Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Project banner name change

Happy-melon has moved the project banner, see [1]. I can't see any immediate problem with this although there are 10,000 articles with the banner, so if there is a mess-up it will be a major one. On the other hand, I don't understand why this editor didn't have the courtesy to tell the project about it before he made the change, just in case there was a problem.

NB It's not the first time. Happy-melon was also involved in the change to the sound files reported to ANI last month: see Broken_formatting etc and our archive Discussion about use of audio etc.. --Kleinzach 08:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now been changed again by Happy-melon, Apparently the template is set to B-class, see Template:WikiProject Classical music. --Kleinzach 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh... we're above average!  ;-) I checked his edit and he didn't explicitly set any class... looks like a different default is getting picked up or something. Any word on what is motivating his tweaks? DavidRF (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I've asked for it to be reverted (it's a protected page — or should be!) If it ain't broke etc. . . . --Kleinzach 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think its changed again. I went to add a banner to the Talk:Symphony in C major (Wagner) and I get a red link category and some stray garbage. Seems that "auto=yes" is no longer the default? Probably just a bug, but I don't know where to log the issue. DavidRF (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "auto=yes" — as I understand it — is only used for bot runs. If you change the rating the "auto=yes" should be deleted. --Kleinzach 05:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:58, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Project would be informed about important things, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of solo piano pieces (2nd nomination), mentioned above by Jashiin and Timneu22. Why not try it? --Vejvančický (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Vejvančický: I agree. Would you be willing to volunteer to implement and maintain it? --Kleinzach 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Objective Expert musician needed to resolve: Editor abusing his admin status in personal vendetta, supporting misinformation

I hope that an objective administrator/editor without vested interest in the guitar could please help resolve an adit war in which I (as an authority on the topic) am being attacked by an administrator who does not seem intent on the truth, but more on a personal grudge...

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

• [2] (the link added at the bottom by Andrewa)

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [[3]]

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator. Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here [4] with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the resonance, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings", as Andrewa is falsely claiming. If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" [[5]] because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his status as an administrator to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim [[6]] that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements.

Viktor van Niekerk tenstringguitar.INFO Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: links to my own website for evidence: I do so simply because my website lists numerous articles and interviews published in reputable books/journals and these contain verifiable evidence of Narciso Yepes's statements, including that the 6-string guitar lacks eight resonances, which his 10-string guitar's tunign adds. The admin who has been waging a personal vendetta against me has again on 8 March defended his support of links to misinformation, pages that contain verifiably incorrect information, like claiming that Yepes heard that the guitar lacked four (not eight) resonances. I will follow your recommendations. Thank you. It is just that I am not au fait with the ins and outs of wikipedia red-tape, while the administrator is. I feel that he has been abusing his status and know-how of wikipedia policy to get his way in something that is nothing more than a personal grudge against a more authoritative editor. For example, he has accused me of sock-puppetry, simply because it sometimes appears (incorrectly) that I am signed in because I haven't refreshed my browser. He has also on 15 March accused me of attacking him. It is quite the contrary since he is the one involved in making defamatory statements about my authority on the subject of the 10-string guitar, while I am defending certain historical/scientific truths as well as wikipedia's policy on linking to misinformation by objecting to his continuing desire to link to a page that contains proven misinformation.Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would value input from other editors on this. Viktor's charges above are I think simple harassment, and I am not the first editor he has abused in this way. See also Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Editor abusing his admin status in personal vendetta, knowingly supporting misinformation. Andrewa (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am most certainly not abusing anyone personally, but I am maintaining scholarly information and excluding misinformation. Andrewa would prefer not to focus on the contents issue (his continuing support of inappropriate links), so he makes false allegations against me. This is not the first time: On the contrary, here, under Sources, Andrewa makes a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, Andrewa has falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music, with only the exception of a few things passed directly from Yepes to Fritz Buss to myself. (These autograph manuscripts are a valuable resource in themselves.) Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group (such as the yahoo one Andrewa has previously linked to). So there also Andrewa has made a false accusation.

So how seriously should we take his claims that I am attacking him when he has previously cried wolf? This is a contents issue and Mr Andrewa is on the losing end of the contents argument, so he makes this personal in the hopes of getting me banned from wikipedia so he has no one to stop him from linking to unreliable sources and writing these articles about the 10-string guitar accordign to his POV.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider mediation or going to WP:ANI? Of course if a musical question is involved and you both like to summarize your opinions then I'm sure we will be happy to help. --Kleinzach 08:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Kleinzach's sage advice. I must admit, Viktor, I read your post and the article several times over, and for the life of me I can't figure out what the fuss is about. You say you object to a link that Andrewa added, but in the edit you point to I find no added link. What's more, there are numerous tags in the article which make no sense to me. For example, there is a tag on the lead that clarification is needed, but the lead seems perfectly clear to me; there is a tag [cite this quote] on a sentence that doesn't contain a quote; a [citation needed] tag on a section head, something that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm not saying that either you or Andrewa are harrassing, but without a clear and concise explanation of the differences, with vituperation expunged, I don't think anyone on this page can help out. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:ANI#Viktor van Niekerk. Thanks for the comments above, and the time you have spent on them. The tags in question are probably pure disruption on the part of Viktor. I have removed a couple, see the talk page.

I'm trying to avoid edit warring with Viktor, but if someone else felt that they could revert to this version and this version of the two articles concerned, I think overall it would improve both of them! Please comment on the relevant talk pages if you do, of course. Otherwise, it's quite a lot of work to untangle what he's done. Andrewa (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Some musical questions are raised at User talk:Andrewa#Specific points of fact, but I think the behavioural issues need to be sorted out as a first priority, sadly. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to survey some other wikiprojects for the technical aspects as well as this one. It looks like there are a number of issues pertaining to musical temperament that are involved and that particular subject can be discussed with incredible complexity. The other Guitar tunings articles look messy as well. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments (not sure how active that project is, though).DavidRF (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes... guitar tunings is a can of worms, and not just on Wikipedia. See MOS:TUNINGS, which is a start I hope. I have previously posted several other WikiProjects including that one and the more active WP:WikiProject Guitarists, with no result so far. Whether this is due to the inactivity of these projects or the fear of Viktor or both is hard to say.

Why would there be temperament issues here? The Yepes design assumes equal temperament, as do all other current ten-string guitar tunings AFAIK. Movable frets are one important difference between the contemporary ten-string guitar and the lutes for which much ten-string music was originally written, but I think this is cheerfully ignored by current players. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I read "resonance" and "sympathetic" and immediately assumed there was some sort of issue with which temperament scheme was used. Equal temperament isn't going to have any true sympathetic resonance (except for unisons and octaves). I'm probably wrong on this case, though. I'm otherwise ignorant about guitars, maybe there's a difference between how the strings themselves are tuned and how the frets are spaced. I'm by no means a temperament expert, either, (just know how complicated it can get) so I'll clam up now. Sorry to cloud the discussion :-) DavidRF (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What is very relevant is the fact that (in equal temperament) the fifths and twelfths etc are close enough to resonate, but the major thirds etc are not. (And the major second is, but that's not helpful for other reasons.) But we diverge! Andrewa (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument between myself and Andrewa is simple. He is essentially claiming that 4=8, which is of course absurd. Naturally, he will deny this, but this is what is implied by his support of [7] which he had posted on the Ten-string extended-range classical guitar page until I removed it. He has repeatedly claimed on wikipedia and elsewhere that there is no misinformation on this page, but there is, and he knows it because I've discussed this with him in quite some detail. The link claims that the six string guitar lacks four resonances (C, Bb, Ab, Gb) that have less sustain than the other notes that do not have this resonance. That is under a discussion of the Narciso Yepes 10-string guitar. However, Narciso Yepes ubiquitously (in verifiable articles listed here (bottom of page) speaks of eight (not four) resonances that are missing on the 6-string guitar. As editor DavidRF (above) very accurately points out (thank you!) temperament of the fingerboard means that only octaves and fifths resonate. So Yepes added 4 strings to the guitar tuned C, A#, G#, F# because these add the EIGHT missign resonances (the octaves and fifths): C and G, A# and F, G# and D#, F# and C#. Andrewa has, however claimed Talk:Ten-string_extended-range_classical_guitar#Wikispam that the link he has been supporting (i.e. this one contains no misinformation, that it says the same thing as Yepes (that there are EIGHT missing resonances on the 6-string guitar), and that it makes no difference whether one says "four" or "eight". Now, for pointing this out I am being accused of attacking Andrewa on various pages of wikipedia, despite the very clear fact that I am the one upholding truth/factual information while Andrewa defends misinformation and makes false allegations against me. (For the contents pertaining to this argument, please see www.tenstringguitar.INFO and its "Resonance" page, which contains the correct information as per Narciso Yepes's statemetns and the laws of physics). Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar. Please continue the discussion there. I think the readers of this talk page have said about all they have to say on the topic. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

False claims of "bullying" Andrewa: New Proof

Plase note that the allegations of "harrassment" made by Andrewa are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [8]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on a yahoo forum on 25 February [9] and here we have Andrewa responding [10]). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here [11] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [12].

Since we have proven that there was no reason for good faith, no reason to assume the defence of misinformation was unintentional, there is also no justification in calling it an "attack", "harrassment" or "bullying" that I have called for other editors to oversee his conduct and note the multiple breaches of policy. (I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to be able to list them like Andrewa does, but I'm sure the claims of harrassment and breach of policy can be equally reversed in the other direction.) Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As Ravpapa has already requested, please continue the discussion at Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar. Thank you. --Kleinzach 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter and the Wolf (David Bowie album)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to raise this (if not could someone point me to it): There's a discussion, which has reached stalemate, about whether this album should be considered a David Bowie album or not. If you wish to add your thoughts, you can do so here. --JD554 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied there, but my feeling is that if it doesn't get labeled as a David Bowie album, we would probably delete it. Maybe that would sway their opinion somewhat. On a related note, I see the discography and adaptation sections of the composition article, Peter and the Wolf, are out of control. If it was any other composition, I'd probably just delete those sections completely, but since it's a bit of a pop-culture-inviting children's piece, I'm torn. The discography section could clearly go (perhaps be replaced by a list of narrators).DavidRF (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The list of recordings in Peter and the Wolf could be turned into a subpage 'Peter and the Wolf discography', ideally in tabular form, like the opera discographies in Category:Opera discographies. It would make an interesting list. --Kleinzach 02:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Trumpet repertoire

A new editor has joined the project, User talk:Trumpetrep, who is interested in making good-faith additiosn to the information that wikipedia has about the trumpet repertoire. Trying to get an area set up, there's been some initial hiccups due to procedural confusion (e.g. empty pages and categories get deleted). We have a couple of questions for the group so we can get the details out of the way and make it easy to add items to the list.

• First, do we another category for Category:Trumpet Repertoire or will Category:Compositions for trumpet suffice. That is, pieces like Mahler's Fifth which contain important trumpet parts... can they go in Category:Compositions for trumpet?
• Second, to help clean things up, two other editors have created parallel versions of a Trumpet repertoire article. That one is alphabetical by composer and based on Piano trio repertoire and I created something in my sandbox User:DavidRF/Sandbox which is grouped by composition type and based on Flute repertory. Is one format preferred over the other? (Even though one version is in my sandbox, I have no vested interest). Do we include both? Any suggestions? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think any sort of 'repertoire' page or category shouldn't be done unless there's extensive checking into multiple sources concerning just what should fit into it. I always like to bring up List of important operas as a good example of a list like that done right. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

List of classical music styles

I wonder how many of us are familiar with the List of classical music styles? Is it viable? Useful? Should it be renamed? What do people think? Best. --Kleinzach 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. The name is odd, that's all. Styles is too broad of a term. It looks like a cross between the members of Category:Non-Western classical music genres and Category:Classical music by nationality. Not sure what to call it, but take one look at the list and you'll know what they're getting at. I'm bad with titles. DavidRF (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

List of art music traditions by country and period? Some thing like that perhaps? (Personally I'd like to see the word 'classical' removed completely in this context - more of a hindrance than a help - but I know some people seem to like it.) --Kleinzach 03:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not really by period because they're grouping Scheidt with Schoenberg. Its really by region, but only when the traditions didn't intermingle and arguably unify as it did in Europe with German, Italian, French, Russian, etc. I'm not good with names. DavidRF (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is a value to this kind of list, mostly as a generic ToC for readers who are interested in exploring the topic of world musical styles more generally. The table is ridiculously unscholarly and invites inaccuracy. We might simply have it, per Kleinzach, as a straight up List of art music traditions. I agree that Classical should be replaced since it is now non-standard in the literature; the term creates a presumptive bias toward western music. Eusebeus (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also prefer List of art music traditions. For what it's worth, the Grove articles on different countries and geographical regions seem to use "art music" in preference to any other term, except for -- notably -- India. (Often they avoid either "art music" or "classical music" in section titles, choosing "popular music", "folk music", "court music", "religious music", etc.) I bet they've had some arguments among their editors over this same issue. Antandrus (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've moved the article to List of art music traditions and removed most of the references to 'classical'. Perhaps you would like to have a look at what I have done and suggest changes etc? --Kleinzach 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)