User talk:Wahoofive/archive2

Time signature

Good work on Time signature (though it is superior in format, anyway to make that image more clear?). It's nice discussing with you on talk pages. It's not often we get fresh blood in the music articles. Hyacinth 22:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By "clear" do you mean technically (computer image format) or content-wise? Wahoofive

I guess I actually meant opaque or solid. It's like a bad photocopy. Hyacinth 01:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. It looks totally black and white to me. Can you make a screen shot? Wahoofive 03:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it on IE. It looks fine on Safari. I'll tweak the format before I insert any more graphics. I'm generating these from Sibelius. Wahoofive 16:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-categorization tip. Perhaps we or you could draw up recommendation or a guide to creating images in Sibelius? I know my own images are often poor quality (they look great at 750px, but not at 550px). Hyacinth 21:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drum

Beacuse it is an early music instrument. Please remember to sign your posts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note and rest lengths

The redirection plan is fine with me; I hadn't realised that was your plan, which is why I removed the (temporarily) duplicated information. Warofdreams 16:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're merging articles, you really need to include everything which isn't duplication. You seem more of an expert on the topic than me, so if it is partly inaccurate, please state that - either in your edit or on an appropriate talk page. Warofdreams 16:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piano key frequencies

Hello. I don't know how to do this but you probably know how to make the first column (the one with the white and black keys) narrower so that the aspect ratio looks more like a keyboard. If you can or can't well then thanks for taking a look. hydnjo talk 18:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed the width from 60% to 33% to make it look better (I think) but I was wondering if each column could be individually adjusted rather than having each column equally wide. hydnjo talk 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. That's exactly what I was looking for. Is there a "markup" page that you know about where I could go to get all this information or do I have to ask each time ;-) hydnjo talk 21:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's more than I expected. Thanks for the link and your help. I needed that but didn't know where to get it. hydnjo talk 01:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. It looks fine. I must have been editing the dual notation with the missing slashes during cocktail time. ;-) hydnjo talk 11:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Music of France

I think the idea is to write more detailed satellite articles around the basic "Music of Country" articles. If you look in Music of France you will see the "Main article: French classical music" under the subheads, so it is already set up this way. We could put the detailed writeup right in the "Music of Country" articles, but I think they'd get to be too long; my 1980 Grove, for example, has 30 pages on France, and IMHO music history by country is currently rather under-covered on Wikipedia. Antandrus 22:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, as far as I know separating out the various articles has not been discussed as part of a Wikiproject.

Writing histories of music by country is simply something that has not yet been done on Wikipedia. This is why there are currently no links to the appropriate articles, except for the one we are discussing: that, and that no one has yet bothered to make them consistent. There's a huge amount to write about music history in each country; I haven't gotten around to it yet, and obviously no one else has either. As I said above, this could go into the main article on each country, but then I think they'd be too long. Antandrus 00:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well ... do we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Music History for History of Classical Music? We have one for composers. I've been writing composer bios for a year now (mainly Baroque and earlier) but just haven't gotten around to writing the big history articles yet. I don't think we have ever had a coordinated discussion about the general topic of music history writing. I think you're right about us differing on stub philosophy--I tend to think that French classical music will someday be as detailed as the huge article in the New Grove and we might as well start these articles off in their own space. It's fine with me if others don't want to do it that way. Antandrus 02:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer a stub over a redirect in this case. I've recently separated out a music history of the United States series, but it is sorely lacking in classical music. There are some Music of the United Kingdom articles that are on history (I plan to eventually split out those articles to a Musical history of the United Kingdom series, feel free to beat me to it). And someone has created some timelines of English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh music at some idiosyncratic title I can't remember. I think most of the larger "Music ofs" focus too much on history. They should primarily be an overview of the country's modern output and a musicological description of its music, with historical stuff only as it is necessary to explain the current scene. That's really mostly my fault, because I wrote most of them, but that's because I'm terrible at music theory (and not at all interested in it). Anyway, a WikiProject on music history would be very useful, I think. Tuf-Kat 07:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Grace note

Hello, Wahoofive. Thank you for your note and for your update. The matter is much clearer now for me, and hopefully for others who are redirected from Grace note. I appreciate the clarification. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to >:-(

scherzo con brio! — Sebastian (T) 07:03, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Timeline of trends in music

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I removed the speedy tag from this article. It seems the information was, at one point, all contained on this one page. After it became cluttered, the information was divided among sub-pages and this article left as an index. We still need to keep this one, though, for purposes of satisfying the authorship requirements of the GFDL. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 05:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP-Music

'As for the bias towards major labels, that's part of the bias towards the PR industry that inevitably pervades Wikipedia: anything featured in Big Media gets a lot of WP coverage'. I agree that the amount of coverage given will be larger for big-label artists, but what I think is wrong is for Wikipedia deletion policy to basically ban anything that isn't on a major label (through subjective notability standards)- such as the requirement for a top 100 chart placement, when the charts rely on sales in chain stores (which won't stock smaller independent labels) and airplay (the major labels bribe radio stations to not play independent music) Cynical 12:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOS music

Are you still interested in developing the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)? I'd like to turn it into an official Supplementary Manual of Style, but it has a ways to go yet. I've put some time into Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if other people are interested. It's the kind of thing that's not worth doing unless other people care about it. – flamurai (t) 22:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

choral works

Hello, Wahoofive...

I noticed you are a choral conductor...I discovered this after seeing you voted to delete my page, pointing out my "certain flair for self-promotion". Well, I'm self-promoting to you! If you are interested in a new choral work, let me know and I'll send you a score (email:baldnass@hotmail.com).

Cheers.

Daniel

Smaller images

Hi Wahoofive. Please don't replace images with smaller versions. dbenbenn | talk 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Music theory

I was aware that we didn't need to start a WikiProject on music theory. It was just a thought for if we got a lot of people involved in cleaning music theory up, especially considering how much needs to be done. --David R Wright 17:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mya

Just FYI the "supposed' artist Mya is in fact a real artist (full name Mya Marie Harrison) and, it appears from http://myamya.com quite a notable one. I agree about speedy deletion for the It's All About Me article though - that's just the title of a single track from her eponymous album "Mya". Tonywalton 09:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charting singles are not candidates for speedy deletion. Please do a little more research before describing things as a "possible hoax". Kappa 12:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental move

Hi - I do apologise for having upset you. My relative inexperience as a Wikipedian - only 2400 edits so far compared to your 4700 - is the cause. Sorry, I'm still learning. Can you point me at the guidance about disambiguation which I can read to familiarise myself with how it should be done? Thanks - SP-KP 20:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transposing/Nontransposing instrument

I don't really mind that you redirected nontransposing instrument to transposing instrument, but the least you could've done was merge the info from the former article into the latter. You did, sort of, with the list of instruments at C, but that ignores that nontransposing brass instruments are almost never pitched in C (only the C trumpet or C tuba are, or the rare-as-hen's-teeth C trombone, which may not even merit mention). AND by including nontransposing instruments in the list of "instruments sorted by transposition," it implies that nontransposing instruments transpose, and that's obviously not true.

Personally, I think the best possible way to handle this would've been to make that list you made, and in place of the C "transposition" section, simply include a link to a restored nontransposing instrument article. --Jemiller226 05:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've largely fixed the perceived problem, but sorry for attributing any issues to you. Either I misread the history page or misread the edit...or something. Now I just have to figure out a way to merge in the info about non-C nontransposing instruments and all will be well. I just have to do some thinking about that. If you have any suggestions, feel free to hit me with 'em. --Jemiller226 03:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time signature/Mixed meters

Why doesnt belong there??? Khullah 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]