Hello, MONTENSEM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anton Webern may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *{{wikicite|ref={{harvid|Mitchinson|2001}}|reference=Mitchinson, Paul. 2001. "[http://paulmitchinson.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traditionalism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to welcome you, but see that you are here for a while. I came to like the concept of WP:BRD: when an edit is reverted, discuss (don't make the same again, that is). - The larger an edit is, the more likely it gets reverted, because some like myslf - going over the watchlist of 1000 entries over the last 24 hours - will not take the time to study. I feel that confronting the reader at all with one incidence that early in the article was not a good idea, however short the quote. - Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great expansion and diligent work on Anton Webern. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MONTENSEM (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONTENSEM. You added references to Anton Webern for Simms and Erwin 2021, but no cite defining that work exists in the article. Could you add the required cite, or let me know which work this references? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it momentarily. Thanks for catching it! MONTENSEM (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The errors are hidden by default, but can be enabled by following the instructions here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on Webern is marvelous and very thorough. I could definitely see it being nominated to be a Good article through GAN. However, there are quite a few issues related formatting and general structuring at the moment. If you are interested in GAN, I would be more than willing to leave comments on Webern's talk page over where the places for improvement currently reside. Do let me know. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parsimony.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your work on the Webern article. I am continuing to see many instances of awkward or inscrutible writing style and diction in the article text. On a previous occasion, I recall that you reverted my attempt at correcting one such sentence. If editors make this sort of copyedit in the future, please know that they are not denigrating the excellent research and collation of material you have done but are just trying to make it more accessible and clear to English-speaking readers. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the prior instance, but I'm not so sure these are bona fide improvements. What is "awkward or inscrutable" about "His music was among the most radical of its milieu in its sheer concision" (my wording) as opposed to "His music was among the most radical of its time in its stark concision"? "Milieu" is actually more accurate and specific, circumscribing the claim being made; it refers not only to time, but place, specifically social environment. "Stark" has (negative) connotations of bareness and simplicity, whereas I used "sheer" more for emphasis. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stark" connotes harshness, too. "Sheer" is better because it's basically being used as "unmitigated" but with more positive connotations as in "completely evident" or "obvious." MONTENSEM (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your text reads as if it were idioms translated too literally from another language. Is English your first language? The content is excellent, but the text needs a copyeditor. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English is my native language (it's "inscrutable," not "inscrutible"). I have been copyediting the language, especially for concision, but I choose my words with careful intention. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to please address my question about your edits rather than speculating about my language skills. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comments stand. This is a little-watched page but as others read your text, they will most likely offer similar corrections. Good luck with your work here. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do they just stand, and are they best described as corrections? "Sheer concision" is a more common hit on Google than "stark concision," so it would seem that the former is more commonly applied. I've already justified my usage of milieu, which is more of a technical distinction, but one that I think is important in circumscribing and specifying the claim being made--in what context is this music what it is?--a particular milieu more than a time. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is just something about "stark" that I don't like in this context. "Stark" sounds like something that might be applied to some of Stravinsky's music, as in music of "stark" contrasts. "Stark concision" implies bareness, bluntness, harshness, immediacy, and a certain (rude) simplicity. Webern's music may appear or be simple in some ways, and sometimes it may have bare textures (more often very much not), but it is not generally very harsh; it is expressive. Often it is, one might say, more "sheer" (diaphanous, transparent) in its musical texture and maybe even "abrupt," with a certain characteristic softness. Obviously these are associational or connotative rather than functional aspects of the words "stark" and "sheer" in this very specific context, but even functionally, "sheer concision" gets more at the sense of "completely evident," "utter," or "pure" concision than does stark, which carries quite negative connotations, too, like "a stark [gloomy, sad, depressing] winter day" (whereas Webern's music has ecstatic moments and something of a mystical/religious utopian character to it). Musicologist Deborah Mawer uses the same phrase in her contribution to Accenting the Classics: Editing European Music in France, 1915–1925: "Occasionally, due to its sheer concision, Ravel's own expression is a little ambiguous, [...]." (p. 141). (Coincidentally, one might argue that Webern's "sheer concision" also sometimes makes his expressive intent a little ambiguous: the text painting is very compressed.)

I think my original is perfectly acceptable and arguably better. I have taken pains to explain. These were not arbitrary word choices. These are somewhat petty items, especially the choice between synonyms like "stark" and "sheer," and I don't know why you insist on them; they are largely a distraction from more meaningful and substantive work on the article. I invite you again to engage in constructive discussion, not to make it personal by questioning my language skills. Please engage with me constructively and with civility. Given your mere stand or assertion against my arguments, I have restored "milieu" to make the claim that sentence makes less vulnerable and more secure. I would like to restore "sheer," or we could simply apply "concision" without any modifier.

Also, if I remember correctly, I did not simply revert the edit you made previously regarding Webern's politics (I would have to look back to see precisely what I did) but rather expanded upon it by adding a quotation from musicologist Julian Johnson summarizing what is a fairly consensus, though debatable, view on Webern among musicologists and scholars. Richard Taruskin, though he has done good work, is well described by many in the article. (For that matter, Alex Ross is a journalist or critic more than a scholar; his work is often criticized on this basis.) In general, my approach has been not to remove things from the article but rather to try to be charitable and sympathetic, as in my edit on what someone else wrote (long ago) on the nature of the Passacaglia's relation to later works at your behest. MONTENSEM (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(There is a widely acknowledged emotional or expressive complexity, depth, and interiority to Webern's music that "stark," with its connotations of bareness, immediacy, harshness, and so on, especially belies.) MONTENSEM (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(This is why Schoenberg's famous quote from the Op. 9 Preface is about compression of depth--'novel in a sigh, joy in a breath'; Adorno says similar things, some of which are already in the article.) MONTENSEM (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also invite you again to defend your preference of "stark" over "sheer," given that the latter appears to be in much more widespread use as appended to "concision." MONTENSEM (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stark concision" implies "bare concision," "simple concision," or even "grim concision," whereas "sheer concision" not only better emphasizes the concision itself, but also implies a thoroughgoing, through-and-through, or more complex concision. The latter is more appropriate. There is a reason the latter phrase is in more widespread use. People do not write about concision unless it is interesting or remarkable! MONTENSEM (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, in general, while you have assembled a wealth of valid content and references, you are treating the article page more as your personal academic essay. In Wikipedia terminology, you are placing UNDUE emphasis and making SYNTH connections between statements collated from a wide variety of sources to fit what appears to be your personal narrative. While much of this is valid and reflects mainstream views, some of it does not. It would be good to see the content reflecting your personal points of view and analysis more directly cited to the sources rather than using sources as rungs in a ladder or supporting evidence as one might do in an academic thesis or article of criticism. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to make a specific case rather than to merely assert it. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I've done that, even on minor flaws, you have responded by denying the issue and reinserting your preferred text, e.g. "mileu" -- undefined and obscure at its position at the top of the lead -- instead of the readily understood and factually accurate "time".

Here's a flaw that you can fix: The several yellow sidebars and narratives accompanying sound files are UNDUE -- your own views supported by cherrypicked primary sources and not encyclopedic in substance or tone. These are the sort of thing that would be diverting and interesting in a magazine article but fail our NPOV policy, which you may wish to review in detail. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Milieu" is better than "time" because it diminishes potential puffery; it is a well defined term in common use and focuses on the particular context, especially the social context at a time and in a place, whereas time is somewhat under-defined and may overly generalize or universalize the claim. If you feel very strongly, you could change it back to "time," but this strikes me as bizarre.

Both excerpts are of music discussed in the body.

The Schoenberg on Op. 5 aligns well with Haimo et al. What precisely is your criticism?

The Op. 15 caption could be tightened up somewhat, although much of it is simply bare narration and some history as to influence and reception from Julian Johnson and another writer. I'm sure others have written on the piece and could be cited directly; Greg Sandow and especially Anne Shreffler come to mind. I may look at this later. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The direct quotations in the biography sections could have their captions pared down, although I think they are illustrative and worthwhile, or they could be converted into notes appended to relevant sections of the body. Please be more precise. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's your personal opinion as an essayist to associate those primary source quotes with those sections of the encyclopedia as if they represent widespread mainstream narratives relating to those sections.

Please quote the section of your cited Reliable Source that defines Webern's "milieu" as it is used in that sentence. "Time" is objective and easily verified and his life dates precede that part of the article lead text. "Milieu" defined by observation and you have not described the milieu to which you or Reliable Sources place him at various times in his life. It conveys no meaning to the reader or worse, it conveys a different meaning to each reader who fills in the blanks you open with that undefined term. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to return to this over the coming days, but let's take it piece by piece, then, starting with the box regarding Krenek. What precisely is suspect or wrong to you about it? We will examine the texts and caption, which are backed by a secondary source (if not a mixture of secondary and primary source material), together, from an authoritative biography of Krenek, which is also used for and aligns well with relevant material from several sources in the body. Be specific in your challenges, please.

I will look more at "milieu." Are you wanting a direct quote from someone using "milieu" regarding the concision of Webern's music? Would you like a description of Webern's milieu? MONTENSEM (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if not a mixture of secondary and tertiary source material* MONTENSEM (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add: if we break "milieu" down into its constituent elements, as I have done repeatedly, then we are talking about a (1) time, (2) place, and (3) social environment, all of which are defined within that opening paragraph and throughout the article. This diminishes puffery, because other composers are also noted for their tendency to concision, including but not limited to the two I already mentioned; and, moreover, it aligns well with the closing sentence of the opening paragraph, which is something of a commonplace as to Webern extensively detailed in Moldenhauer and is rigorously defined with a list of works in the KBP citation from the Berg Cambridge Companion. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and I want to emphasize this, be concrete. The abstract policies are not making your case; they are just citing policies. Make your case specifically, and I will make mine. That allows us to do this work together and to be genuinely constructive. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I say be concrete, I want to know that you have consulted the material and are not just citing policies at me. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I want to know: is my talk page the most appropriate venue for this, or would it not be more appropriate to use the article's talk page? MONTENSEM (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more helpful to use the article's talk page in order to facilitate others' participation. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re: "widespread mainstream narratives", Krasner's account is applied or cited in this specific context by Bailey Puffett, Morgan, and Taruskin (arguably misapplied in some Taruskin), et al ... these are very mainstream sources, although Taruskin is more controversial, as he himself and many besides him note ... please assume good faith rather than repeatedly accusing me of or insinuating the worst MONTENSEM (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, with this edit you have not only added content that is not verified by the cited source, but that you are also re-inserting after I challenged it by reversion with an edit summary explaining the problem. You cannot claim that an article relating to the early twentieth century reception of Webern's music provides WP:VERIFICATION of the statement that such reactions "remain" today in 2023.

Please use the artilce talk page to respond to the concern that led to "your" text having been reverted. You need to show that the cited source directly supports the associated article content. That's not the same as whether you believe that the cited source is consistent with or implies the article text you have reinserted without discussion or documentation.

I hope you will take the time to understand and respond to the various concerns I have raised on this talk page. If not, the next step would be to involve the community in some form of intervention with respect to these repeated and pervasive problems with your contributions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag, because that will remind me (and others) to work on this. MONTENSEM (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, in your edit summary ("1980's public reaction to Webern's music"), you somewhat misconstrue the content: "Webern's music remains polarizing and provocative[citation needed] within various communities of musicians and scholars." MONTENSEM (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more charitable and genuinely constructive. MONTENSEM (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not just add a ^{[citation needed]} tag? MONTENSEM (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Remain" would have two or three prongs here to satisfy: was and is. The current source adds to the was. I will look for a citation for the "is," although the remainder of the section delves into examples. This is a commonplace. I think you are being excessively combative rather than genuinely constructive and collaborative. Why? MONTENSEM (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I already have taken time and have begun to address some of your concerns, whereas you have stopped responding and are becoming increasingly uncharitable, not collaborating, and combative. MONTENSEM (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have I sufficiently addressed your concerns on this specific edit with the two citations I added? MONTENSEM (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in acting as your tutor, especially given your unresponsive and uncollegial reaction to the time and attention I offered you. I hope that you will take the decide to more fully pursue the polies and issues that I've tried to demonstrate to you and that you will channel your efforts in ways that will provide lasting content for our readers. Much of what I see in the Webern article's current version will eventually be removed by editors who, like me, see that it does not conform to our best practices here. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 1 October 2023

This is in response to your unsigned comment below: OK, feel free. I worry that it will be more destructive than constructive, as in this instance, but hopefully it will be more of the latter, with some of the material in the notes better dispersed to other articles and revisions to the narration element of the Op. 15 caption (I recommend Greg Sandow and Anne Shreffler). I doubt I will have time for more this sort of back-and-forth. My time for working on this is limited: I have sought to address concerns and feedback over the years, but these things take time, patience, and collaboration. I have been very responsive and here sought your feedback but have been met with condescension, derision, questioning, evasiveness, a certain manner of talking past or at me, and finally now, refusal. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will tag the article in order to attract additional editors to see whether they wish to contribute to the page, and I may copy these two discussions to the article talk page for reference there. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I think just leave me out of it for now. I will be busy over the coming months and don't want to be distracted by this. I've tried to help, but my time is so limited lately that I can really only work on copyediting this in the cracks, with very little time for larger revisions and content additions, although this stimulated me to take some of it up again, partly to try to satisfy you. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious who you'll tackle after Webern? Maybe Schoenberg? I feel like you could do a great job on someone like Ferneyhough or Scelsi. Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Maybe Berg, the Second Viennese School article, their works (many of which don't have pages), or minor figures within their milieu. Some of what is in the Webern article could be simply relocated. I wouldn't want to tackle Schoenberg. MONTENSEM (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange how few of their works have WP pages—but honestly, its also strange how little their music is programmed. These standard classical music surveys give quite enormous attention to the school, considering how there are maybe 4–5 works total which are actually standard repertory.

I certainly understand your hesitancy to tackle Schoenberg, but keep in mind that (in my opinion) you may be the most qualified active editor to do so. Aza24 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pluralism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2924 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Messa di voce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Score (music).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:MONTENSEM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ruy (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Ruy (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, this applies to sharing music you enjoy via YouTube links on a user page? MONTENSEM (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as having something of an anti-musical bias; certainly you have many quotes on your user page, none of which are strictly necessary and which are all from published works, to which my YouTube links were functionally analogous. In any case, I don't contest it or much care; I was simply trying to be a little more friendly and personal. I note this here for context and consider that the differences between my former user page and yours split hairs in ways that align more to the idiosyncratic differences between music and literature than to any worthwhile matters of contention (especially regarding data space, advertising, or promotion) like this. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ruy, you just speedy deleted someone's entire userpage because they included a link to music on it? There is absolutely no rule prohibited such actions, unless you can somehow prove they are "promoting a website or a product".

Where is your revert and apology? How bizzare. Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template you used, includes "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace" in bold text. This user has made 5000+ edits... Aza24 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montensem, looks like this editor never response to anyone (judging from their talk page), so I doubt they'll say anything here. Go ahead and recreate your userpage if you'd like. You are not breaking any rules here; you're an active editor including a single non-promotional link. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sorry, don't worry about it! To clarify, I added more YouTube links, maybe seven total?, and captioned it with "some music I enjoy" at the top (minimal data space–surely we've taken up more here). I just asked Wikipedia to delete the user page myself when I saw the alert to avoid the drama of any formal contention. It's no big deal. I more just wondered as to why they felt it was justified or necessary, especially given the analogy in my mind (that I described). But in any case ...

Thank you again. Happy editing! MONTENSEM (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(–Editing, not "hunting of man" ... !) MONTENSEM (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I still don't think you did anything wrong. The editor in question, Ruy, seems to go quickly between userpages and delete any newly created userpages with just ext links. Yours fell into that category; even though it was exempt given your surplus of contributions to the encyclopedia, they did not seem to check for that. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining... I appreciate that a lot. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MONTENSEM: Aparently u3 was not the right causal and I'm sorry by that, but I think that links wasn't apropiated for the user page (Please use {{ping}} to tag me). Regards Ruy (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruy I'll maintain some music that I enjoy on my user page just as you have quotes on yours. It's as relevant to the editing I do here as yours on "hunting". The difference is: since music must be played to be heard, I cannot quote in text passages. Therefore I will use YouTube links and limit myself to a few of them. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

I heard Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1 (Schönberg) and can't believe they have no article. I'd go around and search via google for references but I bet you know better ones. Can we perhaps do it together? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sure! I'll be very busy (moving across the US) this summer, so I may not always be as responsive or as productive I've been able to be the past few months. But I'm happy to chip in! (Aren't the early songs wonderful? Op. 2/ii is a favorite of mine; my spouse sang it and Friede auf Erden some years ago...)

in Walter Frisch's Early Works of Schoenberg there is something of an account starting on p 79 more on Schoenberg's 1899 settings from and on Richard Dehmel's Weib und Welt in general (including Verklärte Nacht as an example), but with very little on Op. 1 actually... the Schoenberg Center has great information on Op. 1 specifically and in relation to Alexander Zemlinsky by Dennis Gerlach...

I have some correspondence books, which are probably indexed but unlikely to yield very much...

in Adorno's Kranichstein Lectures, he says Op. 1/ii represents Schoenberg's synthesis of Brahms' compositional principles with Wagner's harmonic language, which is sort of a classic thing to say (although I think some have since argued that Brahms was on a harmonic par with Wagner)... reaching more speculatively, he compares the Schoenberg's transcription-like piano writing (somewhat less favorably) to that of Debussy's Proses lyriques and says that both seem to aspire to go beyond the limits of a mere song and are almost like bits of oratorio or opera in their length and prose-like qualities... MONTENSEM (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pp 37–38 of Stuckenschmidt's Schoenberg has a concise account mentioning the premiering baritone and musical qualities: "rich chords, parallel thirds and sixths, and heavy bass octaves"; also like Adorno, notes "sound of the piano is broaden in an orchestral manner," noting tremolos in both hands imitating strings; chromatic alterations in chords a la Wagner; anticipations of Gurre-lieder MONTENSEM (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's good for a start. I'll see when I get to it. Today I had a plan, but a conductor appeared on the recent deaths list, with a sad article, so I focused on that, and it's on the Main page, and yes better but still sad ... - so much for planning. I heard the songs as the climax of this recital. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to start today but ... - first I looked at Schönberg and found some things crying for improvement (Third Reich, without quotation marks ...), and then looked for a model and thought of his Op. 2, only to find that just miserable, - practically no facts (scoring? structure? composition history? first performance)? The poet wasn't mentioned in the lead. "Tannhäuser, an opera that had been composed by R.W." - such things. I'm going out, but somehow some day that should change, heading for some 150th anniversary ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I will get much done this spring and summer, but we will see! I hope you have a great summer. MONTENSEM (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One day, I might like to create an article on Op. 29—the entire piece is great and so distinctive with the little clarinet choir and string trio, but the third movement with the tonally-inflected bass clarinet melody is quite beautiful ... MONTENSEM (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the new H Sachs book, some expansion on Sb's Brahms/Wagner synthesis in Opp. 1–3; per H Sachs first he was a Brahmsian but met Zemlinsky who also loved Wagner; later Sb reflected on Brahms as progressive (1933) MONTENSEM (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). - The Sb songs mentioned above, and on the concert program: I finally started today. Feel free to change and expand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I will get to this re: my notes above, haven't forgotten MONTENSEM (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

put in some good-faith ce - feel free to revert - will try to put in some more substantial edits re: my notes above this summer between moving

Hope you're having a great summer! MONTENSEM (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONTENSEM! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Arnold Schoenberg that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. MONTENSEM (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hike.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding it to Mahler's article. Right and proper that it should be there, though perhaps it shows that Schoenberg was an even worse painter than he was a composer. No matter, and that's just my opinion. Thank you anyway. Tim riley talk 17:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I bet someone has written about why he painted Mahler the way he did ... MONTENSEM (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stasis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Montensem, hope you're doing well. I've been working on the List of compositions by Anton Webern for a bit now. I was curious, do you have any interest in adding a 3ish paragraph lead as an overview on Webern's works? Aza24 (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and probably on adding some textual body to the article also. Nice work on it so far! The next few months will be hectic for me (my spouse and I are moving across the US, and they're beginning a new role). So I can't promise when. Maybe in the cracks of my time here and there. Might be fall to do a good job. The Beethoven list of works page is probably a good model. Thinking out loud ... the Moldenhauers catalogued W's works iirc, and there is the Gesamtausgabe project underway mostly in Basel and I think partly in Vienna, Schaftel edited and wrote on some of the first early lieder publications, there are some writings (Tot, Der Weg) and many incomplete works that have attracted scholarly attention ... following the Beethoven page as a model, Julian Johnson wrote in his 1997 repercussions article that Webern straddles Brahms and Boulez ...

Unrelatedly on the Schoenberg article, I kind of think his paintings are defining (esp re: Kandinsky, Gerstl, some works have a visual component like Die glückliche Hand), and iirc some scholars do. But it's not a big deal; I don't care to dispute/really discuss that here or on the talk page. Just something to think about maybe! I forgot Mendelssohn was a painter! I guess that sort of thing always strikes me as somewhat significant; it tells you something distinctive about the composer. The lede is probably maximized in length anyway. I might like to maybe work at the whole Schoenberg article, but ... time.

Nice work on the Hildegard Jone page! Thanks for that.

I hope you're enjoying the warmer weather! MONTENSEM (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

food for thought

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Schoenberg_s_Correspondence_With_Alma_Ma/7rKYDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=schoenberg+mahler+painting+alma&pg=PA7&printsec=frontcover MONTENSEM (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this; I'm just postponing it some for now. I will probably work more on the Webern Symphony article more in order to finish fleshing it out. I may take up more work on the Schoenberg article eventually, hopefully writing some on his middle and later life, his Judaism, and his work, including the Wind Quintet, Septet-Suite, Fourth Quartet, Ode to Napoleon, and String Trio. The nonchord tones article could include some material on embellishing tones in post-tonal contexts (I enjoyed reading Michael Buchler's "Ornamentation as Gesture in Atonal Music" recently). I don't know what else. I've had more time than anticipated this summer but expect to have less in the fall. Anyway, happy editing!

P.S. I've been enjoying this album tonight—https://www.audaud.com/double-concertos-for-violin-and-clarinet-by-mills-chatman-chihara-david-crystal/. You can really hear Copland (the clarinet concerto) in the Chatman, I think, but also in the Chihara. MONTENSEM (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Take your time. I think you'll find that the nonchord tones article is one of many music theory articles which are rather poor on Wikipedia—it's a rather ignored subject here, particularly in regards to referencing material. I believe the music theory sub-reddit explcittely suggests people do not read WP music theory articles... Despite this, some of the articles get hundreds of thousands of annual views!

By the way, the recently passed Alexander Goehr seems to have written some interesting things on Schoenberg—might be worth including.

Intriguing album, I'll have to give it a listen. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

story · music · places

Thank you so much for the expansion of this work! I believe it could be GA, - should we try? I think that at some point in the article, there should be a footnote saying that the composer's name was Schönberg at the time. I am sorry about the poor hook, - my means of being understood by the current DYK team are limited. I accept that it's tough to describe the music in few words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for asking, starting it, and writing it with me! I'm OK with the GA thing (I personally don't much care about those kinds of things, but I don't mind trying something new or different). I think your DYK was great, and I saw you also highlighted a salient detail for the main article note! I may be a little busy (finally moved, now settling in), and it's hard to say what the next several months will look like, but I always enjoy coming back to music. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least the title was now included on the Main page. I made a footnote about his name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! MONTENSEM (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a Bach cantata premiered 300 years ago OTD. - A meeting of two women - the occasion of the cantata - is pictured in our local church. - I'm going to nominate Op. 1 for GA. Which one should we tackle next? Op. 2, or 21? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be fine. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Op. 2 first then ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful photos! MONTENSEM (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and Mozart related to all three items of music on my talk: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, Martti Wallén, a bass, and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia, (whose article would be better with more details about her music-making). - Schönberg's Op. 2 planned for this week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into Wolfgang Rihm, he'd deserve more of an article. There's more in the FAZ, but I have company, and I often don't know technical terms in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does. I am a little tired after editing (more than usual) lately. Thank you for the Schoenberg Op. 1 article. It made me listen more to Brahms's chamber and late piano music, old favorites! MONTENSEM (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article much better, thank you! Immer leiser wird mein Schlummer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for more help there, and paving the way to us reading the NYT article! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and sorry I didn't help more! To do justice to Wolfgang Rihm would take months (years?) of work. I'd know where to begin, and maybe one day I will get back to it (Seth Brodsky has published some good work on Rihm). I was glad to see you snip the "simple" from the lead and was very impressed at how much you and Grimes got done! MONTENSEM (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have done great work on these too! What are your favorites? I've always been particularly fond of BWVs 63, 64, 121, and 147. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of it that way ;) - Just sang BWV 6, and it was great again. Fun to sing BWV 66 and BWV 172 - pure joy! BWV 121 will get expanded for Christmas ;) (also BWV 91, 1524 and 1724 jubilee) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait to read more about BWV 121! I love the way the upper voices seem to soar over the distant, earthly background in the brass in the opening chorus—that kind of word painting is some of the best stuff of music. MONTENSEM (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain patient ;) - Help? My story today is about a woman, nominated for RD but needing support as I write this. As you noticed, A composer died whose article is long and mostly unreferenced; - can you help with sources for the many claims in his article? I remembered him on his birthday, and saw that the DYK for his opera was on the same day (26 August) as he died now, - strange coincidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got to expanding 121, but haven't yet found a source for the soaring voices word-painting, - help welcome. A GA review is on its way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had more time right now (I have a busy year or so ahead of me), but I will be delighted to read it when you are done and am thankful for the work that you do here! Happy holidays! MONTENSEM (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't remember whether I read or was taught about that word painting, or simply noticed it by listening. Surely someone has written about it. Maybe I'll hunt for it eventually! MONTENSEM (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you do such a breadth of continuous work! But I'm glad you do. For now I'm trying to refine some things and trying to salvage others. MONTENSEM (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - At least I can drop the superstition thingy: he died on 25 August. We have now a good obit, and I'm determined to just comment out everything unsourced in a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, well done, what a lot of work! I have only been watching the article since I was at a Prom last month where they did Symphony No 2, which was superb and surprised me very greatly in a number of ways. I am embarrassed to admit that I had sort-of heard of him, but only just. What a story. Thank you for all your efforts. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MONTENSEM (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious—is there a reason you seem to prefer the wikicite template? I don't really see it used much nowadays, the standard ones ({{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}} etc.) seem to be much easier to change and use. I'd say they have a major accessibility advantage in general. Aza24 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as familiar with the other citation styles and templates, and I find them more difficult and laborious to use, since you have to label information (working on the Julius Eastman and Olga Neuwirth articles were frustrating in that regard). So I don't really see the advantage personally. It doesn't strike me as overly important, either, if I'm being honest, so I've never bothered. What's the advantage? MONTENSEM (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today - as you know - is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display his portrait by Egon Schiele, music from Moses und Aron, and two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday ;) - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONTENSEM. Thank you for your work on Macroharmony. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

IMO this should be merged into the Dmitri Tymoczko article. The term is one promulgated by one individual and all of the cites/sources are a single book written by him. IMO its a neologism which does meet the wp:notability requirement for such. Suggest that the merge would best be done by the creator. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Hi, I will consider and work on this. I agree that in its current state it could be merged, but I think that the term may have acquired significant (and varied) use beyond Tymozko's work. Thanks! MONTENSEM (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a search I found things referring to Macro Harmony (two words) and Macro-Harmony (hyphen) but I don't have the specialized expertise to know whether or not they are the same thing. And nothing on Macroharmony except as a term promulgated by Tymozko. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I will be a little busy this month and next, but I should be able to get after it sometime this year, if not sooner. If there's no hurry, maybe we can decide after some more work on it (which I knew it would need sooner or later). But if there is some hurry, I don't feel strongly about it. Maybe it could (should?) be subsumed into the Tymoczko article, since there is no article on large-scale harmonic organization.

T uses the term if I remember correctly, briefly as either "macro harmony" or "macro-harmony" to help define it before he shortens it simply to macroharmony. He credited Neil Newton with the term, I think. It's pretty simple, usefully short, and conceptually general, if fairly recent, hence its utility. T is describing a very general concept: "macro-" (as merely distinct from small-scale) harmonic pitch content, which is variously treated with more or less (often more) theoretical baggage under a number of terms and phrases which are not necessarily identical (e.g., scale, "global" harmony/harmonic structure, Perle's and Forte's "fields", various Schenkerians' "prolongation", in Romantic or chromatic music often "regions" or "zones", sometimes "context", even Gestalt). T defines macroharmony a little carefully (for the arguments he needs to make in his overall project). These conceptual relationships are apparent but could benefit from explanation. Some are probably spelled out in literature. For example, Joshua Ballance notes some similarities and differences between prolongation (and more, if I remember correctly) vis-à-vis macroharmony in discussing his use of the latter term in his study of harmony in Webern's music. Benedict Taylor briefly discusses its relation to Réti's "melodic tonality".

Most authors spend some time defining, elaborating on, and adapting the term to their purposes. Some (many?) who have used it after Tymoczko have defined it similarly but with some stated differences. So it's not merely used. Ballance contends with some issues in his application of it, if I remember correctly. It appears that many authors (not Richard Cohn) uses the term with some definition, amendment, contention, extension, or explanation (e.g., Ballance, Neil Newton, Jason Yust).

The question then, per WP:NEO, is whether there are secondary sources, if these more ad hoc treatments do not qualify as secondary treatments (I'm not sure whether they do or not), and if so, how many are required. There are surely reviews, if they count. Matthew Gelbart treats T's "macroharmony" in a note within his contribution on "Scale" (as in musical scale) in The Oxford Handbook on of Critical Concepts in Music Theory. Harrison recapitulates, discusses, and elaborates on the term in his Pieces of Tradition: An Analysis of Contemporary Tonal Music. So I think it would likely pass. It probably just needs this work done for it.

Sorry for the length; please let me know what you think. MONTENSEM (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a merge to a new A Geometry of Music article could work. In general, I'd say that Tymoczko's work is among the influential of the last 50 years and just the Oxford Handbook and Harrison seem important enough. Sonata theory faces a similar problem—even though its now central to the field, the primary sources are still go to, since there's not much reason for addition commentary from other scholars. Aza24 (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that would take a while but would be optimal. I'll edit in those the secondary sources soon and maybe/probably do some more sooner or later. I have no strong feelings about any of this, except that it would be nice for a Wikilink on macroharmony to go to this (and future) content organized on it. MONTENSEM (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aza24 and @North8000, I added some for now (I seem to have the Wikipedia bug lately, even though I need to get other things done). But I would like to include work from Daniel Harrison (as above) and could probably include more from Neil Newton and Ciro Scotto as well. Afterward I will probably remove the notability tag if all are agreed. I will probably ask on its talk page. Much more could be done on the article (as on so many), and a new article on T's Geometry would be great. I suppose I lean toward keeping the page separate from T's because it is such a general term, but I do not feel strongly about it. MONTENSEM (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong opinions, including on whether or the tag is kept. Right now the article is in the NPP review que. I also don't have the specialized expertise that you have in order to give a thorough answer. Perhaps it would be good to think about these questions (just for thinking, I'm not implying that any of these are criteria/requirements for anything)

1. Terminology aside, is it about a distinct topic?
2. If it is, what is the most common term for that distinct topic?
3. If it is, is the distinct topic already covered as a distinct topic elsewhere in Wikipedia?
4. Is this term significantly used (with the same or similar meaning) by folks other than Tymozko?
5. If it's not a distinct topic, is it already sufficiently covered elsewhere in Wikipedia?

And there are two possibilities, including doing both of them in the same article:

• Covering the term as a term
• Covering the topic that the term refers to

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are great questions and frames to consider, thank you! I will turn it over in my head over the next while (probably at some length). MONTENSEM (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Aza24 if you have any additional thoughts, please feel free to chime in, but don't feel obliged! I found myself resorting more comfortably to "pitch-class content" in adding more to the article, maybe the older and more distinct term in more common use in the literature, though not necessarily today. So many of these terms are ad hoc formulations. I feel like this is really about describing the pitch content of pitch space. But such metaphors are tricky. Somewhere Tymoczko even goes back and mentions Schoenberg's visual metaphors on this, maybe in engaging with Lewin or in an exchange with Yust (where T also criticizes Y as quasi-Hegelian in his historical thinking, though without naming Taruskin as his own progenitor here, I think). MONTENSEM (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for composer categories! - I got fascinated with Rohan de Saram, and began Sequenza XIV. I would have asked Jerome Kohl for the Amalysis section. Can you help there? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work on Saram and Sequenza XIV! I'm a little busy at the moment to jump into anything too deep, but I always enjoy seeing and reading your work, especially remembering those who've recently died. I hope you are having a wonderful fall (it is finally so nice here in the northeastern US after a hot, humid summer). MONTENSEM (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and yes I enjoy a lot, just uploaded the first images of October, - that was a rainy day, but scroll above, also for many link to music ;) - Sequenza would deserve expansion, but I also have first to do some other things I have neglected. Thinking of Christmas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and Rodolfo Halffter today - I found him per his birth date, confused him with his nephew, and then saw the great expansion work you put in recently! - I'm writing this in Spain, for more coincidence ;) - see also rich day: three remarkable bios on the Main page the third in a row, so I'm reluctant to nominate the fourth, which made me look for something else ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really enjoyed reading about him (I came across him in reading Heile on musical modernism in global perspective), and his music is wonderful. I hope you are enjoying Spain! It is a very special place. MONTENSEM (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(... although apparently there is very sad news coming out of Valencia) MONTENSEM (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - I was shocked by the Valencia news, but in Madrid it's just bright today, - pics to follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "give it time" when it comes to redlinked categories — their use is absolutely forbidden, meaning that you must create any category you want to use immediately upon your desire to use it, and there is absolutely no acceptable grounds for leaving it on a page as a red link. If I see it on the redlinked category report when that runs every three days, I have to make it go away the moment I see it there, and cannot just let any non-existent category simmer in the red. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not my job to create the category for you, either. I have to get through a couple hundred redlinked categories when the report runs, which means that if I invest five or ten minutes of time in each category I have to spend the whole day doing nothing but cleaning up that report, which is not a burden you have any right to put on my shoulders. Categories that you have left on pages as red links get removed, not "created for you on your behalf", and that's not up for any debate or discussion or disagreement — the onus is on you to create any category you want to use immediately, not on anybody else to do it for you, and you must not leave any redlinked categories sitting around on pages. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and sympathize. I will create the categories, though I wonder whether it is in the best interest of the project to do so immediately. Approaching it with a little more flexibility as to timing might yield greater efficiency. We are both working on this. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read anything by Jean-Jacques Nattiez? Thinking about getting this since Princeton UniPress has a 70% sale at the moment. I should admit that I have a very elementary understanding of Semiology in music... indeed I've struggled to understand exactly why it exists. Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, it appears the sale does not apply to the Nattiez. I'm left with only these two as options: [1] [2] ... hmm Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read Music and Discourse a long time ago and maybe some other things. To simplify from memory (take this with a grain of salt), the big theme is the analysis of meaning, with the neutral ground between the composer and the audience being the aptly named trace, drawing this from Jean Molino. He considers symbols and universals in music. But I don't remember it very well, and I would have to (and probably should) revisit it. I should probably read more of him!

He was enthusiastic about Boulez (to some extent). I know D Puffett was an enthusiast of his work and translated his book on Proust and music, and I've been meaning to read that. On Webern, I think he leaned on Boulez to a large degree and may have been (at least at one point) a little more mystified, emphasizing what he saw as the disconnect between the esthesic and poietic in Webern (his other two Molino concepts besides the trace, if I remember correctly). He also emphasized Webern's economy and also wrote some on the historicism later picked up by J Peter Burkholder and Joseph N Straus.

I'm not incredibly familiar with semiology proper, although I read some things on Peirce and Saussure long ago, probably in some philosophy class or seminar (epistemology?). At the end of the day, it's about interpreting meaning, so it's hermeneutical: how to interpret, or how to savor and taste. I think it's important in that regard, especially if you can get beyond the abstract theory and into more concrete, specific examples (maybe this is why some of Nattiez's earliest work in French has yet to be translated). In this regard, I've really enjoyed Julian Johnson's work on W, which I think is very insightful and goes a long way toward the more cultural, social, and political engagement (so often promoted, so often avoided or used with an end in mind in practice; Taruskin more often wields it to his own ends than explores it in an open-ended way, which others have noticed). He draws loosely on the work of V. Kofi Agawu (which is published by Princeton, too, I think, or maybe Oxford). Agawu's enthusiasm is for Stravinsky, but he works on Viennese classicism. Johnson is not always the clearest writer, but he elaborates some general and powerful theses about W's music which are more or less latent in the work of prior and contemporaneous scholars.

Anyway, libraries are always an option, and scans! Why waste your money? (I can be very cheap.)

Who would you recommend reading on Josquin et al in getting at the meaning of the music?—especially someone who reads, writes about, and clearly enjoys the music? MONTENSEM (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm afraid I was not watching your talk page so am just seeing this. I am deeply indebted for your consistently thorough thoughts! I believe I briefly read some of Agawu's Music as Discourse (I'm now noticing the seemingly intentional naming similarity to the Nattiez?), but I fear it did not leave much of an impression—I'll certainly give it another shot at some point.

I much enjoy approaches like Johnson. I recall that Strohm's Rise of European Music includes a similar perspective, though it does not hold back with specific music analysis. I'm afriad I'm not that familiar with early music literature that focuses specifically on meaning—at some point, though, I read an anthology of surviving letters between Renaissance composers (edited by Lowinsky and Blackburn, I beleive), which was a fascinating read of the endless bickering between musicians even then. Of course by luck of the draw, the extant letters were from rather obscure figures, although there were maybe a couple from Lassus. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Sometimes I just put off replying myself. Thanks for the recommendations—I'll check out the Strohm sometime and maybe that anthology. Yes, there is definitely something to such stereotypes about musicians or artists in general! MONTENSEM (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wozzeck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berlin Musikhochschule.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

I made Webern my story today, on his birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it is! I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. It is a tough thing to talk about. Thank you for sharing such beautiful pictures and for always radiating positivity. MONTENSEM (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I get less positive feedback for Barbirolli, sadly, and completely uninformed. I was told "chin up" in 2013, but at times it gets tiring, especially when real life is also tough. On the train to Paris, - going on, letting go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In Paris ... Lass mich nach Paris" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvuMgvvwR7k&t=380s Hope you enjoy! MONTENSEM (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Pics to come later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the train back: Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. Would you have sources for the composer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a neat and unique piece! I'm listening to it now; I used to play clarinet, so I always enjoy this stuff. Thanks for sharing it with me! I'm not awfully familiar with Hartmann and now isn't a very good/convenient time (navigating big life changes probably until this time next year), but I'll mull it over. Some of the clarinet and string writing reminds me of Debussy (the Première rhapsodie), other parts with the trills maybe even Nielsen. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Today, listen to Sequenza XIV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is a woman poet's centenary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]