Talk:Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman"

message: The words to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star were first published about twenty years after this piece was composed. Any better info?
:What problem do you see?  The article is not titled Variations on Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and there's no assertion in the article that that the English words were written before Mozart wrote his variations of the melody.  I have added the date of the English poem in case it will clarify matters.  There are several citations and a more complete chronology at Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Petershank (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original comment/question above was several months old, so it might have been addressed long ago.  Its good to reiterate it though.  Its a common misconception that Mozart wrote the theme when he "only" wrote the variations, so  stating those facts plainly up front in the first paragraph should hopefully eliminate further confusion.  DavidRF (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual problem 

message: I have for the second time removed a link to a seminal performance, first introduced by 86.157.119.247 on 5 January 2008, and again by 86.129.136.179 on 19 January 2008. Both these accounts seem to be single-purpose accounts to promote the linked site using WP:LINKSPAM.
I have removed the link because
#it's description is WP:POV;
#the file is subject to copyright (which is on its own OK, but together with the other points makes the link unsuitable);
#the link is insufficient: it leads to a page of text without any clear navigation to the file in question.
Users should be warned that the file, if they should ever find it, is about 8.3 megabyte in size.
Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the link back, this time with a direct link to the file. The description I added is neutral, giving only the performer and the instrument.  The file is copyrighted, but copyrighted content can be linked as long as it is not a copyright infringement. Graham87 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed external link to ''seminal'' performance 

message: An editor at his talk page mentioned that he doesn't think the audio for Variation I has adequate quality, and that these remaining two audio files should be up in the article at appropriate places instead of in a separate section.  My opinion is that the audio of Variation I seems adequate; the music itself is not typical of Mozart and so the audio sounds kind of childlike too; it definitely seems better than a MIDI file which is devoid of all feeling.  And regarding placement, in a very short article like this, it doesn't seem problematic to me.  If we find a human performance of the entire work, then I'd support putting that at top, if it's good quality and properly licensed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I maintain that the playing quality of :File:Variation I (ah! vous dirai-je maman).ogg is sub-standard and it should not be on this page. The pianist repeatedly misses notes, plays notes that aren't written, and the tempo variations seem arbitrary. I also strongly dispute that the MIDI recording is devoid of all feeling. Its variation in attack and tempo are informed by the mood of the score, and its selection of legato/staccato and general phrasing show musicality well suited to the work. I suggest you listen to it again. That leaves the theme, :File:Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.ogg, which is strictly speaking unnecessary because it's the opening of the MIDI file. As for layout: I can only repeat that dedicated "Media" sections in articles seem just as unnecessary as galleries of pictures – that's what a page/category on Commons should do. Integrating the files into the flow of an article's narration creates a more natural reading. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the audio of Variation I until a consensus develops to include it.  As for the other very brief piano piece, I think it gives the reader an alternative to a much longer MIDI piece, and no one has argued that the quality of the piano piece is bad.  Regarding placement of the MIDI piece, I am leaving it in the "Audio" section for now, because I'm not the one who moved it there, and I think it's okay there; once the article gets longer, the files can be moved out of the separate "Audio" section.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree that both could be included in the article, replacing the Bondarenko version which is acoustically very poor. I still maintain that the MIDI version is suitable as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. Cheers, intforce (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio files

message: Aren't music-related articles supposed to showcase just a 22- to 30-second-long sample from the work they describe? This one practically plays the whole piece --Fandelasketchup (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Excerpts are only needed for pieces that aren't freely licensed, either via being in the public domain or otherwise. This piece is old enough to be in the public domain so it's quite permissible (and encouraged!) to add full audio of it where available. Graham87 14:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about music-related article guidelines