Talk:Susan McClary

message: This is a really crazy article. She is a footnote in musicology at best but the writer of the article presents her as the feminist second coming of Allen Forte. There are few citations, and in general the article is way too long and lop-sided. It is so glowing that one suspects Susan McClary wrote it. Gingermint (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just read through it and came to an opposite conclusion to yours about authorship. Perhaps it's changed since you read it, but it reads as if the author is trying to argue against her ideas. Also, I'd argue that she is at least important enough to have an entry here - perhaps we could agree that the length here is excessive and it's poorly written overall (even without bias issues).--198.30.180.96 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

text: to describe McClary as a musicology footnote is to not know musicology. Love her or hate her, she's at the centre of the New Musicology which revolutionised the field (along with Kerman, Leppert, et al.)--she didn't get a McArthur Genius Grant for nothing (only one of two musicologists ever). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.159.180 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ReWrite

message: This article was to be merged into this one. See the notice above. This never happened so I am going to make the page into a redirect and paste the actual text of the page below in case anyone wants to recycle part of the material. Thank you. --Kleinzach 02:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music]]

message: (See also the most recent comments in the ReWrite and Robert Anton Wilson is Right Wing? sections above.) I have removed the  tag. The article is considerably more balanced now, although still a mess. It was begun in 2003 and has been edited by many people in a more or less piecemeal fashion over the past 7 years, which probably explains its current state. It needs a lot of work to improve the organization and to remove the excessive detail, essay-like material, and personal opinions/commentary. The referencing/citation is both inconsistent and inadequate in several places and likewise needs a lot of work. Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement tag

message: So, this is an essay, not something suitable for wikipedia. I'm adding . Best, --83.248.239.86 (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Hyacinth (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Strange Section about her Beethoven quotation 

message: Project Muse has provided (at least for the time being) open access for the latest issue of Acta Musicologica which has a lead autobiographical article by McClary: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/727281. Apparently nearing retirement, she reflects on the totality of her professional life.  She does not shy away from the big controversy concerning Beethoven and her characterization of the 9th symphony.  She says:  "My most notorious moment—the one that takes up most of the space in my Wikipedia entry, the one that will no doubt dominate my obituary..." But all references to the "notorious moment" have now been removed from the article, so that someone seeking to see "what is this notorious statement?" will now come away confused, not seeing even a reference to it.  Might it be time to put the statement back into the article but couched very carefully, explaining how it developed notoreity by being taken out of context? - kosboot (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was substantially cut on 4 April 2020. The cut bit about the Ninth had some problems which could be rectified. I don't see much wrong with the cut bit about Schubert. Anyway, all the missing text should be restored and improved – it's obviously a large part of her public persona. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Michael Bednarek. Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the Beethoven section wholesale.  I would like to do a bit more based on that recent article, although I saw somewhere that  has a particular interest in this article and would defer to them. - kosboot (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobiographical article and the missing Beethoven quote 

message: I'm bothered that the list of sources is free text rather than the structured text provided by the various formula at WP:CIT.  If I have time over the weekend, I propose to convert the list to the structured format as well as the loose footnotes not mentioned in the sources.  I'd like to do the footnotes as well, replacing the free text with SFN style.  There are a few people who think HARV is better, but the reverse is true: sfn was created as an improvement on harv and is more flexible. - kosboot (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources