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

[edit] Archives


[edit] Art of the States

Hello Opus33,

Thanks for your letter and kind words regarding our website. The question of whether to retain the original 'faw' or amend it with the performed 'law' has mostly to do with the function of artofthestates.org as a listening resource rather than a scholarly reference. Although we extensively research all of the music we present, our site is oriented primarily toward the act of listening, and the information you find there exists to support that experience. And since it's beyond the scope of artofthestates.org to clarify a detail such as the difference between 'faw' and 'law,' we opted for that which you hear on the recording.

Best,
Matthew Packwood, Art of the States
matthew@artofthestates.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.231.94 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

<Opus33 replied to this response by postal mail.>

[edit] Sacred harp articles

Opus, I looked at your articles on Leading Sacred Harp music and Pitching Sacred Harp music. They look very good to me. I'll try to make time to make a few comments on them later. - Rlvaughn (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size of Orchestra at Haydn's Creation Premiere

Opus33,

Thank you for your work in assembling all of the information about this oratorio. I'm curious where you found the information about 120 instrumentalists for the premiere. I can't find record of a performance in Vienna in this period that had more than 30 string players and the score calls for 18 winds. That puts it at 48. I don't even think that there was a stage around that had room for 120 instrumentalists.

Thanks for your assistance, Ben Denne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdenne (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ben, You can find this information on pp. 35-36 of Nicholas Temperley's book Haydn, The Creation (try Google Books, which shows pages of this book rather liberally). The stage was that of the Burgtheater, and Haydn among other things put three wind players on a part. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of maintenance tags

Per Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, maintenance tags should be placed on the article page and not on the talk page. Gary King (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gary, your tag actually proposes a change in article-writing style that, in my opinion, would harm the article, not help it. I would judge that this comes under the heading of "policy debate" rather than "maintenance." Ordinary readers who come to the Mozart article deserve to see a clean, legible format, unhindered by references to policy debates among Wikipedia editors. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please review WP:NPA

(This is based on the discussion at: [[1])

You'll notice that personal commentary about other editors, especially when not assuming good faith either, is highly inappropriate. I don't really care what you have to say, but you should probably learn about Wikipedia policies, since you're so familiar with classical music I'm sure that won't be too hard, although for us uneducated morons who dare to ask that articles fit the community accepted standards for notability, I guess we'll have to struggle with our tiny, walnut-sized, modern-music-loving brains. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cheeser, my objection] had nothing to do with your overall level of intelligence, though you seem to have chosen to interpret it that way. Rather, I'm concerned with the issue of knowledgeability. You evidently don't know much about classical music, so I think you shouldn't be proposing classical music articles for deletion. I solemnly promise you that I will not propose any articles for deletion that are about video games, Ottoman history, three-valued logics, or any other topic on which I have no informed opinion. Kleinzach said the same thing, about gastropods. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Haydn Gold Coin

Hi there. The Austrian government mints every year only one coin of 50 euro value, in very small quantities, immediately getting acquired by collectors. They started a series in 2004 called "Great Composers", in their honour, and it was decided to put Haydn on the very first coin … on top of Mozart and Beethoven! How can you say this is not interest for those that want to learn about Haydn? The fact that you have no interest in numismatics, or that your interest is in music, should not be enough to decide what should and what should not be included in an article; that is my personal opinion. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia … I think that a reference to a very special coin featuring a portrait of Haydn, not only does not take too much space in the article, but it is also very valid; please reconsider it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Miguel, I think it would be fine to discuss this commemorative coin but such discussion would belong in the numismatics articles of WP and not the Haydn article. As support for my position, I would note that neither the New Grove (the major English-language encyclopedia of music) nor any of the composer biographies I've read make any mention of commemorative coins. I think the pros are right on this point and we should follow their example. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree, this is not a music encyclopaedia, and not allowing this simple fact in the article, that takes no more than three lines, is neglecting the fact that the coin exists; which the only thing that shows is the relevance of Haydn in contemporary society, not only in music; it simply shows the legacy he has left from a different angle. Of course the coin is in an article of numismatics, which by the link, links back to this article as well. I will change it a little bit, and will put it in the "See also" section, please be wide, and see it as a valuable piece of information. Maybe some of you, musicians, would love to have this coin (and the other two "Great Composers" coin, featuring Mozart and Beethoven) after knowing the fact that it exists, it is a very rare piece of art, of pure gold, very valuable. Did you know the coin exists? Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
A personal note: thanks for compromising. I have changed a text a little bit, I hope you are OK with it. Are you watching Mozart and Beethoven as well? I will do changes there as well over the next few hours. Will let you know here once is made, so you can take a look and give me your opinion.
PS, you are right about the Haydn article and the usage of the images, they are all on the top of the article, I think it will be better if some of them are moved towards the end of it. But it is just my opinion, will not do it, if you need help, let me know. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haydn Infobox: A Trojan horse?

Of course your infobox is innocuous - but then Trojan horses are supposed to be! Actually the routine is completely predictable with a long time-wasting discussion following wrong information being put up. You are of course free to change your mind. Maybe best to email in future in case this all turns nasty (see Melodia's personal attack for example.) --Kleinzach (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach, I seem to be just a couple messages behind you. Of course I didn't mean my infobox to be a Trojan horse. But I did find it encouraging that irrelevant or inaccurate material can be simply removed from the infobox, rather than deleting the whole thing. Would this not be a feasible solution elsewhere?
Re. changing my mind: I really found it rather stressful dealing with User:truth-teller or whatever his name is. It's not like there's a huge crowd of available composer-infobox-reverters available to back one up, and the strategy of removing his dreadful edits rather than the whole infobox seemed so much more feasible to me... Regards, Opus33 (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please use email - for your sake rather than mine. Re stress - I think you are inviting a lot more of the same thing. If the Haydn box stays, Beethoven etc will be next. If the pro-boxers were real bona fide editors it would be different, but they are not. They're just lazy kids looking for instant gratification. They don't read the articles at all. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Now i think you can see what I mean about a Trojan horse - or should I say a Pandora's box! The box you object to - a box which had just been deleted - was also added to Beethoven. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you reverted infobox in Haydn, Template:Infobox classical composer to a more sensible infobox (your words), Template:Infobox musical artist. May I ask why? I thought it was thought that Infobox musical artist was not liked for composers for the reasons of fields such a associated acts? I am curious as I would like to know what makes the old infobox better (and so what I can do to change the current one). Centy – reply• contribs – 10:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Kleinzach: For someone that calls personal attacks at someone accusing you of pointiness "If the pro-boxers were real bona fide editors it would be different, but they are not. They're just lazy kids looking for instant gratification" is a wonderfully hypocritical and ironic comment.
Hello Centurion, For my current views about infoboxes please consult the talk page of the WP composer project. In a way, you've really managed to bring me around on this issue. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recant etc.

Thank you. That meant a lot to me. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You also get Wiki-savvy points for having prophesied the trouble. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mozart CD-ROM/Audio CD

The Mozart CD is a hybrid audio CD and CD-ROM. Here is the WorldCat entry for it: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/24661904--Geremia (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing content without talking about it ...

As I have said in the past, your neutrality towards my comments is generally under question. You can not hide the fact that very high value coins have been minted using very important representations like people, castles, etc. If you continue reverting my edits on purpose, I will escalate your behaviour to a Wikipedia neutral administrator and your account may be blocked. Way more important articles than the ones your review have been happily accepting my comments, you should take that as a sample! Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Opus, I'll revert the changes at Schloss Esterházy until consensus is established for them. Can you keep an eye on the article page as well, reverting as necessary; we can take michael here to 3RR if he continues to revert without discussion. Also, I think the coincruft should go at Haydn's page too. It's just hideous. Thanks, Eusebeus (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Opus33. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, --Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise on the coin issue at Schloss Esterházy, which builds on the compromize of Snappy56 where he moved the image into the gallery. I put a small paragraph back in describing the commerative purpose of the coin, which Snappy had eliminated. I will admit that the coin in the gallery (in this article) is still somewhat uncomfortable, but perhaps it is tolerable. I believe the paragraph would stand on its own without the image if necessary, and I do not believe that it detracts from the basic article; indeed, indicating that the government still values the building seems positive to me.
On reading the article I found it had considerable problems with wording, having a very confused sense of tense. I went through and corrected this as best I could with the available material. I'm still concerned that this material was probably lifted in whole cloth from some book or web site, but it is probably better now.
I'd like to know if you agree or disagree with the changes I've made. While I listen to classical music by preference, I have to admit that I don't own a copy of Grove. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Opus33, it will really mean a lot to me if you can give your honest comment on Talk:Schloss Esterházy, even if it is "I do not like and I rather the whole mention of the coin and the image to be removed". Thanks in advance. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've put some remarks at Schloss Eszterhazy and the Wikiproject Composers talk page. The quick upshot is: please, devote your efforts to improving coverage of numismatics--there, it will help the encyclopedia. Your efforts to include numismatic material in articles on other topics are hurting those articles. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
After thinking a lot yesterday, particularly carefully meditating about Loren's comment, I have a strong feeling that you and I can solve this issue. My next proposal, how about just this sentence in the "See Also" section (without the quotes), it can be the last sentence of the section if you want:
"The Austrian government minted a commemorative coin in 2004 featuring the Schloss Esterházy".
What do you think? Thanks Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Miguel. Look, in truth I'm not interested in compromising, and I will now explain why.
Take a look at my user page. It says, more or less truthfully, that I edit WP on just three topics. For each of these topics, I have read several books and know a fair amount. I wouldn't dream of editing numismatics articles, because I have never read a book about, or otherwise studied, numismatics.
You (in fact, everybody) should do the same: edit in an area where you know something, and leave alone the areas where you have no particular knowledge. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am simply trying to satisfy your original request and not to get into battles that are wothless. If you are OK with the sentence that I proposed (it is just a small sentence in the see also page of an area that I do know something and it does not hurt the article that much) then I will be personally removing all the images and replacing with that small reference to another wikipedia article. Your article will be back to your control I think. That is what the "See Also" section is for, right? What do you think? Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Opus33, would you consider giving Miguel's idea a try? I understand your position on trivia and at least partially share it, so I can see there are places it wouldn't work at all. But in my personal opinion, on looking at several places that coins had been inserted, I wasn't particularly upset by them. The image in the Esterhazy article does bother me, seeming out of place. But the experimental sentence I put in mentioning the coin did not feel bad, at least to me. I think it would be worth a try. If it doesn't work after some number of articles have had lines added, they can always be reverted next month at little effort for anyone. And I'd personally like to see the changes be allowed to sit for a week or two if possible before arbitrarily ripping them out. Thanks for considering this -- I really don't think these bits of info will be detrimental to most of the articles, and they aren't completely off the subject of the article. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:WindhamDorian.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:WindhamDorian.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate the source you used to create the Sibelius version :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Western Wynde

Wow -- I did not expect to have detailed transcriptions of all three versions of an obscure little English Renaissance tune. Great work back in 2004! Too bad that only a few of the subsequent edits have done anything to improve the article from what you brought it to. Cheers -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Myke - I think that was a period where I was discovering the joys/challenges of my Sibelius software--I actually know very little about this music! I still own the software and feel vaguely inspired to make more examples. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)