User talk:Blehfu

Status: Offline

Hi Bleh fu, and welcome to Wikipedia! You've been here since September evidently and no one has properly welcomed you yet, so here it is. Nice work on Alban Berg, and on merging Hugo Wolf last night.

If you lived nearby I'd say hey let's do some chamber music! Happy editing, Antandrus 16:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Freaky — I didn't think people would bother writing here :) --BenK 20:36, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you know: we will. :-) Pleasant to see the orange message box light up; pleasanter still to see you're not working in a vacuum after all. Nice work! (And my life, too, made much the better by open-source software and good cheap food...) Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 22:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Chamber music

I agree- I created it since I didn't like seeing the red link to the uncreated category (silly reason, since a Chamber music category would be by now large). (There is a Romanticism category now, and the work may belong there, though Schumann already is and that probably suffices.) It probably takes a request in administration?.. to delete the category, though deleting its contents may suffice (hrm, still exists, just empty. No, I think it'll take more than that.) Schissel - bowl listen 06:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Romantic music

Funny sort of coincidence. Too bad about the edit conflict; I hope you can rescue your stuff without too much trouble. -- CYD

Chopin's works

Hello!

The reason I copied the summary from List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin back into the Frédéric Chopin article is that that list was the only link under the "Works" heading, and it was rather large and unapproachable. Moving the summary to the top of that article was a good idea.

I think it's important to have at least a summary of Chopin's works in the main article; if you'd like to convert the list into prose, I'd say go for it—it's rather long, and prose would give a better idea about which compositions were particularly notable. --bdesham 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Schubert

Hey, greetings! Isn't that Schubert article a lovely piece of work? LOL. We've had a conversation going for a while now about dynamiting it and starting over. Feel free to take a hard look at the recent anonymous additions; I just did a quick pass. 212.183.90.212 is from Austria. Cheers! Antandrus 15:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on the degree! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha-- Thanks! Meanwhile, I've forgotton all of my wiki-syntax. --bleh fu talk fu 17:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Piano compositions' difficulty

Hello. I like a challenge! Let's hope the editor in question hasn't heard of Alkan! --RobertG ♬ talk 28 June 2005 15:27 (UTC)

How does that look, now? --RobertG ♬ talk 28 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Lutosławski

Thanks for the helpful edits, Bleh fu, an improvement. Just out of interest, why do you suggest that someone with chutzpah edit it? :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Quebec page as living in or being associated with Quebec. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Quebec for instructions.--Rmky87 00:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater page. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by alma mater for instructions. --Cooksey 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there! -- user:zanimum

Image Tagging Image:Alban berg.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Alban berg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Mygreenthumb.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mygreenthumb.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppesen

Hey, you haven't had a new message since 2006, so I owe you a "you have new messages" light. Thanks for updating the ref on Counterpoint. I personally love that book, and always use it when I teach counterpoint ... it's very much a "composer's" book, and friends of mine who are "theorists" pooh-pooh it, but I find it useful for teaching how to write something beautiful, which, strangely, might be an important point. Anyway, welcome back--I haven't seen you around for a while, and we need good editors in music. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aug 6

Ah, sorry to have written such a harsh inline comment. I was thrown off-course by the "All variants of augmented sixth chords are closely related to the applied dominant V7 of ♭II;". This is not true of the Fr4/3, is it?

So are you in favour of explaining the parent chords as ii4/3 (Fr), iv6 (It) and iv6/5 (Ger)? Tony (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to hear that word "predominant". I've had trouble getting it accepted in this context (there's nervousness about treating the cadential 6/4 as V6/4 – I've had to fight the single-chord analysis people who cling to I6/4 and are unwilling to accept the underlying harmonic structure, and aug 6 so often goes naturally to V6/4, especially Ger6/5, with two common tones). But I think since the savage war last year at the Inversion article, opposition to V6/4 has softened a little.

To take your points in turn:

(1) Unsure whether I'd make that claim about a close tie with N6; one of the vectors pushing towards V is really quite different, isn't it? (2) To conceive of aug 6 chords as V of V comes up against the basic brick wall that the bass is very much not part of key V. I don't see how it can tonicise V, and I'm sure it's A & S who point this out.
I think this was very much an 18th-century thing, too. I'd always assumed that this was the obvious way it arose from the parent chord, way back – by chromatic passing-tone. See an ideal example in the dragon scene in The Magic Flute: F–F#–G sung by Tamino.

I'm not in the ivory tower, but the musical scrap-heap. Tony (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking in more general terms: x6 tends to act as a predominant (in this context); it is only related to V/V insofar as it "borrows" #4 from it. Perhaps instead of "construction" I mean voice leading. --Blehfu (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've prompted me to think through it a little further. Yes, raising 4 to #4 is part of tonicising the dominant, but is achieved using an approach-chord that is entirely within the scale of the dominant key—almost always either V of V or viiº of V, with an added 7th above the root of the approach-chord as an option (still within the dominant scale). The essential presence of the flattened supertonic of the dominant scale rains on that parade completely: I can't imagine a more antithetical tone to a key than that. I think both the flattened submediant and the raised subdominant tones function to move to chord V (not key V) of the underlying key through what Allen Forte calls "the law of the half-step" (the strongest vector in all voice leading); they add impetus, colour, and sometimes drama to the movement, for sure, but I don't see how they can tonicise V, even momentarily. Tony (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means implying that any variant of aug 6 can tonicize V. I agree with everything you're saying, I think perhaps it is that I am unable to express myself clearly. Also, are we discussing the "origins" of x6 or the "Dominant functions" section of the article, or both? I've lost track.

I agree, V can only be tonicized by a secondary dominant. However, #4 could be approached via another pitch in the dominant scale, as well as by chromatically altering 4 to #4, i.e., IV V6/V V

...I think see where the misstep might be:

My comparison of x6 with V/V is not in the role of V/V tonicizing V, but in the role both can have as predominants. Indeed, sometimes V/V does result in a modulation, but other times it is just a coloration of ii, just like, as you say, x6 is a coloration of ii, IV, or vi. Furthermore, both share a common voice leading in #4-5. Perhaps the article should read thus:

From the Baroque to the Romantic period, augmented sixth chords have had the same harmonic function: As an altered predominant chord (typically the supertonic or subdominant) leading to a dominant chord. This movement to the dominant is heightened by the semitonal resolution of both ♭6 to 5 and ♯4 to 5; essentially, these two notes act as leading-tones. This characteristic has led many analysts to compare augmented sixth chords to the secondary dominant V of V (in its role as a predominant) because of the presence of ♯4, the leading-tone of V, in both chords. In the major mode, the chromatic voice leading is more pronounced because of the presence of two chromatically altered notes, ♭6, as well as ♯4, rather than just one in the minor mode.

Of course, there's a more elegant way of stating that somewhere, but I'll have to dig around for it. --Blehfu (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addendum here, but in the case of the Lydian dominant, it is essentially the Fr6 with 2 in the bass, and it is used precisely as a dominant, i.e., the examples in French sixth sonority as dominant. Not in any Bach chorales, though, of course. :) --216.221.63.197 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report

Don't worry about it, it's no big deal. Just remember that except in extreme cases or in special circumstances, it is always best to only report someone when they vandalize after receiving a final warning. Thanks for helping to clean up Wikipedia. If you have any questions, or if you need help in the future, feel free to ask on my talk page. Cheers! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at my talk. I also made a slight tweak to your userpage so that your status indicator is not obscured by your edit count/summary links. Revert or tweak as desired, of course. Let me know if you have any other questions =) –xeno (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of metronome use

Hello Blehfu!

I've added some thoughts on the talk page. 'hope it works out!
All the best,
Seldoritv (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Listen instead of Template:Audio?

Indeed, the irony of {{listen}} is that it is intended for inline ease but compared to {{audio}} is more bulky if you actually listen (it is only streamlined if you don't listen). I hate them both. Hyacinth (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg) is great. Wikipedia:Media help (MIDI) is not so great. Hyacinth (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Installation

I tried to add those pages to my monobook.js page and the I completely cleared my cache, however, they are still now working. Is there something else that I should do? Eric-Wester (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it looks like Friendly is working now, but not the other one. :? Eric-Wester (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its true though

Harsh though it may be, what I said is true. Try combining the term Western Classical Music and Pakistan (or India) on Google and you'll find nothing. I am just trying to highlight the fact that both these countries (along with the whole of South Asia) have no "high culture". Baburghazi (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Can you tell me how this is A7? Tan ǀ 39 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical improvisation/sandbox

Hi there! I came over this one, looking for pages not supposed to be in the Main article space. Would you be so kind and move it to your user space, e.g. User:Blehfu/Musical improvisation? --Eivind (t) 11:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, and have a nice day :) --Eivind (t) 13:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic formats

Hello. Could I politely take issue with some of your recent amendments to the reference formats in articles like Madeleine Grey, Maurice Ravel and Piano Concerto for the Left Hand (Ravel)? You have opted for the Harvard format which is different from the style already in use on some of the pages, which means there is now a mixture of styles. And while Harvard works fine in the sciences, it sometimes comes unstuck with humanities references, especially where editions of works are concerned. E.g. the reference for: Ravel, Maurice & Orenstein, Arbie (1989), Lettres, écrits, entretiens, Harmoniques, Paris: Flammarion, p. 189, ISBN 2080661035, OCLC 20025651 - now looks as if it's a joint work by Ravel and Orenstein, because this Harvard format can't cope with the idea of an editor as well as an author.

I would suggest abandoning the "Citation" template and reworking this one as: Maurice Ravel. Lettres, écrits, entretiens; [edited by] Arbie Orenstein. Paris, Flammarion, 1989. p.189. ISBN 2080661035, OCLC 20025651. (The author name only needs to be inverted to Ravel, Maurice, in the alphabetised bibliographies, not in numbered "reflists". The original statement of responsability in French is very elaborate - "réunis, présentés et annotés par..." - and in an English source can be usefully abbreviated to [edited by]. The series Harmoniques is unnumbered and not helpful in the reference. I don't think the ISBN needs to be hypertexted as it doesn't lead to a bibliographic reference - and one perhaps doesn't need to include quite so many of the library links as it makes the list harder to read.)

Sorry to go on so. I can see that the Ravel article has been messy for a long while and you have been trying to bring some much needed order to it. Now that you have done all the work on this list, perhaps a few tweaks would be the most economical way of resolving things. Should I have a go? Lampernist (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hows about:

Ravel, Maurice (1989), Orenstein, Arbie (ed.), Lettres, écrits, entretiens, Harmoniques, Paris: Flammarion, ISBN 2080661035, OCLC 20025651

--Blehfu (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that clarifies the main problem, and it's a more economical fix than what I was thinking of. (I would ditch the series title which is just confusing.) I think the Worldcat entries can be obscure because although they have no doubt coded the source data correctly, their output format doesn't seem to allow them to distinguish things like editors and authors.

I think there are still a couple of issues about the Citation template though. (1) It is not a good idea introduce it to existing lists of references (as in Madeleine Grey and Piano Concerto for the Left Hand (Ravel)) because it creates variant styles in the same list. I think a bit of tidying up is needed here. (2) The format of the Citation template is quite restrictive and really not suitable for some types of reference, especially for non-scientific subjects. For example, in the current list of Ravel references, look at the journal and newspaper articles where the date format conflicts with the other entries and is not in proper Harvard style - and the use of italics and quote marks is inconsistent. The book entry for Jankélévitch is also messy because the edition statement comes after the series note and makes no sense there. I know this sounds pedantic but the main requirement for references is that they should be clear, and these unnecessary inconsistencies just increase the possibilities for confusion. The other worry I have is that by making the "[Foot]Notes" section refer to the "References[Further reading]" section, it creates a 2-stage look-up to check what a reference is. I would treat the two sections quite separately and make life easier all round. Lampernist (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Upon doing a little digging, I agree re: the other articles. I'll revert the changes, at least for now. Uniformity is important, but often without my changes in the references, it's already lacking.

As you might imagine from my changes to Ravel, it is some sort of uniformity in the references I'm looking for. I still haven't found a totally satisfactory solution, so perhaps it is best that I try and hash one out now before I mark further changes to articles. I've settled on the Citation and Harvnb templates as they work very well together with automatic CITExxxyyy tags, but I appreciate the limitations of the Citation template. What would you suggest, using the Cite xxx templates? --Blehfu (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have changed around the Ravel references and I think they look a lot better. That other method of combining footnotes with a separate bibliography probably works better in a doctoral thesis than in an encyclopedia article. I've had a quick look at the Cite template and it does seem to offer more control over treatment of different material types, and its punctuation style looks sharper to me. Like the other template, it is still based on Harvard style, of which you may have gathered I am not a fan for this kind of material. My personal preference is to avoid templates and to format individual references according to something like The MLA Style Manual, and in that way you retain complete control for the unexpected. However that is a subjective preference. Thanks for sorting out the mixed references. Lampernist (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: False allegations

Do not post false allegations on my talk page. The person editing Jazzy B is not writing in according with WP:BLP policy. If you have a problem I strongly suggest you take this up with an admin and you'll see what happens. Thanks! JBsupreme (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4

Please be aware that CSD G4 doesn't apply to speedy deleted articles - only to articles deleted through an deletion discussion. For requesting deletion of articles which were recreated after speedy deletion, please use the CSD used for original deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Cheskin...

Have copyedited this article as much as I can: it contains too much unverified information and practically NO biographical information. Suggest it be split into two or more articles: one (a stub) about Cheskin himself, and a second about his marketing innovations and methods. (Copied from Louis Cheskin talk page.) Cheers, Shir-El too 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I forgot to thank you! Your messages remind me to check the article history before I start copyediting a new page, to see if anyone's working on it already. Merci, Shir-El too 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]