lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Für Alina

message: The mention of dissonance in the piano's "machinery" reads strangely for me.  Is this talking about sympathetic strings? Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. It was subjective and unclear. FrenchAugmented (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sympathetic strings
Talk:Spiegel im Spiegel

message: This piece was also used in the 2013 film About Time, written by Richard Curtis, the story revolves around Tim Lake (Domhnall Gleeson) when he is 21, his father (Bill Nighy) tells him a secret: The men in their family can travel through time. 77.11.24.26 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been noted.  Thank you.LiPollis (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used in a film 

message: It would help the article if more than lists of films and TV shows who have used the piece were included.  For example, a piece of music this universally loved and considered by so many people to be a sacred piece of music should have more information on where it was introduced into his repertoire, where was it first performed, who played it, when was it first recorded, who played on that and so forth.  Some critical remarks on why this piece moves people so much can be quoted and cited.  Anyone up for helping? LiPollis (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Some information on the first public performance?
Talk:String Quartet No. 1 (Smetana)

message: Bibliography for article additions:
String Quartet No. 1 in E minor (“From My Life”) (Bedřich Smetana) (laphil.com) “Concerning the style of my Quartet, I shall gladly leave judgment on this to others and I will not be angry at all if they do not like it, for it is contrary to the conventional style of quartet music,” Smetana wrote to the music critic Josef Srb-Debrnov in 1878. “I had no intention of composing a quartet according to a formula or according to the usual conception of the form.... With me, the form of each composition is determined by the subject. Consequently this Quartet created its own form. I wanted to picture in tones the course of my life.”
String Quartet No. 1 in e minor, From My Life - Bedřich Smetana (earsense.org)
Smetana’s Second String Quartet: Voice of Madness or Triumph of Spirit? by Derek Katz, The Musical Quarterly, Volume 81, Issue 4, Winter 1997, Pages 516–536, https://doi.org/10.1093/mq/81.4.516
Published: 01 December 1997 Smetana’s Second String Quartet: Voice of Madness or Triumph of Spirit? | The Musical Quarterly | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
 Clapham, John. “Smetana: A Century After.” The Musical Times, vol. 125, no. 1694, 1984, pp. 201–205. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/963564. Accessed 17 Feb. 2021. https://shibbolethsp.jstor.org/start?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.utrgv.edu%2Fopenathens&dest=https://www.jstor.org/stable/963564&site=jstor
Clapham, John. “The Smetana-Pivoda Controversy.” Music & Letters, vol. 52, no. 4, 1971, pp. 353–364. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/734710. Accessed 18 Feb. 2021.
Helfert, Vladimir. “Bedřich Smetana (1824--2 March--1924).” The Slavonic Review, vol. 3, no. 7, 1924, pp. 141–155. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4201826. Accessed 18 Feb. 2021.
Schenker, Heinrich, et al. “Three Essays from 'Neue Revue' (1894-7).” Music Analysis, vol. 7, no. 2, 1988, pp. 133–141. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/854053. Accessed 18 Feb. 2021.
Phoebehaun (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Generality (psychology)

message: This page should be Generality (Assumption of) but how do I edit the page name?
It used to redirect to a logic page on generalization which, obviously, is different. I broke the redirect.
--florkle 05:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To edit the page name "move" the page, using the "move" tab.  The Jade Knight 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: name

message: this article needs to be cleared up and easier to understand with more information then there is now AlyceBort (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: psychology 101
Talk:Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta

message: I have removed the sentence mentioned the Golden Section in regard to the first movement. It was probably based on Ernö Lendvai's publications, but to be honest most of his "discoveries" are hogwash.
In this case he claims the first movement has 89 bars (so that with the climax after 55 bars we have the Fibonacci numbers 55 and 89), when in reality it has only 88 bars. So it is a 5/8 section, no more, no less. 
And that is 62,5%, not "exactly 61%" as the author of this article claims.
I wouldn't mind a critical examination of Lendvai as he wrote a lot about this piece. But just mentioning it in once sentence without any further explanation only helps to carry on the myth that Bartok was obsessed with the Golden Section which he most likely wasn't.
---However, Bartok is known to have been interested in the Golden Section and has used it in other compositions. More importantly (and I counted) the climax of the first movement, as defined by the unison E-flats on the second note of measure 56 where the rhythmic accent lies, happens at the EXACT eighth note that is 61.8% of the way through the movement. It's much more likely that that is intentional than that Bartok wasn't obsessed with the Golden Section.
"It is believed that Dmitri Shostakovich parodied this piece in his Symphony No. 13"-- believed by whom?  Which movement of that Symphony?  The second movement of Symphony #13 has a theme similar to one from a different Bartók piece, specifically the final movement of the Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion (see the Wikipedia page for Shostakovich's #13).   Tom239 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the Lendvai book some time back in the late seventies and immediately decided myself that it was "hogwash", as you put it. It's not a serous analysis of Bartok and should not be taken for one. The Golden Ratio, by the way, is an irrational number. That means that the best one can hope for, attempting (for some perverse reason) to apply it to musical form, is an approximation. TheScotch (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 2 (Bartók)

message: Does anyone have any further information on this event?  Date?  Who was playing?  Was this phenomenon in any way connected to the concerto, or was that purely incidental to the alleged levitation?  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Levitating audience member

message: The opening para of "Composition" discusses the première of the first concerto in a way that makes it difficult to know which concerto is under discussion. Better to remove the reference to the first concerto première (which is discussed in the article on that piece) and just describe Bartok's progression in style? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. I have added a clarification, and will consider whether all or part of the reference to the First Concerto should be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition - 1st & 2nd concertos confused
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 3 (Bartók)

message: This is a fairly weak article. I've done some to eliminate the fiction and occasional questionable grammar but it is still not a very good article. If someone felt like re-writing the entire thing they shouldn't hesitate. 
So, what does this need? Research, research, research! 
Musical examples! And it needs a lot more! Gingermint (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes and More Fixes 

message: A documentary film about Bartók mentions a birdsong used in the score. 99.237.143.219 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird calls
Talk:Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion

message: Please indicate the BB and Sz numbers for this music.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.26.250 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: BB and Sz numbers

message: To my knowledge, the assertion "The Sonata was arranged in 1943 as a Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra" is wrong. It must be "The Sonata was arranged in 1940 as a Concerto for Two Pianos, Percussion and Orchestra". DIBA--193.138.91.175 (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct.  Now fixed.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra?

message: The article indicates that "Saul Goodman and Henry Deneke" created the work with Béla Bartók and his wife in Basel, with a reference note leading to an interview of Saul Goodman by Rick Mattingly (1981). Yet it appears clearly that this information is wrong, since Saul Goodman is speaking of the American creation of the work in New York City in 1940, telling how the other percussionist couldn't handle with the part and was replaced by Henry Deneke. Actually the work was first performed in Basel in 1938, with Fritz Schiesser and Philipp Rühlig at the percussion. The "Français"-version of the article is correct. The "Magyar"-article does not indicate the names of the percussionists. The "Nederlands"-version reproduces the English text and error. The "Simple English"-text is surprinsigly correct. (I can't read Japanese.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.91.71 (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh-heh. Well, this is fairly embarrassing, all right. FWIW, the Japanese article also has the correct performers, and it is not necessary to be able to read Japanese to determine this, since their names are given in Roman type, near the end of the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the percussionists for the creation
Talk:Viola Concerto (Bartók)

message: This is a nice beginning. The article needs more citations, though. It could use some very helpful musical examples, as well. The descriptions comparing the viola and piano concertos of the same period are vague. These sorts of things are usually just so, as otherwise one can only resort to musical nomenclature. I must say, a little technical talk is not out of bounds. Gingermint (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bartók)

message: Both the reference link and the external link no longer go to the linked articles. I have attempted to relocate them without success. Alternate reference links are needed.Graham1973 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One link went to the subscription-only JSTOR site; the other one was truly a dead link. I have removed them both, and straightened out the mangled syntax of the listing, which evidently stemmed partly from the use of an inappropriate template, which I have also removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: I would like to suggest that the referencing style be updated. I almost added the "No Footnotes" template because the first place I looked was the reflist and there was no indication that anything was there. It is possible to overlook the text only references for this reason.Graham1973 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The referencing style in this article is fully up to date. If you are not familiar with parenthetical referencing, then I suggest you follow the link. Also please see WP:CITEVAR. It seems to me that the possibility of overlooking the presence of the inline references is a good thing, as it demonstrates their unobtrusiveness. What is sorely needed here instead is the addition of citations at the points where they are requested.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Further note: Those challenged claims dated back to March 2012, and have now been removed. I think you will agree that the referencing is now plainer to see, without all the alarm-bell clutter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing Style
Talk:Violin Concerto No. 2 (Bartók)

message: As a Wikipedian:
(A) The length of this section indicates that it is either original, and therefore falls under original research (in this form it should be published in a musical publication, and then adapted to fit the needs of an encyclopedia not generally frequented by musicians), or not original, therefore uncited (and possibly plagiarism).
(B) It only covers the first movement of a three-movement work, and is therefore incomplete.
As a music student and musician:
(C) It is a poor quality analysis; it pays little attention to form and less to harmony, apparently concentrating mainly on orchestral effects and examining individual sections rather than examining how they (and affiliated lines) fit together as a whole; it goes into far too much detail without actually providing much information.
Suggestion: It should be removed and replaced with something else. (I'd do it myself whenever I find time to extract a copy of the Bartók 1938 from the local music library.) ~ UI (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Analysis" section 

message: *The first movement is a sonata form in B minor. The second movement is the aforementioned theme and variations in G major. The finale is based on the themes introduced in the opening movement. Bartók's original ending was purely orchestral, but Székely objected to this, so the composer wrote an alternative ending to meet Székely's taste. Today, both endings are used.
*Alan Walker, in Franz Liszt: the Weimar Years, points out the similarity between the compositional technique used by Liszt in his Faust Symphony, in which the finale's themes are entirely variations of themes used in the opening "Faust" movement, and Bartók's Second Violin Concerto.
The above was removed as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: Uncited
Talk:Diversions for Piano Left Hand and Orchestra

message: Is this the correct capitalisation? It is often referred to a simply "Diversions", so the rest ought to be "explanatory subtitle" ... it is for piano left hand and orchestra. Unless MOS-based argument appears, I think I will sentence-case it. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation
Talk:List of compositions by Benjamin Britten

message: How come The Rescue of Penelope, originally to a radio play by Edward Sackville-West is not mentioned? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rescue of Penelope

message: How about a list of Britten works without opus numbers?  Another example would be the suite "Johnson over Jordan" (to a play by J.B. Priestley), which even has its own Wikipedia article!
86.14.9.87 (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Works without Opus numbers?

message: I plan to write an article on what Britten did about Purcell songs, in our list "Many realizations of songs by Henry Purcell". What should the article title be? I find "Complete Purcell Realizations" here which would lead to Purcell Realizations (Britten) or Purcell realizations (Britten) or Britten's Purcell Realizations or what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britten's Realizations of songs by Purcell
Talk:Nocturne (Britten)

message: Gerald English's name is associated with a "premiere" of this work with Sir John Barbirolli and the Hallé Orchestra (see ).  
It certainly can't be the world premiere, which was by Pears with the BBC SO under Schwarz.  
It may have been the Australian premiere, as I think the Hallé toured here in the early 1950s (too early) and maybe at other times when Barbirolli was still alive (after his death they toured in 1981 under James Loughran).  Barbirolli definitely conducted in Australia not with the Hallé, but I cannot confirm he ever conducted the Hallé Orchestra in Australia. 
I'm thinking the claim may refer to the world premiere recording, perhaps, although I know Pears and Britten recorded it in 1959, the year after the WP performance and I always assumed theirs was the WP recording.   Also, I can find no confirmation that Barbirolli ever recorded the Nocturne at all.
It may just have been the first time the Hallé ever performed the work.  Hardly a huge peg on which to hang one's hat.
Does anyone know what the Gerald English claim actually refers to?  --  ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerald English's claim
Talk:Simple Symphony

message: The piece is dedicated to Audrey Alston (Mrs Lincolne Sutton), her alto's professor during his childhood. 
: What on earth is "her alto's professor"?  Whose alto's professor?  Help.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alto is the French term for viola. According to this webpage Audrey Alston was Britten's viola teacher. So I guess whoever wrote this got his/her grammar and languages mixed up. I have changed the sentence accordingly. Regards. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird sentence

message: Are we contending here that Britten deliberately appropriated this theme? If not then the passage in the article needs to be dropped. Many themes in music are reminiscent of others. That isn’t news we have to report. ~~  TheScotch (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barwick Green
Talk:Cavalry scout

message: It says this MOS was closed to females in 2006.  I have been a 19D since 2003 and I have never heard of a female 19D.  As far as I know it has always been combat arms and closed to women.  Is there a source showing that it has ever had women?Feral Mind (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Females? 

message: The term Cavalry Scout is not just unique to the United States but in other militaries around the world as well.  Example: Australia Light Cavalry Scout -Signaleer (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide Approach 

message: This line on OSUT was completely wrong 
"There are only a handful of Army MOSs(combat arms only) that are trained this way, referred to as OSUT (or One Station Unit Training)."
74D and 31B are both OSUT MOSs, and neither of them is considered to be combat arms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.134.2 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSUT 

message: Scouts of this type are as old as cavalry. Even in the U.S., this should tie to the Native American scouts of the 19th century, for example, and to the white civilian scouts of that era, Buffalo Bill and the like.  --Orange Mike | Talk 03:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - bad case of recentism
Template talk:Vodafone

message: Would anyone disagree with me removing the flags from this template? It makes it look really bad on pages and is much larger size and space wise than necessary. PageantUpdater User Talk  Review me! 05:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. This shouldn't be about aesthetics - it should be about making a template more navigable. The flag icons made it unnecessarily difficult. And from a aesthetic POV it was hideous! Mark83 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Kall in the Faroe Islands (Denmark) was rebranded to Vodafone in May 2008. Please reflect this changes in the template. --Dima1 (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faroe Islands 

message: An IP address removed globalstar. Not really sure why.  is where i got the information from`Towel401 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalstar
Talk:The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra

message: There are a few "group" variations at the beginning before the flute/piccolo variation.  Strings, winds, brass, etc.  Should those be included in the structure? DavidRF (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was Grove, or even Britanica, would you even need to ask? Of course they'd put it it in if they had the room! Willi Gers07 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A reply after fifteen months!  Not a lot of editors here I guess.  Re-reading, it looks like the information was there all along, its was just buried in the prose below the section listing so it wasn't obvious enough for me to notice.DavidRF (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied the information from below into the list.  DavidRF (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That's much better. This is a well-known piece, and I'm sure there must've been other people wondering why the article didn't entirely square with their knowledge of the piece. Thanks to you that will no longer be the case. When knowledge of the topic trumps wikipolitics, content improves. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Is there any way to determine when the first recordings, with and without narration, were done, who were the conductors and orchestra, and who was the narrator? I am looking for the first narrated recording, but I can't seem to find it. Was hoping to find info about it in this article. 2601:640:C101:613:64C8:B453:F8DD:ECE0 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First recordings? 
Talk:Winter Words (song cycle)

message: The article claims that, "Winter Words is one of Britten's few compositions from the period after the premiere of his opera Gloriana". Winter Words was published before Gloriana, so I'm not sure this is right at all, but even if it is, which "period" are we talking about?  He composed a great many pieces in "the period after... Gloriana". Am I missing something?  Also, this is followed, after a semicolon, by a completely unrelated half-sentence.  I'm confused.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.211.29 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd half-sentence
Talk:Young Apollo

message: What instruments is this piece score for? DavidRF (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like its piano and strings or piano, string quartet and string orchestra.  Concerto or chamber?  Hard to classify, perhaps.  Not a lot is written about it because of its withdrawal by Britten.DavidRF (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  scoring?
Talk:List of compositions by Bohuslav Martinů

message: Could someone please add a little info about the "H." numbers quoted against many of Martinů's works - what does the "H" stand for, who catalogued them and when? --Deskford (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Robert.Allen (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalogue numbers 

message: What does "[auth.]" mean?  It appears after many entries in this list, but I can't see any explanation. Thanks. --188.28.70.197 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know the answer to that, too. It first appears when User:Gampe (a Czech editor who claims only a basic knowledge of English) added the table format with this edit in March 2018. My first guess was that it meant the words of vocal compositions were written by the "author" (that is, the composer), but then I noticed it appears with many purely instrumental compositions, like the Third and Fourth Symphonies. There should be a key to abbreviations in the table.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  "[auth.]" means "Under this name the author wrote the work". --Gampe (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the explanation. Does this mean he wrote his string quartets (for example) under some other title?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly: I'm not a musicologist. I will send your question to the Bohuslav Martinů Institute. That is the highest institution in the world in this field.--Gampe (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

text: After consultation with the Bohuslav Martinů Institute: note [auth.] has meaning in the Czech language. There is no sense in English version (because original names are translated here). That's why I deleted it.--Gampe (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for dealing with this question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained tag