User talk:MONTENSEM

Welcome!

Hello, MONTENSEM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anton Webern may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *{{wikicite|ref={{harvid|Mitchinson|2001}}|reference=Mitchinson, Paul. 2001. "[http://paulmitchinson.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traditionalism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MONTENSEM. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pollini

I wanted to welcome you, but see that you are here for a while. I came to like the concept of WP:BRD: when an edit is reverted, discuss (don't make the same again, that is). - The larger an edit is, the more likely it gets reverted, because some like myslf - going over the watchlist of 1000 entries over the last 24 hours - will not take the time to study. I feel that confronting the reader at all with one incidence that early in the article was not a good idea, however short the quote. - Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff

Thank you for your great expansion and diligent work on Anton Webern. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! MONTENSEM (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Anton Webern

Hi MONTENSEM. You added references to Anton Webern for Simms and Erwin 2021, but no cite defining that work exists in the article. Could you add the required cite, or let me know which work this references? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll fix it momentarily. Thanks for catching it! MONTENSEM (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The errors are hidden by default, but can be enabled by following the instructions here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Webern

Your work on Webern is marvelous and very thorough. I could definitely see it being nominated to be a Good article through GAN. However, there are quite a few issues related formatting and general structuring at the moment. If you are interested in GAN, I would be more than willing to leave comments on Webern's talk page over where the places for improvement currently reside. Do let me know. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parsimony.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording and style at Anton Webern

Thanks for all of your work on the Webern article. I am continuing to see many instances of awkward or inscrutible writing style and diction in the article text. On a previous occasion, I recall that you reverted my attempt at correcting one such sentence. If editors make this sort of copyedit in the future, please know that they are not denigrating the excellent research and collation of material you have done but are just trying to make it more accessible and clear to English-speaking readers. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall the prior instance, but I'm not so sure these are bona fide improvements. What is "awkward or inscrutable" about "His music was among the most radical of its milieu in its sheer concision" (my wording) as opposed to "His music was among the most radical of its time in its stark concision"? "Milieu" is actually more accurate and specific, circumscribing the claim being made; it refers not only to time, but place, specifically social environment. "Stark" has (negative) connotations of bareness and simplicity, whereas I used "sheer" more for emphasis. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Stark" connotes harshness, too. "Sheer" is better because it's basically being used as "unmitigated" but with more positive connotations as in "completely evident" or "obvious." MONTENSEM (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Your text reads as if it were idioms translated too literally from another language. Is English your first language? The content is excellent, but the text needs a copyeditor. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

English is my native language (it's "inscrutable," not "inscrutible"). I have been copyediting the language, especially for concision, but I choose my words with careful intention. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to please address my question about your edits rather than speculating about my language skills. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

My comments stand. This is a little-watched page but as others read your text, they will most likely offer similar corrections. Good luck with your work here. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Do they just stand, and are they best described as corrections? "Sheer concision" is a more common hit on Google than "stark concision," so it would seem that the former is more commonly applied. I've already justified my usage of milieu, which is more of a technical distinction, but one that I think is important in circumscribing and specifying the claim being made--in what context is this music what it is?--a particular milieu more than a time. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is just something about "stark" that I don't like in this context. "Stark" sounds like something that might be applied to some of Stravinsky's music, as in music of "stark" contrasts. "Stark concision" implies bareness, bluntness, harshness, immediacy, and a certain (rude) simplicity. Webern's music may appear or be simple in some ways, and sometimes it may have bare textures (more often very much not), but it is not generally very harsh; it is expressive. Often it is, one might say, more "sheer" (diaphanous, transparent) in its musical texture and maybe even "abrupt," with a certain characteristic softness. Obviously these are associational or connotative rather than functional aspects of the words "stark" and "sheer" in this very specific context, but even functionally, "sheer concision" gets more at the sense of "completely evident," "utter," or "pure" concision than does stark, which carries quite negative connotations, too, like "a stark [gloomy, sad, depressing] winter day" (whereas Webern's music has ecstatic moments and something of a mystical/religious utopian character to it). Musicologist Deborah Mawer uses the same phrase in her contribution to Accenting the Classics: Editing European Music in France, 1915–1925: "Occasionally, due to its sheer concision, Ravel's own expression is a little ambiguous, [...]." (p. 141). (Coincidentally, one might argue that Webern's "sheer concision" also sometimes makes his expressive intent a little ambiguous: the text painting is very compressed.)

I think my original is perfectly acceptable and arguably better. I have taken pains to explain. These were not arbitrary word choices. These are somewhat petty items, especially the choice between synonyms like "stark" and "sheer," and I don't know why you insist on them; they are largely a distraction from more meaningful and substantive work on the article. I invite you again to engage in constructive discussion, not to make it personal by questioning my language skills. Please engage with me constructively and with civility. Given your mere stand or assertion against my arguments, I have restored "milieu" to make the claim that sentence makes less vulnerable and more secure. I would like to restore "sheer," or we could simply apply "concision" without any modifier.

Also, if I remember correctly, I did not simply revert the edit you made previously regarding Webern's politics (I would have to look back to see precisely what I did) but rather expanded upon it by adding a quotation from musicologist Julian Johnson summarizing what is a fairly consensus, though debatable, view on Webern among musicologists and scholars. Richard Taruskin, though he has done good work, is well described by many in the article. (For that matter, Alex Ross is a journalist or critic more than a scholar; his work is often criticized on this basis.) In general, my approach has been not to remove things from the article but rather to try to be charitable and sympathetic, as in my edit on what someone else wrote (long ago) on the nature of the Passacaglia's relation to later works at your behest. MONTENSEM (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(There is a widely acknowledged emotional or expressive complexity, depth, and interiority to Webern's music that "stark," with its connotations of bareness, immediacy, harshness, and so on, especially belies.) MONTENSEM (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(This is why Schoenberg's famous quote from the Op. 9 Preface is about compression of depth--'novel in a sigh, joy in a breath'; Adorno says similar things, some of which are already in the article.) MONTENSEM (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I also invite you again to defend your preference of "stark" over "sheer," given that the latter appears to be in much more widespread use as appended to "concision." MONTENSEM (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Stark concision" implies "bare concision," "simple concision," or even "grim concision," whereas "sheer concision" not only better emphasizes the concision itself, but also implies a thoroughgoing, through-and-through, or more complex concision. The latter is more appropriate. There is a reason the latter phrase is in more widespread use. People do not write about concision unless it is interesting or remarkable! MONTENSEM (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that, in general, while you have assembled a wealth of valid content and references, you are treating the article page more as your personal academic essay. In Wikipedia terminology, you are placing UNDUE emphasis and making SYNTH connections between statements collated from a wide variety of sources to fit what appears to be your personal narrative. While much of this is valid and reflects mainstream views, some of it does not. It would be good to see the content reflecting your personal points of view and analysis more directly cited to the sources rather than using sources as rungs in a ladder or supporting evidence as one might do in an academic thesis or article of criticism. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I invite you to make a specific case rather than to merely assert it. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Well when I've done that, even on minor flaws, you have responded by denying the issue and reinserting your preferred text, e.g. "mileu" -- undefined and obscure at its position at the top of the lead -- instead of the readily understood and factually accurate "time".

Here's a flaw that you can fix: The several yellow sidebars and narratives accompanying sound files are UNDUE -- your own views supported by cherrypicked primary sources and not encyclopedic in substance or tone. These are the sort of thing that would be diverting and interesting in a magazine article but fail our NPOV policy, which you may wish to review in detail. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Milieu" is better than "time" because it diminishes potential puffery; it is a well defined term in common use and focuses on the particular context, especially the social context at a time and in a place, whereas time is somewhat under-defined and may overly generalize or universalize the claim. If you feel very strongly, you could change it back to "time," but this strikes me as bizarre.

Both excerpts are of music discussed in the body.

The Schoenberg on Op. 5 aligns well with Haimo et al. What precisely is your criticism?

The Op. 15 caption could be tightened up somewhat, although much of it is simply bare narration and some history as to influence and reception from Julian Johnson and another writer. I'm sure others have written on the piece and could be cited directly; Greg Sandow and especially Anne Shreffler come to mind. I may look at this later. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The direct quotations in the biography sections could have their captions pared down, although I think they are illustrative and worthwhile, or they could be converted into notes appended to relevant sections of the body. Please be more precise. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion as an essayist to associate those primary source quotes with those sections of the encyclopedia as if they represent widespread mainstream narratives relating to those sections.

Please quote the section of your cited Reliable Source that defines Webern's "milieu" as it is used in that sentence. "Time" is objective and easily verified and his life dates precede that part of the article lead text. "Milieu" defined by observation and you have not described the milieu to which you or Reliable Sources place him at various times in his life. It conveys no meaning to the reader or worse, it conveys a different meaning to each reader who fills in the blanks you open with that undefined term. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to return to this over the coming days, but let's take it piece by piece, then, starting with the box regarding Krenek. What precisely is suspect or wrong to you about it? We will examine the texts and caption, which are backed by a secondary source (if not a mixture of secondary and primary source material), together, from an authoritative biography of Krenek, which is also used for and aligns well with relevant material from several sources in the body. Be specific in your challenges, please.

I will look more at "milieu." Are you wanting a direct quote from someone using "milieu" regarding the concision of Webern's music? Would you like a description of Webern's milieu? MONTENSEM (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

if not a mixture of secondary and tertiary source material* MONTENSEM (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add: if we break "milieu" down into its constituent elements, as I have done repeatedly, then we are talking about a (1) time, (2) place, and (3) social environment, all of which are defined within that opening paragraph and throughout the article. This diminishes puffery, because other composers are also noted for their tendency to concision, including but not limited to the two I already mentioned; and, moreover, it aligns well with the closing sentence of the opening paragraph, which is something of a commonplace as to Webern extensively detailed in Moldenhauer and is rigorously defined with a list of works in the KBP citation from the Berg Cambridge Companion. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, and I want to emphasize this, be concrete. The abstract policies are not making your case; they are just citing policies. Make your case specifically, and I will make mine. That allows us to do this work together and to be genuinely constructive. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

When I say be concrete, I want to know that you have consulted the material and are not just citing policies at me. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Finally, I want to know: is my talk page the most appropriate venue for this, or would it not be more appropriate to use the article's talk page? MONTENSEM (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful to use the article's talk page in order to facilitate others' participation. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

re: "widespread mainstream narratives", Krasner's account is applied or cited in this specific context by Bailey Puffett, Morgan, and Taruskin (arguably misapplied in some Taruskin), et al ... these are very mainstream sources, although Taruskin is more controversial, as he himself and many besides him note ... please assume good faith rather than repeatedly accusing me of or insinuating the worst MONTENSEM (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR addition of content that fails verification in cited sources

Once again, with this edit you have not only added content that is not verified by the cited source, but that you are also re-inserting after I challenged it by reversion with an edit summary explaining the problem. You cannot claim that an article relating to the early twentieth century reception of Webern's music provides WP:VERIFICATION of the statement that such reactions "remain" today in 2023.

Please use the artilce talk page to respond to the concern that led to "your" text having been reverted. You need to show that the cited source directly supports the associated article content. That's not the same as whether you believe that the cited source is consistent with or implies the article text you have reinserted without discussion or documentation.

I hope you will take the time to understand and respond to the various concerns I have raised on this talk page. If not, the next step would be to involve the community in some form of intervention with respect to these repeated and pervasive problems with your contributions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I added a tag, because that will remind me (and others) to work on this. MONTENSEM (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, in your edit summary ("1980's public reaction to Webern's music"), you somewhat misconstrue the content: "Webern's music remains polarizing and provocative[citation needed] within various communities of musicians and scholars." MONTENSEM (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be more charitable and genuinely constructive. MONTENSEM (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did you not just add a tag? MONTENSEM (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"Remain" would have two or three prongs here to satisfy: was and is. The current source adds to the was. I will look for a citation for the "is," although the remainder of the section delves into examples. This is a commonplace. I think you are being excessively combative rather than genuinely constructive and collaborative. Why? MONTENSEM (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I already have taken time and have begun to address some of your concerns, whereas you have stopped responding and are becoming increasingly uncharitable, not collaborating, and combative. MONTENSEM (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Have I sufficiently addressed your concerns on this specific edit with the two citations I added? MONTENSEM (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no interest in acting as your tutor, especially given your unresponsive and uncollegial reaction to the time and attention I offered you. I hope that you will take the decide to more fully pursue the polies and issues that I've tried to demonstrate to you and that you will channel your efforts in ways that will provide lasting content for our readers. Much of what I see in the Webern article's current version will eventually be removed by editors who, like me, see that it does not conform to our best practices here. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 1 October 2023

This is in response to your unsigned comment below: OK, feel free. I worry that it will be more destructive than constructive, as in this instance, but hopefully it will be more of the latter, with some of the material in the notes better dispersed to other articles and revisions to the narration element of the Op. 15 caption (I recommend Greg Sandow and Anne Shreffler). I doubt I will have time for more this sort of back-and-forth. My time for working on this is limited: I have sought to address concerns and feedback over the years, but these things take time, patience, and collaboration. I have been very responsive and here sought your feedback but have been met with condescension, derision, questioning, evasiveness, a certain manner of talking past or at me, and finally now, refusal. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I will tag the article in order to attract additional editors to see whether they wish to contribute to the page, and I may copy these two discussions to the article talk page for reference there. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think just leave me out of it for now. I will be busy over the coming months and don't want to be distracted by this. I've tried to help, but my time is so limited lately that I can really only work on copyediting this in the cracks, with very little time for larger revisions and content additions, although this stimulated me to take some of it up again, partly to try to satisfy you. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Who's next?

I'm curious who you'll tackle after Webern? Maybe Schoenberg? I feel like you could do a great job on someone like Ferneyhough or Scelsi. Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe Berg, the Second Viennese School article, their works (many of which don't have pages), or minor figures within their milieu. Some of what is in the Webern article could be simply relocated. I wouldn't want to tackle Schoenberg. MONTENSEM (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It is strange how few of their works have WP pages—but honestly, its also strange how little their music is programmed. These standard classical music surveys give quite enormous attention to the school, considering how there are maybe 4–5 works total which are actually standard repertory.

I certainly understand your hesitancy to tackle Schoenberg, but keep in mind that (in my opinion) you may be the most qualified active editor to do so. Aza24 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anton Webern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pluralism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Precious

Anton Webern

Thank you for quality article Anton Webern that you alone seem to maintain to high standards, and for your help with related articles such as Maurizio Pollini, ... sofferte onde serene ..., Péter Eötvös and Wozzeck, for exquisite edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2924 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Maurizio Pollini

On 28 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maurizio Pollini, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – robertsky (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Messa di voce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Score (music).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:MONTENSEM

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:MONTENSEM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to 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 deleted 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. Ruy (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Ruy (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

To confirm, this applies to sharing music you enjoy via YouTube links on a user page? MONTENSEM (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This strikes me as having something of an anti-musical bias; certainly you have many quotes on your user page, none of which are strictly necessary and which are all from published works, to which my YouTube links were functionally analogous. In any case, I don't contest it or much care; I was simply trying to be a little more friendly and personal. I note this here for context and consider that the differences between my former user page and yours split hairs in ways that align more to the idiosyncratic differences between music and literature than to any worthwhile matters of contention (especially regarding data space, advertising, or promotion) like this. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ruy, you just speedy deleted someone's entire userpage because they included a link to music on it? There is absolutely no rule prohibited such actions, unless you can somehow prove they are "promoting a website or a product".

Where is your revert and apology? How bizzare. Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The template you used, includes "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace" in bold text. This user has made 5000+ edits... Aza24 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Montensem, looks like this editor never response to anyone (judging from their talk page), so I doubt they'll say anything here. Go ahead and recreate your userpage if you'd like. You are not breaking any rules here; you're an active editor including a single non-promotional link. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sorry, don't worry about it! To clarify, I added more YouTube links, maybe seven total?, and captioned it with "some music I enjoy" at the top (minimal data space–surely we've taken up more here). I just asked Wikipedia to delete the user page myself when I saw the alert to avoid the drama of any formal contention. It's no big deal. I more just wondered as to why they felt it was justified or necessary, especially given the analogy in my mind (that I described). But in any case ...

Thank you again. Happy editing! MONTENSEM (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(–Editing, not "hunting of man" ... !) MONTENSEM (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I still don't think you did anything wrong. The editor in question, Ruy, seems to go quickly between userpages and delete any newly created userpages with just ext links. Yours fell into that category; even though it was exempt given your surplus of contributions to the encyclopedia, they did not seem to check for that. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining... I appreciate that a lot. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@MONTENSEM: Aparently u3 was not the right causal and I'm sorry by that, but I think that links wasn't apropiated for the user page (Please use {{ping}} to tag me). Regards Ruy (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ruy I'll maintain some music that I enjoy on my user page just as you have quotes on yours. It's as relevant to the editing I do here as yours on "hunting". The difference is: since music must be played to be heard, I cannot quote in text passages. Therefore I will use YouTube links and limit myself to a few of them. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1

story · music · places

I heard Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1 (Schönberg) and can't believe they have no article. I'd go around and search via google for references but I bet you know better ones. Can we perhaps do it together? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sure! I'll be very busy (moving across the US) this summer, so I may not always be as responsive or as productive I've been able to be the past few months. But I'm happy to chip in! (Aren't the early songs wonderful? Op. 2/ii is a favorite of mine; my spouse sang it and Friede auf Erden some years ago...)

in Walter Frisch's Early Works of Schoenberg there is something of an account starting on p 79 more on Schoenberg's 1899 settings from and on Richard Dehmel's Weib und Welt in general (including Verklärte Nacht as an example), but with very little on Op. 1 actually... the Schoenberg Center has great information on Op. 1 specifically and in relation to Alexander Zemlinsky by Dennis Gerlach...

I have some correspondence books, which are probably indexed but unlikely to yield very much...

in Adorno's Kranichstein Lectures, he says Op. 1/ii represents Schoenberg's synthesis of Brahms' compositional principles with Wagner's harmonic language, which is sort of a classic thing to say (although I think some have since argued that Brahms was on a harmonic par with Wagner)... reaching more speculatively, he compares the Schoenberg's transcription-like piano writing (somewhat less favorably) to that of Debussy's Proses lyriques and says that both seem to aspire to go beyond the limits of a mere song and are almost like bits of oratorio or opera in their length and prose-like qualities... MONTENSEM (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

pp 37–38 of Stuckenschmidt's Schoenberg has a concise account mentioning the premiering baritone and musical qualities: "rich chords, parallel thirds and sixths, and heavy bass octaves"; also like Adorno, notes "sound of the piano is broaden in an orchestral manner," noting tremolos in both hands imitating strings; chromatic alterations in chords a la Wagner; anticipations of Gurre-lieder MONTENSEM (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good for a start. I'll see when I get to it. Today I had a plan, but a conductor appeared on the recent deaths list, with a sad article, so I focused on that, and it's on the Main page, and yes better but still sad ... - so much for planning. I heard the songs as the climax of this recital. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)