lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Wein, Weib und Gesang

message: If this waltz qualifies for the category Compositions set in Vienna, then virtually every waltz he and his family wrote would also qualify.  The "Wein" of the title does not mean Vienna, it means wine.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Offending category removed now.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Compositions set in Vienna

message: According to the existing recordings by major orchestras & conductors, I do think the waltz exists in two versions. For example, the Vienna Philharmonic and Willi Boskovsky recorded the complete version, while the same orchestra and the Berlin Philharmonic each recorded an abridged version with Herbert von Karajan. Could anyone help me find out any reasons and post it onto the article? Censorship in my country is quite strict and I am unable to access some webpages or search with Google. Christopher2625649908 (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Versions!
Talk:Wiener Blut (waltz)

message: It was also used for the carousel in Rollercoaster Tycoon. I think the first one, but I haven't got any sources Novalia (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollercoaster Tycoon 

message: Can anyone explain why this is written as two words both capitalised, rather than 'Wienerblut'? In most other contexts that's exclusive to English orthography, isn't it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.111.25 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it two words?
Talk:Double Concerto (Brahms)

message: The article says:
"...and which can be analyzed using the triadic transformations proposed by Bernhard Riemann."
The person to be credited is the Musicologist Hugo Riemann, not the mathematician Bernhard Riemann.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.155.153 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That this piece can be, or has been, anlaysed from a "Riemannian perspective" tells us absolutely nothing about it, unless the results of the analysis are also discussed. At present we are told only of "progressions that divide the octave into three parts", which is not illuminating. If Cohn's work is worth including in this article at all, then it is worth describing its application to the Double Concerto in more detail. JBritnell (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Four Pieces for Piano, Op. 119 (Brahms)

message: are unsourced original research written in an insulting and snobby manner -- typical of insensitive performers of music criticism. JohnKoziar (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen! Kostaki mou (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Halleluja. Amen!? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have been corrected. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The opinions in this article
Talk:Variations on a Theme of Paganini

message: Is there any reason why this page is not at Variations on a Theme of Paganini? It's by far the best-known work of this name, and there are none other with articles in WP... Grutness...wha? 08:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I'll move it. It can always be moved back if others wish it to be here - and that would leave at least a redirect for thew more likely search target. Grutness...wha? 18:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I missed this, but it's fine.  A handy list of variations on themes by Paganini (and everybody else) can be found at List of variations on a theme by another composer.  The only one for which there is an existing article or ever likely to have one, that comes close to this title, is Andrew Lloyd Webber's Variations, which is already unique (and it's as much about the album containing the music as about the music itself).  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary dabbing?
Talk:Piano Quintet (Brahms)

message: The princess who this is dedicated to is currently a dead link.  Are we talking about the daughter of Prince Karl of Hesse and by Rhine who died in 1865?  Was the dedication posthumous?  (could be a memorial)  Thanks.  DavidRF (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dedication 

message: I think the third movement is overly descriptive - the bar numbers and keys don't really support the understanding of the piece, and in truth is annoying and little hard to decipher. Wouldn't it be better to describe the themes and not be so specific after that? Xtfcr7 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is out of place considering that the first two movements receive practically no analysis, and the fourth nothing anywhere near as detailed. —Mahlerlover1(converse) 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third movement description 

message: I've just added a source (Grove Music Online encyclopedia) which agrees that the premiere was given on 22 June 1866 in Leipzig. Oddly enough, Swafford's biography indicates the "the F Minor Piano Quintet (reworked from the string quintet and the two-piano sonata) has its world premiere in Paris" in the spring of 1868. I'm not sure if this is referring to a different version of the work, or if there is something else I'm missing. This claim is made just before Swafford's discussion of the work itself. Since I can't find any other support for an 1868 premiere, I'm sticking with 1866 but leaving this here in case it proves helpful to anyone in the future. Johan Brahm (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of premiere given by Swafford
Talk:Rhapsodies, Op. 79 (Brahms)

message: Each of the two Rhapsodies is structured like a miniature sonata and consists of a slow central section enclosed between two faster outer sections.
This is true only of the first one.  The second is a more straightforward sonata form with no sectional tempo changes.  (There are a few ritardandos and the like).  Kostaki mou (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Schicksalslied

message: The two-bar example labeled "D Diminished Triads" is out of place. This does not show D diminished triads. (It appears to be a duplicate of a later musical example, properly labeled "Choral Cadence Measure 172.") The text description is correct, but the example is not. I've deleted the musical example, but left the text unchanged. The musical example can be replaced by the proper example, if the original author or anyone else care to do it. Omc (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical example out of place
Talk:Serenades (Brahms)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.comusic.org/june-29-program-notes/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Mdd.drenglish (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Six Pieces for Piano, Op. 118 (Brahms)

message: what is the genre for this work? Jackzhp 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Genre

message: is "Klavierstücke" its alternative name? Jackzhp 04:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: alternative name?

message: This is Op.118, were op.119, 120, and 121 not all published before he died. (op.122 was posthumous). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second to last published composition?
Talk:Sixteen Waltzes, Op. 39 (Brahms)

message: From the lead:
: Sixteen Waltzes, Op. 39 is a set of 16 short waltzes for piano four hands [...]
From a box in the article:
: All performances by Martha Goldstein  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.147.77 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What stopped you from reading the rest of the lead? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The obvious and well-known Wikipedia fact that the lead *sentence* (the first sentence of the article) is not merely a part of the lead paragraph that's no different from all other sentences in it, but is understood as *the* definition of the subject (the most concise expression of the subject, whereas a fuller one is the lead paragraph, and the fullest one is the entire complete article). That is, the obvious fact that stopping reading past the first (i.e., defining) sentence of the article is in no way an "unfinished" reading, such that it would be correct to oppose, but a distinct manner of learning the subject. Stopping reading after the first sentence is a legitimate manner of absorbing the article, and therefore, it is correct to point inconsistencies between the first sentence and the rest of the article, such as the inconsistency brought up above. Your argument would only hold if the lead sentence had no distinct subject-defining function, which would mean that it is erroneous to stop reading after it. 83.24.27.174 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetrabrachy?
Talk:Tragic Overture (Brahms)

message: "Theorists have disagreed in analyzing the form of the piece: Jackson finds Webster's multifarious description rather obscurist..."
Maybe this is something that "any fan of Brahms" or "any classical music scholar" would know - and Jackson is footnoted - but my reaction to this sentence was "Who the h*ll are Jackson and Webster?"
I don't know enough to answer my own question and hence don't know enough to provide the needed edit.  I imagine an improvement would be something like:
Theorists have disageed in analyzing the form of the piece.  Historically Bigglesworth M. Webster's analysis of the piece as XXXXXXX has held sway, but Timothy L. Jackson finds Webster's multifarious description rather obscurist and prefers to label the work's form as a "reversed sonata design" in which the second group is recapitulated before the first, with Beethoven's Coriolan Overture as a possible formal model.[1]
Preferably with links to entries on Mr. Webster and Mr. Jackson so we can find out why we should care about their opinions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.224.50 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you were able to figure out that Webster and Jackson are music theorists. But still, this could be clearer. My main motivation for adding that paragraph almost two months ago was that I didn't see some tagging idiot slap on an "unreferenced" tag. But I guess now they could slap on a "jargon" tag. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson and Webster? 

message: We now have a new audio sample. --Gnom (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New audio sample
Talk:Unitary representation

message: by definition, a unitary representation π is a mapping from G to U(H). then, what is an "invariant subspace" under π? or is it meant that π(A) is completely reducible for all A in G? in this case it would make sense to talk about "invariant subspace" under π(A).
:An 'invariant subspace' for the action of G is a subspace invariant under π(g) for all g in G. Algebraist 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of complete reducibility 

message: is such a letdown!    131.111.55.75 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But going around in circles is such fun!--CSTAR (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also Unitary representation of a real Lie algebra" 

message: The sentence on compatibility with smooth/analytic structures of a Lie group is wrong and misleading. The correct statement is that smooth vectors are dense (because convolution by smooth functions of compact support gives a dense set of smooth vectors) and that analytic vectors are dense (by the argument of Nelson, Garding and Roe Goodman using the heat kernel of an elliptic element in the universal enveloping algebra). More precisely they form a common core for Lie algebra elements. There seems to be no article on smooth vectors or analytic vectors (see e,g, Garth Warner's book) on WP, which is unfortunate, because I needed them for the article on Zonal spherical functions. Perhaps the material exists in some spectral theory article. I will check this and modify this article appropriately. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smooth and analytic vectors

message: Smooth vectors are dense in H by a classical argument of Lars Gårding, since convolution by smooth functions of compact support yields smooth vectors.
Can you explain (preferably within the article) how it is possible to convolve with functions when all we have is an abstract Hilbert space? What are the functions and how are they related to the vectors of the Hilbert space? 84.227.20.67 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you had problems with compact support. I just made a blue link for it, that's all. YohanN7 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. In any case I found the answer here: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/398881/a-technical-problem-on-constructing-smooth-vectors-in-a-representation. The averaging is done against a compactly supported smooth function on the group. It produces an "approximate identity" operator which can then be applied to a vector. The result is a smooth vector. 84.227.20.67 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose a reference to  Lars Gårding's original result wouldn't out of place. If someone knows which it is and where to find it, ... YohanN7 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your recent edit to the article on "Unitary Representations"
Talk:Violin Concerto (Brahms)

message: There was a red link for Joseph Hellmesberger and I switched it to point to senior.  But given the date (1879), it's possible it could have been junior.  Could someone with access to the original reference double check?  Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that link isn't red.  The red link was Josef Hellmesberger. DavidRF (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to wonder about them, too; a lot of times in the history of chamber music, one or the other is refered to as just "Joseph Hellmesberger. The father becomes the son, the son becomes the father. James470 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I found a disambiguation tag which can be used.  So I switched to the ambiguous link and added the tag. DavidRF (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joseph Hellmesberger, Sr.]] or [[Joseph Hellmesberger, Jr.]] ?
Talk:Century Rolls

message: I started the clean-up, and it definitely looks better.  Any takers to continue are welcome. DJRafe (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial page clean-up
Talk:Phrygian Gates

message: Adams' memoir gives the premiere date as March 1977. Some sources say 1977 and other give 1978. Does anyone have a way to resolve this discrepancy? Squandermania (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone could do a newspaper search and find out if there is any mention of a performance before March 1978. 64.46.27.155 (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiere year 

message: The article claims a 'gate' in electronic music refers to 'rapidly shifting modes'. This is misleading. A gate is a binary electrical signal that is typically used to 'open' an amplifier. In other words, it is a 'note on/off' signal. 
The clue to this is in Adams' mention of the piece being constructed like a modulating square wave. In analogue synthesis, there is no technical difference between a gate signal and a modulating square wave: they are exactly the same signal, put to different uses. The point is that the rising phase of the signal is vertical – the change is abrupt, not gradual, just as the modal changes in the piece are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.45.22 (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term 'gates'
Talk:Short Ride in a Fast Machine

message: 24.58.63.18 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Violin Concerto (Adams)

message: According to Grawemeyer, the concerto was "commissioned by the Minnesota Orchestra, the New York City Ballet and the London Symphony Orchestra", not just the ballet. Do we have another source, to corroborate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client(s)
Talk:I Saw My Lady Weepe

message: Should the capitalization be: 'I saw my lady weepe'? --Kleinzach 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know... Google results indicate it is either I Saw My Lady Weepe, I saw my Lady weepe, or I saw my lady weepe. This article is very poorly written, and even I'm having trouble fixing it up. Brambleclawx 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly feel that it should be i saW my laDy wEEpE, if that helps?  (Or better just move it to I saw my lady weepe and change all the inlines, given that the cited text uses that format...)  --Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Present capitalisation (I Saw My Lady Weepe) is also viable, so it's fine now.  --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I saw my Lady weepe?
Talk:The Second Book of Songs (1600)

message: The title of this page has ye olde psuedo-archaic'e' in the word 'songs' which is not on the original title page, which as you can see here http://kulturserver-bayern.de/home/harald-lillmeyer/Texte/Downloads/Bilder/Dowland4/DowlandSecond.jpg doesn't appear on the original title page. I have changed in the text of the article but can't figure out how to change the title of the article or the lists it appears in. Can someone do it and/or tell me how please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Je9671111 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the name of the page to modern spelling.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:List of soundtracks for Shrek the Third

message: are both OSTs here on one page, while the firt 2 films' OSTs are on different pages? — *Hippi ippi 03:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have separated the articles now. :)--SkyWalker 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why...
Talk:Cello Concerto No. 1 (Haydn)

message: It is possible that Weigl was the only cellist in the Esterházy Orchestra when Haydn composed the concerto, since there is only one cello line in the score, marked alternately “solo” and “tutti.”
On the top of the article it's written that Weigl was a "principal cellist". Then, how is it possible that he was the only one? Soloist playing orchestra part of his instrument during the tutti was a normal thing. Soloist wasn't considered to be a completely separated player, he was just a member of the orchestra with some virtuoso abilities and a few solos in the concert. During the tutti, he played with the rest of the orchestra.--78.3.63.198 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only cellist?
Talk:Cello Concerto No. 2 (Haydn)

message: There seems be a disagreement on the difficulty of this piece relative to the C major concerto.  A pair of anons have added conflicting comments in June 2009.  Is this point worth discussing?  If so, is there something we can cite?  Thanks.--DavidRF (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty 

message: Footnote 2 to gives a wrong source. The attribution to Kraft originated in 1837 with Schilling.--2A02:8388:8180:B000:3C46:37ED:B718:6032 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 2
Talk:Shrek: Music from the Original Motion Picture

message: A merge into the parent article was proposed with this edit.
*Keep (almost) as is.  The parent article is already large enough.  In my opinion a hatnote at Shrek: Music connecting back to this article (along with a short summary of this article's information at Shrek: Music) might be a better option. Shearonink (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Shrek]] 

message: As per WP:Merging the page seems to be a duplicate of as "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope." The only difference is that this page is a bit longer but as the other soundtracks are all on that page it would make sense to merge and  redirect this one there too.
*Merge. 184.58.5.39 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The other page is a little silly. We would not create a page "Every song every performed by Led Zeppelin" or "List of songs performed by women for movies starring Fred Astaire." There is no reason for the other page to exist. Each soundtrack is an album and convention here is that each album has its own page.
*Merge. hunterhogan 10:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of songs featured in Shrek#Shrek]] 

message: I noticed that the list was vandalized to say that Testify by Rage Against the Machine was in the film, and was written by Tim Commerford, Tom Morello, Brad Wilk, and Zack de la Rocha. Not a single song by RATM was used in the film. Would somebody be nice enough to revert it? --41.107.10.246 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks!--Carniolus (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song List Vandalized
Talk:List of concertos by Joseph Haydn

message: The third violin concerto redirects to the List of concertos by Joseph Haydn again. I´ve got the G. Henle Verlag urtext with useful informations near at hand, and I can to create at least the stub, but I don´t know, how to change the redirect. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk:List of piano trios by Joseph Haydn

message: An anon corrected the name of the Anton's wife.  I mistakenly said "Maria Theresa" who was the first wife who died in 1782.  Maria Anna is evidently the second wife who he married in 1785 and was the wife at the time of the composition of the trio.  See .
A1. Antal 6.Fürst Esterházy de Galántha, *Wien 11.4.1738, +Wien 22.1.1794; 1m: Wien 10.1.1763 Gfn Mária Terezia Erdödy de Monyorokerek et Monoszlo (*23.11.1745, +1.5.1782); 2m: Wien 9.7.1785 Gfn Maria Anna von Hohenfeld (*Linz 20.4.1768, +Wien 2.4.1848)
Thanks for the correction.DavidRF (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction
Talk:Theresienmesse

message: A work written in 1799 could hardly have a "performance in the Viennese court chapel in May 1780".
Lbolef (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Program notes had a typo in it.  I removed the date.  The important part of that paragraph to mention was that the empress herself performed the mass and also performed at the premieres of the two big oratorios.DavidRF (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The performances in which the empress participated ("with much taste and expression" as Haydn noted, "but with weak voice") were not the premieres. They took place on 24 and 25 May 1801 at the Viennese Court. The Creation was first performed in private on 29 April 1798, and in public on 19 March 1799. The Seasons had its private premiere on 24 April 1801, and its public premiere on 29 May 1801. The empress participated in none of these four premieres. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: date descrepancy