lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Guitjo

message: The Guitjo is in no dictionary that I know. But "banjo" is. And the definition does suit the "Guitjo". 
From Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/banjo
: a musical instrument with a drumlike body, a fretted neck, and usually four or five strings which may be plucked or strummed
The "drumlike body" is the key of the definition. The number of strings has no importance and the way you decide to tune it is also irrelevant. Usually it has 4 or 5 strings but it is not essential if we follow the definition. I strongly suggest that "Guitjo" and "Banjitar" both redirect to "Banjo" since they are really nothing more than slang for a 6 strings banjo. Bragador 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree that a guitjo is a banjo with a guitar neck.  Rather, it is a guitar with a banjo neck.  The phrase was coined decades ago by banjoist, Sonny Osborne, who used to record with one. "Banjitar" is a much more suitable term for a banjo with a guitar neck.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wretchasketch (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like there's no consistency with the terminology. Both six-string banjos with guitar tuning and the converse (guitars with bluegrass banjo necks) have existed (though the former seems much more common, as it allows guitar players, who are more numerous by orders of magnitude, to play a version of the banjo) but what they're called is not standardized in practice. As it stands both banjitar and now guitjo redirect to banjo guitar, out article on six-string banjos tunes like guitars. Should that even be a separate article? Good question. But I will note that there was no consensus a few years back about merging the banjo ukulele article with either the banjo or ukulele article because the instrument is both at the same time. Same here. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong name
Talk:Crown Imperial (march)

message: I have often heard it broadcast (chiefly on Classic FM) that Walton composed the march originally for Edward VIII but not seen evidence in print. I have read at least one Walton biography, both of which seem to indicate, more strongly, it was commissioned when George VI had ascended (December 1936). Any published evidence for it being commissioned when Edward was still King? I was about to raise a citation need but the article as it is gives no appropriate point at which I could put it without confusing the reader.Cloptonson (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisiting five years on, I have found fit place to place a citation need tag.Cloptonson (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I hope the additions I have just made answer your query satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 16:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that settles the issue in showing when Walton was actually commissioned to produce the march.Cloptonson (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Yesterday I heard Classic FM mention again the "done for Edward VIII" legend. Seems certain legends die hard....Cloptonson (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I suppose it isn't all that outrageously far from the truth: the BBC's idea was to commission Walton to write a march for Edward VIII's coronation even though the contract wasn't signed till George VI had acceded to the throne. All the same, it would be nice if Classic would check its facts and get them spot on. They aren't the only ones to perpetuate a myth: despite having the facts drawn to their attention four years so ago the people at Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians still insist that Victor Herbert was born in Dublin, though he never set foot in Ireland throughout his life. Tim riley talk 09:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Commissioned under Edward VIII or George VI?
Talk:Façade (entertainment)

message: It is not clear which is the most common name for this poem. Google returns:
* about 624 English pages for "Edith Sitwell" -facade façade -wikipedia
* about 680 English pages for "Edith Sitwell" facade -façade -wikipedia
A search of google books returns
* 5 on intitle:facade inauthor:Edith inauthor:Sitwell.
* 4 on intitle:façade inauthor:Edith inauthor:Sitwell
A search of Amazon returns only books with the spelling Facade not Façade.   so I think it is better if both spellings are mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cedilla was used by the author. Not sure one should encourage misquotations of her title. Have removed the incorrect alternative. Tim riley (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tim riley: the author's spelling should be used.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Facade
Talk:Jouhikko

message: Jouhikko is same instrument than crwth/Chrotta.--SM (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same family/type of instrument, but different musical traditions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related instruments 

message: I removed this text from the article. It seems unrelated to the history of the jouhikko; perhaps if the contributor feels that Byzantine Lyra is a useful related instrument, they could add a reference further down the page where other related instruments are mentioned?
:The first recorded reference to a European bowed lyra was in the 9th century by the Persian geographer Ibn Khurradadhbih (d. 911); in his lexicographical discussion of instruments he cited the byzantine lyra (lūrā) as the typical instrument of the Byzantines along with the urghun (organ), shilyani (probably a type of harp or lyre) and the salandj (probably a bagpipe). The lyra spread widely via the Byzantine trade routes that linked the three continents; in the 11th and 12th centuries European writers use the terms fiddle and lira interchangeably when referring to bowed instruments..
StrumStrumAndBeHanged (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some text 

message: In the article it is said, jouhikantele means bowed kantele, but why should it? A bowed instrument it really is, but in Finnish, jousi = bow and jouhi = horsehair. And both the bow hair and the strings of the instrument are made of horsehair. So, I would rather say, it means horsehair kantele.</br>The English name of the instrument, of course, is something else. --2001:999:404:5498:2CD1:2EB2:972:958 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Nykysuomen sanakirja (the official dictionary of standard Finnish), one of the meanings of jouhi is "bowstring", which makes sense as these are made of horsehair. As such, it refers to the horsehair bow used to play the instrument. This explanation is from Jouhikon historia at Sibelius-Akatemia. Note that jouhi (coarse hair like horsehair) and jousi (a bow) are confusingly similar words, but they have been distinct since Middle Proto-Finnic. The mutation *š -> h occurred after this point, so the origin of jouhi is *jowši, while Middle Proto-Finnic jousi is simply *jowsi. One way to edit this would be to add "(horsehair)" to "bow". --vuo (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Lutosławski)

message: The current "analysis" section could apply to many works by Lutoslawski, so is guilty perhaps of original research but certainly of insufficient specificity. Not even the date of the premiere seems to be mentioned? (September 29 1983, conducted by Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony.) See Lutoslawski.org.pl, as quoted also here, for more useful information much more specific to this symphony (will need to be paraphrased, not quoted, of course...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 10:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure
Talk:Twenty Polish Christmas Carols

message: KESHAV KUSHWAHA 
Keshav kushwaha lives in seoni (M.P) 
He is a software developer and now he currently lives in bhopal .. 
He completed his school in maharishi vidhya mandir and completing graduation from ies college in bhopal..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshavkushwaha6 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  keshav kushwaha 
Talk:Allegro in C for Keyboard (Mozart)

message: How is the notability of a 7 sentence article with no references established? Mozart's name? padillaH (review me)(help me) 06:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't post trite counterarguments to your point.  It lowers the level of the debate.    I never liked this article either and think it should be merged.  Dial back your tone and you'll be more likely to get some reasonable discussion. DavidRF (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge tags added.  I'll merge it later. DavidRF (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My appologies, I never meant to "sound" trite. It sounded like a valid question to me and I took it to the talk page rather than revert as an attemp at a sign of good faith. Apparently I need to do more. It might help if others assumed good faith as well. Remember, I may type it but others read it. padillaH (review me)(help me) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain this to me.
Talk:Ave verum corpus

message: Just wondered if the extra Latin text in the Dialogues des Carmelites version of Ave Verum should be added, or is it not normally sung/spoken?
'O clemens, O pie, O Jesu fili Mariae. Amen.' Tpacw (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "... and ties it to the Catholic conception of the redemptive meaning of suffering in the life of all believers." That is in the introduction and nowhere in the text. I don't understand it, and I think it needs explanation and a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 
Talk:Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra (Mozart)

message: I've always heard this with the "Flute and Harp" order, and it's a piece commonly associated with flutists. If there are no objections, I'll change it, though I'll check out my recordings to be sure... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right.  The Neue Mozart Ausgabe agrees with you.  So I've gone ahead and moved the page.  Tb (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 
Talk:Exsultate, jubilate

message: Mozart fans will certainly agree the final Alleluia of Exsultate, jubilate is "outstanding," but what about those who are not Mozart fans? Stravinsky would disagree that the final Alleluia is "cheerful," or that it carries any emotion. James470 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "outstanding" implies an aesthetic judgement that is unnecessary.  How about "ebullient" and "virtuosic"?  If we had to qualify every statement to satisfy Stravinsky, we wouldn't be able to say much in these articles.  Its fairly easy to find statements that its one of the most recorded showpieces for soprano.  Sadie in "Mozart: The Early Years" says its "a jewel of a piece with its high spirits and its wit" and that "its music speaks unmistakably of his relaxed high spirits at the time he wrote it and of the elation and confidence that his opera-house success it brought him".  I guess we don't need to include too much critical opinion, but it is one of Mozart's most well-known early works -- probably his best known early vocal work -- and some mention of the mood and operatic virtuosity could be mentioned.  My two cents. DavidRF (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I would be OK with quoting Sadie as you have suggested; I would also be OK with retaining "outstanding and cheerful" if that's the opinion of a notable composer or singer. James470 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text: These arguments over what constitutes an aesthetic judgment on works of genius in any of the arts get pretty tiresome.  Going out of the way to avoid value judgments about art, particularly art that has by the consensus of in this case 200 years of civilization been accounted a work of genius is pretty absurd.  And speaking of absurd, I have removed the ridiculously incompetent amateur performance of Exsultate Jubilate posted in the article.  I realize we have to avoid using copyrighted material, but that's not an invitation to post miserably sub-professional performances simply because there's no rights issue involved.Gillartsny (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV assertion 
Talk:Haydn Quartets (Mozart)

message: There's absolutely no proof that Haydn in 1785 heard all all six quartets performed at Mozart's apartment.--2A02:8388:8180:B000:8101:A183:30EF:888 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "After hearing them all" 

message: Someone had added the following (which I deleted): "Joseph Haydn, "who is considered the creator of the modern string quartet. Haydn had recently completed his influential Opus 33 set of quartets in 1781, the year that Mozart arrived in Vienna."
There is a dissertation on how Franz Xaver Richter (an acquaintance of Mozart) is the inventor of the modern string quartet. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296864720_Did_Franz_Xaver_Richter_invent_the_string_quartet_Reflections_on_the_300th_birthday_of_the_composer_including_a_theory_about_Boccherini And whatabout the contrapuntal and motivically-driven string quartets of Franz Ignaz Beecke's (the C major) and Michael Haydn's (MH 299, MH 316, MH 319), written between 1780 and 1782? 
Singling out Joseph Haydn as the inventor just cause he was the dedicatee of the Mozart six quartets doesn't seem fair. More importantly (unlike Michael Haydn's quintets, for example), there's not a single mention of Joseph Haydn's Op.33, or any of his quartets for that matter in Mozart's own letters. Wikiwickedness (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Always glad to read Wikiwickedness's interesting, erudite, and often iconoclastic views on things. Good to know, for example, that there are those who challenge Haydn's status as the "father of the string quartet". Those challenges notwithstanding, Haydn is still almost universally recognized as the creator of the modern string quartet. So I think it has to remain. Ravpapa (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Haydn, the creator of the modern string quartet?
Talk:Quintet for Piano and Winds (Mozart)

message: Is this the Burgtheater?  Just wondering for wikification purposes.  Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial and Royal National Court Theater in Vienna 

message: Hi, I'm Wilson Baker and I am revising this article for my class on chamber literature. I think this article could be improved by adding more details in the introduction. For example, I think that it could include who played the piece in teh premiere. Let me know if there is anything that I missed and thank you for your time!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbaker.3213 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Revision
Talk:String Quartet No. 19 (Mozart)

message: Can anyone point to a reliable reference that calls this the "dissonant" quartet?  I've always heard it called "dissonance," with "dissonant" just being an incorrect misreading.  In school, Robert Levin and Lewis Lockwood were adamant on this point.  Thanks. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:String Quintet No. 3 (Mozart)

message: The first movement of the 25th piano concerto is longer at 432 bars but since it is not a sonata-allegro (because of the tutti for only one reason), that doesn't disprove Rosen's claim. According to Girdlestone (Mozart and his Piano Concertos, p 420footnote) the quintet is indeed the 2nd longest instrumental movement in all of Mozart's work. Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: (According to DMA) autograph score now at the Library of Congress and first published (parts) by Artaria ca.1789, worth noting also... (publication date as well as composition date, and location of autograph or early autograph copy worth noting, I think- well, I think, anyway, if I were a bit more sure it was sufficiently relevant I would be bold and would just insert it. :) ) Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First publication
Talk:String Quintet No. 4 (Mozart)

message: removed a number of links from the external links section, as follows:
*BBC Discovering Music (browse for .ram file for this work)
*Performance of quintet by the Orion Quartet and Ida Kavafian  from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in MP3 format
*Analysis of the quintet based on the Kübler-Ross model of grief and loss
*Analysis of hemiola in the minuet of this work
* Michael Lorenz, "An Interpretation Issue in the Slow Movement of Mozart's String Quintet K. 516" (Vienna 2014)
Justletters writes in his edit summary "Wikipedia is not a link farm". How true! Yet I think that five links to analyses of important aspects of the piece and public domain performances is not excessive. How do others feel? If you agree, I would like to restore these links. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, ! Yesterday I removed (4) musictheoryprof.com from this and other articles because it appears to be a blog-type source that someone has been spamming here. My thoughts on the others are: (3) intimatemusic.blogspot.com surely falls into the same category as (4); (1, 2) if you want to listen to this music there are innumerable ways to listen to numberless different performances, so adding just two of them here seems a little pointless; and (5) if this is a reliable source, why not use it as a reference? Im not a fan of external link sections (which tend to act as spam magnets), but won't object if you feel those others should be added back. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , You may be right. Let's hear from some other editors before making a decision. Ravpapa (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links
Talk:North Central Victoria

message: I have removed an extensive section comprising a list of non-notable football teams, and some original research about how the location boundaries are confusing because they don't match the name of local AFL clubs. If this material is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, it should be in an article on the North Central Football League instead of being the majority of an article on a semi-unrelated geographic region.
As always, comments and disagreements welcome.   Euryalus (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football team listings 

message: I have removed the defintion of the region as it was uncited, contradictory and confusing.  Any definition of the term will require reliable sources setting out what area the region includes and who uses the term and in what context. See Wimmera for an example, admittedly uncited, showing how an region can be defined. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the area definitions cited in the AfD. I remain of the view that this is not a sufficiently credible region for an article, but as the AfD was 'keep' we may as well take advantage of the sites people looked up and include the relevant sections.  Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to I remain of the view that this is not a sufficiently credible region for an article - while the region may not be as well identified as some others, most notably the Wimmera, the Mallee and the Riverina, I believe regions are an important feature of the geography of Australia and have more identity, not always overt, than is given credit.  I believe tight referencing is called for and there my well be undefined and overlapping boundaries, however I think a coverage of the regions of Australia is an enhancement to the Wikipedia and can be done in an encyclopaedic manner - just can't devote the energy to this article right now :-( --Matilda talk 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of definition of the area
Talk:Tibetan Children's Villages

message: This article is called "Tibetan Children's Villages", which means education in the Tibetan community in exile in India. However, it redirects from "Education in Tibet". Perhaps this should be changed so that "Education in Tibet" redirects nowhere and this article is redirected from "Tibetan Education". The latter would then cover education for Tibetans and/or others in Tibetan things inside and outside Tibet. Does anyone know how to do this change? Moonsell (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming problem
Talk:Vorrei spiegarvi, oh Dio!

message: The Italian text of the aria has been translated rather poetically in English, but absolutely not literally.
The precise meaning is therefore not exactly rendered.
Just to give an example, the initial "Vorrei spiegarvi" means literally "I wish I could explain to you" (implying thus "but I cannot") or "It would be my desire to explain to you". The adopted "Let me explain" back into Italian would be something like "Vi prego di farmi spiegare" or "Concedetemi di spiegarvi". It's very different. F.R. Italy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.56.141 (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

message: For me the correct spelling is : "Vorrei spiegarvi, o Dio" without h.  There are no h in classic italian language.
On Internet the two spelling coexist.  
Has anybody the original title from Mozart to verify ?
--AXRL (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown in the article's references, this spelling is used in the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, the authoritative publisher of Mozart scores. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh - o
Talk:Cello Concerto in E major (Cassadó-Tchaikovsky)

message: When composer B takes music written by composer A and makes something new out of it, isn't it normal to credit A first in the title?  This one reads as if Tchaikovsky has come along and converted music written by Cassadó into a new form, when the truth was the exact reverse.
If it were necessary to disambiguate La Boutique fantasque, it would be "La Boutique fantasque (Rossini-Respighi)", and not "La Boutique fantasque (Respighi-Rossini)".  No?   --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of names in title
Talk:Asturias (Leyenda)

message: I added that the fiddle group "Barrage" does a version of this on the violin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx3hJFXWNCg
^theres a link to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.178.54 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Usage" section of the article is trivia and should be removed. TheScotch (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia

message: A Leyenda is also a Spanish Literary genre.  It's translated as a "Legend".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.95.246 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:List of compositions for guitar

message: These lists always puzzle me.  What is the purpose of this list?  
I can imagine several possibilities:
* an attempt to list all solo repertory of a particular genre for the classical guitar
* an attempt to list all repertory for solo classical guitar
* an attempt to list all repertory for classical guitar, solo or otherwise.
If the first, you need to define which categories are to be included or excluded.
If the second, you still got a long, long way to go.
If the third, good luck -- you haven't even begun to scratch the surface.
Also, I am just assuming the intent was classical guitar, but if so, that needs to be reflected in the title.  If you intend to tackle the literature for guitars of all types ... well your list is going to get pretty unwieldy, really fast.
74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Intent?
Talk:Puchalapalli Sundarayya

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]]