Jindřichův Smith

Symphony No.53 (Haydn)

Hi. My reason that I put all the instruments recquired sentences to the SCORING SECTION is that the other articles about Haydn's symphonies have a likely standard format, which put those sentences to a section called SCORING. Of curose, there are some articles which are from a different way. However, I think that this necessary to put those sentences to the SCORING section, instead of in the first paragraph. Thanks. (Addaick 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Oh, OK. Jindřichův Smith 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about Joseph Haydn's symphonies not Michael Haydn's!!!(Addaick 11:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Same difference. More detailed response at your talk page. Jindřichův Smith 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not repling at once because I am back to school now. Thanks for your concern. If you look at most of the articles about Joseph Haydn's symphonies such as No.44, No.45, No.46, No.49, No.54, No.55, No.100 to 104, No.87, No.90 etc. There are section called scoring and I don't understand why you revert my edit to symphony No.53. I do think that if there are several sections d8ivided, the article becomes more clear. Don't you feel strange? If you refer to other composers such as Brahms, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, they would call "Instrumentation" but Joseph Haydn's call "Scoring". (Addaick 08:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

We should get more people involved in this discussion. More detailed response at your talk page. Jindřichův Smith 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your view that more users should be on this dicussion. Actually, I have raised the similar question in the dicussion page on the WikiProject:Classical music, you may take some reference there. Anyway, how do you response that most of the Joseph Haydn symphonies articles have those sections such as "scoring" and "structure" or "movements"? (Addaick 07:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

I respond thus: If there's a concensus to uniformize either Joseph's or Michael's to the other, or both to yet another, I volunteer to personally make the change to all 145 articles (for each of the Symphonies of the Haydn Bros.) over the period of a week or so. Jindřichův Smith 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your response make me feel embarrassed. But anyway, you and my target are to get the articles uniformized. However, before the action which you have said, I suggest that you first inform your actions to the WP:CM to get some replies(if have), then if I have some time, I will lend you a hand:) (Addaick 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

Hey, can we conitinue our conversation a months ago? Do you wish to change all those articles? I may help you:) (Addaick 09:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry. I looked at the talk page for WP:CM and David Brooks referred me to a lengthy discussion on this topic, which I have not had the time to review. I will have some time on Sunday to sit down and reflect upon this carefully. But today I just want to add a couple of details to the article about Michael's "Pastoral" Symphony (tangentially related to our discussion, btw) and then I need to be out the door. Jindřichův Smith 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this. I've only edited the Joseph Haydn symphony articles. The Michael Haydn articles have been mainly the work of one editor (Anton Mravcek) so I would ask him on those.

As to the point of whether or not there needs to be a standard format for the sections in the Joseph Haydn articles... many of the Joseph Haydn articles were created as stubs and a quick copy/paste while changing just the tempo markings, composition dates and scoring. That's how so many of them have the same format. Some other editors have objected to the "bulletized" format of the articles and prefer a more readable prose. So, some of the smaller articles have had sections merged. Myself, I'm more of a "fact dumper" than a real writer, so I don't mind the bullet-like sections, but I really don't mind either way. Many articles of overly bulleted information like this is almost begging for infoboxes, but there are strong objections to close in WP:CM right now. DavidRF 15:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my very long delay in getting back to you. There was this thing at work and it's really taken away my free time for the last couple of weeks. I'm hoping it's over now, it wasn't bad per se, it's just that it killed everyone's free time.

With that out of the way, and in response to David: Yes, Tonerl's done a lot with those, but Al has made a few key contributions (mainly musical notation illustrations), and I'd like to think I've helped in at least a small way.

Thanks to David for the insight into the edit history of the Joseph symphony articles. My opinion about bullets is this: It's not bad for a starting stub, but we need to move away from that as the article grows and develops. Jindřichův Smith 22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

Sentences problem in all Michael Haydn's symphonies article

I find these sentences:"Scored for 2 oboes, 2 bassoons, 2 horns and strings. In four movements" These are not complete sentences, I suppose, from my knowledge. Because I am not native English speaker, so I don't know those sentences are OK or not in English. Apologise if I made a wrong complaint. Thanks(Addaick 11:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

They're OK for the first draft of an article. On successive drafts, we ought to come up with something better. I'll try rewriting the relevant sentence in the article on Symphony No. 39, let me know what you think about that. Jindřichův Smith 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you chose the same one. If this doesn't catch the attention of the others who've worked on these, I'll ask them about it, if you haven't already. Jindřichův Smith 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is better if you can ask the other users. (Addaick (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

Only D-flat major symphony?

A fairly quick search in the LoC catalog revealed others, but not by composers as well-known as Myaskovsky (or as often-recorded, either - three times, twice by Svetlanov, once by Yablonsky - as his 25th.) Dressel (symphonie Des-dur), e.g. May as well be accurate in an encyclopedia- it's not the only symphony in D-flat... Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(And a better example - Ture Rangström 3 (recorded twice that I know of)... though sometimes described for some reason as D-sharp ??.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I screwed up. You're absolutely right, Rangström 3 is a better example. Amazon.com confirms there are two different recordings of it (the third result is a repackaging of the first result into a box set, but that does bolster a notability argument). I'll try to correct. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanhal, gis, ...

I seem to recall reading the following in gist.
__ Beethoven initially wrote Dis as the key of his Missa Solemnis (on the title page, I gather) for something of the same reason also, I think- not to indicate that the key was E flat (it wasn't), but that the winds would need to practice more because of the sharpish key. There's a whole history having to do with the classical/late-classical key and those works "in Dis" that are floating about (by Hoffmann, Krommer, and others) that, sound unheard and sight unseen except by a few authorities, are assumed to be in E flat (etc.) __
(After repeating all that- I wish I knew where I read it. Because I can't find it again. Might want to ask Allan Badley by e-mail over at Artaria Editions - there's contact information at their website - about the use of Dis, Gis etc. by the composers in question in such works though.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that this is another one of those confusing traditions (like transposing horns differently in the bass clef)? Jindřichův Smith (talk)

Schubert's last sonatas

Hi. I've requested peer review for this article, as I hope to make it a GA (not FA as yet). Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Gidip (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: What the heck is the Zodiac?

Hello! I've replied to your message at the village pump. If you have any other questions, you're welcome to ask them on my talk page. Happy editing! --Slowking Man (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's what that's about. Thanks. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole continuo issue

Thanks. There seems to be a lot of debate about continuo in these symphonies. See [1] and [2]. You are correct that Robbins Landon supports the use, but if hard-core period instrument conductors like Harnoncourt and Hogwood are omitting the harpsichord, then I'm thinking there must be some musicologists on the other side. DavidRF (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

After investigating a report at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PrimeFan, I have come to the conclusion that this account, along with a large number of other accounts, are all being operated by the same person as abusive sockpuppets. Operating multiple accounts is not permitted when they are used to edit the same articles and debates. However, due to the nature of the IP addresses involved, it is possible that some of these users have coincidentally shared a computer or IP address. If this is the case, you may request to be unblocked by emailing the blocking admin or the unblock mailing list with your official University email address. This is to prevent one person from spoofing the admins with multiple free throwaway email accounts such as gmail or yahoomail. (Your email address will not be stored or used other than for verification.) If this is a misunderstanding I apologize in advance, and your account will be unblocked as soon as you provide proof that you are a separate individual. Be advised two checkusers examined this case and agreed on the results. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Mozart's Haydn Quartets

A tag has been placed on Template:Mozart's Haydn Quartets requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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 removed 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. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)