User talk:Opus33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the page for messages directed to me. Kindly place your message at the bottom, and I'll try to reply soon. --Opus33

P.S. I'm currently editing only on Sundays, so please be patient if you post your message early in the week.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Panini and Grassmann's Law 3 Spinet 4 Image tagging for Image:Epinette Rouaud.jpeg 5 Spinet Image 6 Score excerpt of Beethoven's fifth 7 In Regard to Orchestration 8 Query from Ravpapa 9 Dates 10 Noble titles in Hungary 11 Your counter-edits of my corrections of the "Viol" entry under HIP 12 Response to your comment on Africa (William Billings) 13 Edit Deletion on the subject of Fortepiano

[edit] Archives

• Archive 1: August 2003-October 2004
• Archive 2: November 2004 - June 2006

[edit] Panini and Grassmann's Law

Hi. I see you were the one who's mentioned that Panini was familiar with Grassmann's Law (at least synchronically) in several places. Comparative method is one such place, and it's now been nominated for Featured Article status, but needs more citations. Do you happen to have a source you could give? Thanks! --Red Newt 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello RedNewt, It's in the Sag reference included in the bibliography of Grassmann's Law. Opus33 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, do you have a source for the claim about the percentage of Farsi's borrowings from Arabic? --Red Newt 04:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've managed to find sources for both of these; however, if you can remember what your original sources were, then please do add them as citations as well. Cheers, sjcollier 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello RedNewt and Sjcollier, the Farsi/Arabic bit dates from my own early days as an editor, when I was not with the program with regard to citing reference sources. And sure enough, now I can't find where I read it. I'm glad Sjcollier found a source.

For what it's worth, I took a random sample (last word on every page) from Lambton's (short) Persian dictionary, which lists the etymology of every word. This indicates a slight preponderance for Arabic over native Persian words. I suspect a rather larger majority would be obtained from a full-size dictionary, since the fancy words which bigger dictionaries tend to have are likely to be from Arabic.

Thanks for spotting these problems. Opus33 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding! Take care, --Red Newt 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinet

Heyo. I had just copied the stuff that you'd removed from the Piano page to hold it over while you worked on it. (I was pretty sure you had something cooking.) It looks good! We should put a more noticeable link in its place on the Piano page, I think. - Rainwarrior 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Epinette Rouaud.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Epinette Rouaud.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really hard to move images around these days if the author didn't GFDL it. I think you might be able to use: Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat - Rainwarrior 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that "Rouaud" is the name of the harpsichord manufacturer as well, and did a quick search. You might be able to get a hold of the author from this page (there's an e-mail and stuff). - Rainwarrior 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinet Image

Hi Opus33. I noticed your messsage on Antandrus's talk page regarding the spinet image. Do you think one of these licences would be appropriate? {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}, {{attribution}}. Best wishes, MarkBuckles 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Opus! yes, Mark is right, I think: those were the same two that I thought were the closest fit, at least on the first pass of going through all the possible tags. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Score excerpt of Beethoven's fifth

Regarding your comment on Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven):

The SVG was generated using LilyPond, which is very well respected when it comes to musical typesetting. I didn't alter the file, except to add in the pauses (which I did not know how to put in the markup); consequently the grouping of the quavers is LilyPond's. I was always taught that it was conventional wisdom in 4/4 pieces (and possibly using other even time signatures too - I've just noticed that it's 2/4 and the time signature is missing, which is a mistake) that the middle of the bar be left free.

As for SVG vs. PNG, see Wikipedia:Preparing_images_for_upload#Use_SVG_over_PNG. In short, vector images can be scaled indefinitely without degradation, and can be easily edited. In addition, they are anti-aliased, so one does not get the jagged lines as seen in Image:Beethoven_symphony_5_opening.png, for example. It is not really a case any more of "Why use vector graphics?"; rather, "Why not?"

I would welcome any and all comments you have on this matter on my talk page. —Wereon 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Regard to Orchestration

Hello Opus33,

In response to your recent message on orchestration, if I may, I would like to explain my reasons for editing the orchestrations of the Beethoven Symphonies and otherwise:

First of all, there undoubtedly is not enough mention of orchestration in Wikipedia. As I have been looking through the classical music pages, I was distraught to find that the orchestration was not given enough attention. Orchestration means a great deal to a piece of orchestral music, and I, for one, am an advocate for orchestration importance. The “old” way it was caused problems. For one, it was often mixed into some introductory paragraph or it was a tiny little addition to the bottom of the background or history paragraph, not to mention the erroneous designation of “scoring” for its title. This is may be an acceptable euphemism, but it is not politically correct. It seems like the orchestrations were just pushed aside and one of the last things to be written. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how it comes off as.

Secondly, the way the orchestration formally was made it hard to read, to say the least, and difficult to understand. When it is in just a quasi paragraph form, it is very difficult to decipher which instruments actually exist in the orchestra. So thus I changed the orchestration into lists, which, by Wikipedia’s own admission, is much more organized. Thus, an Average reader can read the orchestration easier and understand it much more effectively. This is an encyclopedia, and people who wish to receive their information in a logical and coherent manner should be entitled to do so.

Finally, as you know, this is Wikipedia, and anything can be edited. Be bold is the motto. Well, that’s what I am being in correcting something that needed to be corrected. I have all of the scores were I have edited their respective pages, so I can verify what those orchestrations are. Most were either incorrectly stated, or just plain wrong. (Some didn’t even exist!) I have therefore unified the orchestrations of these pieces (all of the Beethoven Symphonies, for example,) and created a standard form that I intend to spread.

These changes are work that takes time and effort, but all in all, it’s worth it. I hope you understand my reasons and this will not come off as “harsh.” As I have seen, you are a significant contributor to Wikipedia and I admire your candor in this issue.

Thank You
Justin Tokke 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query from Ravpapa

I am interested in source material on the history of amateur music. In particular, I wonder if anyone has researched the subject of the amateur quartet societies that flourished in Europe in the 19th century. You seem to be one who can point me in the direction of research on this topic. Am I right?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

--Ravpapa 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ravpapa, your assessment of my knowledge is optimistic, but I do have access to the online New Grove, which is the starting point for any sort of classical music research. In their article "String Quartet", they mention amateur quartet societies only briefly, but do cite some books that look promising:

• A. Pilipczuk: ‘Das Musizieren am Tisch: ikonographische Bemerkungen zur Spielpraxis vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Einführung des Quartett-Tisches im 18. Jahrhundert’, Mf, xxxii (1979), 404–16
• J.-M. Fauquet: Les sociétés de musique de chambre à Paris de la Restauration à 1870 (Paris, 1986)
• H. Unverricht: ‘Privates Quartettspiel in Schlesien von 1780 bis 1850’, Musica privata…Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Walter Salmen, ed. M. Fink, R. Gstrein and G. Mössmer (Innsbruck, 1991), 105–12

I hope your French and German are better than mine...

Cheers, Opus33 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the pointers. My Grench and Ferman are probably not as good as yours, but that is probably the least of the problems. I have to figure a way to get my hands on these books.

Tnx,

--Ravpapa 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

"Dates including a month and day should also be linked in order for user preferences on date formatting to work properly." Some people want to see the date as October 15, 2006, others want to see 15 October 2006, others want to see 2006-10-15. The only way for that to happen automatically is if the dates are linked. I don't think lone years need to be linked, but full dates, definitely. That's why I left 1791 in the lead unlinked, but linked the full date farther down. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noble titles in Hungary

Dear Opus33, ermmm, we were both wrong. I found out, that the law in question was the "1947. évi IV. törvény" here is the reference: http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=8251 Sorry for editing your entry without previously ensuring myself. But on the other hand this gave you the correct data at the end:) Cheers --Aetil 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your counter-edits of my corrections of the "Viol" entry under HIP

Hello Opus33;

The very title of the article in question "Historically Informed Performance" should indicate and dictate that a high degree of clarity, accuracy, and authenticity is called for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historically_informed_performance

Here is the original entry in question prior to my edits/corrections/additions:

“The viols (also known as viola da gamba) are a family of stringed instruments in which the bass version roughly resembles a six-stringed, fretted cello.”

And then my edited version:

“The viols (also known as viola da gamba) are a family of stringed instruments which evolved from the Spanish plucked Vihuela in the late 15th century. The bass version roughly resembles a six-stringed, fretted cello -- but it is in fact a bowed-guitar (a bowed, fretted, lute tuned (44344), waist-cut, vihuela/viola guitar.“

If you (or anyone) are going to bother to include some (as you say) “rough” description of the instrument in question, with the presumed intent of reflecting or promoting “Historically Informed” perceptions of Early Music and it’s instruments (which is in fact what this article is supposed to be doing), then simply leaving it at “resembles a cello” will not due!

There is plenty of other fluff and fat which might be edited from said article – if your objection was that I provided “too much detail” and you want to reduce the total word count.

I take it your specialty is Classical Music (not Early per say), and keyboard instruments as well – not bowed strings. Viols are not just some “other” violin my friend. The time has come to _educate_ the public regarding this matter, and the HIP section and coverage directed at period instruments is one of most important places to begin. The main Viola da Gamba article elsewhere in Wikipedia may also require some edits (all in due course).

I have spent the better part of the last two years researching early (in particular) viola da gamba. Linked below is my web site. Much text there could now be edited (as it was produced blog-style, on-going, in real-time, over the course of a few years), nevertheless I have made it my life’s work to become “an expert” on this instrument. Here is my web site and coverage of viola da gamba (aka “vihuela de arco”) . . .

http://www.TheCipher.com/viola_da_gamba_cipher.html (the beginning of six very long pages, heavy with iconography, focused largely on late 15th through 16th centuries).

Do you believe yourself to be better qualified to “represent” the instrument, and represent it accurately – in an “Historically Informed” manner, in even a brief “rough” description?

You also deleted my addition of the name “Paolo Pandolfo” from the list of “foremost modern players of the viol” . If you are unaware of Paolo Pandolfo, to the extent that you felt justified to delete his name from that list (let alone to even entertain the thought of omitting him), then it’s clear to me that have no business editing anything whatsoever having to do viola da gamba (early or contemporary). You have _no_ knowledge of this facet of the larger topic I’m afraid, and are thus not qualified to edit my corrections (at least in this instance).

I will now return the article-point to (nearly) the same state I had left it prior to your subsequent counter-edit deletions.

Thank you

And please forgive my emphatic and direct tones. Life is too short, I don't have time to tip-toe around.

Cifra 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your comment on Africa (William Billings)

This is in response to your recent comment about the song "Africa". The criteria for assessment as per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment are intended to be applied from the viewpoint of someone who is not already familiar with the subject, but rather from the opinion of a newcomer. I acknowledge that I typed in "Stub" when I believe I meant "Start" class and have in fact already made that change. I will also review the other "Stub" and "Start" assessments I have already done to verify that they were accurate. Unfortunately, it is possible to type one when you mean the other. However, as stated above and in the criteria for assessment, it is not required to know much about the subject matter, as the only thing being reviewed for quality is in fact the article itself. I would also point out that at least one biography page, Pope Soter, is listed as a stub despite the fact that literally everything known about the subject is already included. While the article in question does contain all the data required for a reasonably thorough understanding of the subject, it does no more, and that is pretty much the definition of a "Start" article as per the assessment criteria. Thank you for your calling this unfortunate typo of mine to my attention, and I am going over the Stub and Start rankings I made to make sure that there were no other typos. <This response was made by User:Robertjohnsonrj.>

Hello. The page at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader is the clearest indication I can find right away to indicate that the average article, particularly on a relatively easily-accessible subject as a song, should be written in such a way that someone who is not already informed on the subject can read it and understand it. Some of the more abstruse subjects, like the minutiae of medicine, astronomy, and other disciplines which require substantial existing knowledge to even understand what they're talking about can be written for a more informed reader. However, considering that I found this article in the, and that the majority of the people going to that category are probably not active or former music students, it seemed to me that, on that basis, any article included in that category should be written in such a way that a person who just listens to the radio could still comprehend the article, as opposed to being put off by the potentially hard to understand jargon. For articles in other categories, like medicine, biology, astronomy, philosophy, etc., people expect to see jargon, but not so much in articles about songs. robertjohnsonrj 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Deletion on the subject of Fortepiano

Please don't delete edits on this article unless you find out that they're false (it's called research), because I have proof that the fortepiano's key's colours are inverted (black & white rather than white & black as on the modern piano). I haven't finished research myself, but I'm very sure that it is like this with ALL fortepianos, but if you like I can put "the keys colour are inverted on most forte pianos", but REALLY your just behaving like a baby, & you don't even have proof that i'm wrong. So untill you prove me wrong DON'T DELETE MY EDITS or i'll have you up for vandalism.

ps. To see the proof that i'm right, go to my user page where I have some links that you can study.

Thanks,

daffy_elmo (I may be small, but I've got a brain the size of.....umm.....the size of.... a... a bigger person!). 06:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)