whether that's still the prevailing opinion, but anyhow I gave considerable effort to demonstrate that in fact all categories have borderline issues, even something simple as people (see e.g. List of borderline fictional characters). Nonetheless I think a category with more borderline issues than a category containing the word classical scarcely imaginable. However, I don't see that in itself as an impediment to use the word classical in a category name. But in terms of categorization of people such categories are to be considered as "non-Business Card" (at least: I have no knowledge of people having classical on their business card), so possible interpretation discussions ahead. That's why the combination of "classical" and "composer" in the same category name are more sensitive (while composer in itself is "Business Card" style, even "Opera composer" etc... could still be considered BC style, but not "classical composer"). Note you that for Mozart the non-BC style category "classical composers" would be excellent in my eyes. For the same reasons I have less second thoughts about "classical music" and "classical compositions" categories: the "BC" versus "non-BC" distinction only applies to categories applied to people.

Third consideration: (again:) the term "classical" is one big borderline issue. My favourite radio station is now named "Klara", which is the abbreviation (in Dutch) of "Classical Radio". A few years ago (when they were still simply Third Network (Dutch) of Belgian public broadcasting), they had a mega-debate that lasted for several months trying to define what classical music was. Very interesting. Lots of speakers, public debates, etc... Well what was the conclusion? If there was any, then it was that it is virtually impossible to define "classical" theoretically, but that it was nonetheless a practical term to define what they were doing (and they proceeded with the name-change of the station).

But to answer your question, I think I had a pretty neat definition of how a "classical compositions" category could work (in wikipedia context) in the category definition of that category. But... that category is no more. Do you think the content of the category definition of category:classical compositions can still be retrieved somewhere? I think you'll find there what you're asking for.

PS: you only replied to one thing (the "classical" thing in connection to ES) on my talk page. If you find the time, I would be very glad with your replies to the other things too!

--Francis Schonken 09:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Additional section on Category talk:Classical composers

Hi Hyacinth, just to mention I added a new section to Category talk:Classical composers, hope you have time to look at it.

Reading the content on that page before I made my new contribution, I must say I am confused again because of not knowing what you really think now about whether or not "classical composers" as part of a category name is a sensible thing to do or not. For me there's no disgrace in changing opinion (I'm no American president, neither would I like to be one if it were my motto not to change opinion on new overwhelming evidence, but that's a complete side-note). Now, Hyacinth: whatever your opinions were earlier about "classical composers" in the context of categories, I would like to be sure to understand correctly what you think at present.

But my new contribution to the "classical composers" category talk page is something completely else, just go and have a look, and if you care, let me know what you think.

--Francis Schonken 20:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In practice, "Composer" = "Classical composer"?

Well, whatever the theoretical borderline issues are between "Composer" and "Classical composer", the whole reason for discussing this is because in practice (i.e. in the context of categorization at Wikipedia) they appear to be different. I'll explain this. But first you might want to read my communications with user:Bishonen on category talk:Dramatists: the first approach was that in practice there would have been no difference between "Dramatists" and "Playwrights" (What is a dramatist anyway? - just a posh name for a playwright, pretty much like classical composer is just a posh name for a composer). But then I realised if a definite choice were made in the context of Wikipedia categorization (e.g. only "dramatists", excluding "playwrights", or only "playwrights", excluding "dramatists"), it wouldn't take a month before some new wikipedian would re-create the other category (e.g. arguing that Oscar Wilde never could be called just a playwright, or without arguing, just recreate the category without reading the prior extensive discussions, etc...). The thing was solved - for the time being, but I'm rather confident it will stick - by creating "Dramatists & playwrights" category.

Alas, a similar solution for "composers" and "classical composers" would lead to a rather absurd "Composers and classical composers" category: I don't consider something like that workable.

  • The first consideration is, I think, that a Category:Composers will have to exist. I still think that was your first choice too.
  • But then what to do when Category:Classical composers gets created and re-created every time it is destroyed? I suppose there's not much else to do than to make this category a subcategory of the "Composers" category. Yes, indeed, other solutions would be possible, e.g. hard-coded wikipedia software making impossible to recreate it; or endless CfD discussions over and over again; ... (my choice would be, in the end, after all the interesting talks we had about this, to just let it live and see for the future if anybody uses it).
  • Then there is still the consideration what to do about the categorizations "by nationality". There I would be rather firm: "Classical composers by nationality" is too long as a category name, and unnecessary. It's against the guidelines. It would lead to even longer and absurder subcategories (e.g. for Erik Satie, instead of "French musicians" there would be two other categories, something like "French classical composers" and "French classical pianists") - no, in my opinion, when categorizing by "nationality" it would not do to have these subdivisions. In the end someone would invent "1866 classical births by nationality", etc... Apart from the consideration that I don't think it good to flood the wikipedia articles at the bottom with endlessly long & detailed category names, it would also not guarantee a straightforward navigation "by category": this would get unnecessarily cumbersome too.

Well, I hope we can reach some kind of a conclusion by now. Maybe put the essentials of this discussion on some category talk page (in the rather optimistic foresight of anybody still reading all this). Don't you think too about time to close this discussion? I'd like to get back to writing articles.

--Francis Schonken 07:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

notation in musical set theory

Hello. Please note the differences between the following notations:

Unfortunately, the third is a bit cumbersome to write since Wikipedia's version of TeX is incomplete. But I think it should be viewed as being like \exp and \cos and \max and \log and \det and \min, etc., i.e., "ip" is an operator rather than a pair of variables, so it should not be italicized like variables in math notation. Michael Hardy 17:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS: I converted to the third notation above in interval (music). Michael Hardy 17:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Music et al.

I replied to your question about categories on my talk page. The gist of it is that I think articles ought to have the most specific categories possible, and I do recall reading a guideline to that effect a while ago (alas that I cannot remember where!) --Ardonik 22:29, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Set Theory

Been meaning to tell you this--nice job on the musical set theory articles. When I first came to Wikipedia I thought I'd have to do this but--lo--you had, and you did it well. This stuff can be hard to explain clearly to non-specialists and you did a good job. I threw in an article on Z-relation just for fun. Peace, Antandrus 01:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I have a problem with the description of the Myhill property, but I'll put it on that page under discussion. 220.240.16.4 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of xyz-istic pieces

Just came across, your lists of music by style. They look like interesting groupings, but I was confused by the list of styles at the top of each article, until I had clicked through a couple of them and seen the bolding move around. Would you mind if I formatted the styles as a table and moved them to the right hand side of the page - or is this still too much of a work in progress? -- Solipsist 08:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, what the heck — I just gonna-wenta-don'it in any case — be bold (you can always revert). You might want to check that I got everything into the right subdivisions, and didn't muck the ordering up in any crazy way (I had trouble deciding where to put 'Common practice period'). -- Solipsist 09:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Miles Davis

Why do you persist in attempting to categorise Davis as classical when, under any common definition of the term, he wasn't?

Nonchord Tone

Hi Hyacinth. I added the example on Chord (music) about nonchord tones which you removed. I don't mind that you removed it, since you probably have a better understanding of music theory than I do.

Considering this, so that I can learn more, could you give me an example of a nonchord tone, and also tell me what the example I gave (minor third, dim fifth, maj seventh) is called?

Thanks, Luqui 10:00, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)


Discussion

I hope its OK to respond to you here. I replaced "sequence" with "tuple" for two reasons--one is that a sequence is normally taken to be a function from the integers to some range of objects, and hence the primary meaning is infinite sequence. The second is that "sequence" has a specific musical meaning. An n-tuple is what you'd ordinarily call n things in order with possible repetition. From a more CS point of view, you might call it a list.

Having said all that, I'm not sure what I could add to the musical set theory page to make things better.

user:Gene Ward Smith

So what is the chord?

Since there is now research that says what the notes are for the opening chord of A Hard Day's Night (song), what would you call the chord?

If Harrison was playing the following notes on his 12 string guitar: a2, a3, d3, d4, g3, g4, c4, and another c4; McCartney played a d3 on his bass; producer George Martin was playing d3, f3, d5, g5, and e6 on the piano, while Lennon played a loud c5 on his six-string guitar, I'd guess that would make it a 2nd inversion of a D minor 7th with a suspended 4th (and 11th) and an added 23rd? It's been over 20 years since I took music theory, but i'd just call this a tone cluster. You're probably better at this, what do you think? --Samuel Wantman 22:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You wrote in the article:

The song is in the key of G major, making the above bVII9 chord F-A-C-E-G, and in 4/4 time.

but what about the D that is so prominent in the chord? George plays it, and Paul and George Martin reinforce it. All the discussions about the chord are making things very confusing for the reader. I can barely follow it all, and they contradict each other. The research you cite is older than the reseach I cited about professor Brown. I'd re-edit all of this myself, chronologically, If I understood it well enough to do it justice, but I think you'd do a better job if you're willing. --Samuel Wantman 21:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did try a re-edit, and hope I have not offended you by it. I understand more from your comments on my talk page than I did from what you wrote in the article. I tried to make the article more readable for a general reader. I you want to go into a more detailed analysis, I think you should explain it in more detail. Thanks, --Samuel Wantman 22:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How does a Dm7sus4 make me feel? It makes me feel like i was on the right track a few paragraphs above! --Samuel Wantman 00:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sibelius

Hi Hyacinth, It's great to see (at Pentatonic scale) that you are using Sibelius. I am guessing that you are puzzled about how to get a single very short line of music. The only way I've ever found is to select Layout, then Document Setup, then set the page margins very wide. If you find a better way please let me know! Cheers, Opus33 16:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Schismatic temperament

If you were to request that I revert the page, and then protect it from further editing, I would happy to do so. Noel 22:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be in a revert faceoff with anon 199.103.208.200. But hey, it was just a suggestion - if you think you're OK, feel free to ignore it. Noel 23:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Philip Corner

Nice job of expansion! But I'm curious...why remove him from the 1933 births category? — Gwalla | Talk 05:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Schenker Source - Forte and Gilbert

The correct spelling is "Gilbert" not "Golbert". A quick check of a library holding or the New Grove will prove me correct on this.

Ryouanji 02:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bar (music) citation?

Did you intend to refer to p.18-9 in your recent addition about hypermeasures? Or should that be p.18-19? David Brooks 04:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyacinth/Music_II&oldid=985540803"