Talk:Bachianas Brasileiras

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support. Good catch. Andrewa (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Very interesting -- I wasn't aware of the decision that was implemented vis-a-vis Portuguese titles. BTW, I was actually a bit surprised to find that, for the most part, even the Portuguese entries I turned up on Google Scholar used the form that I'm proposing. So even without the guideline you cited, the current title isn't supported by real-world usage. Cgingold (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I'm rephrasing the introduction as it is nonsensical in musical terminology. Procedural music has a very specific meaning, which does not relate to the music of Latin-American heritage Villa-Lobos was orchestrating, and his intention was to seek some form of classical foundation in the vernacular music of his surroundings. That this was perhaps not the most useful of exercises, in that the music of Bach is rarely syncopated, whereas so much of the music of Latin America is, does not detract from the worth of his work, and that too is a point which needs to be added, although I very happily will bow before a greater expert than I in the matter of Latin American regional folk traditions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.173.109 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: While I sympathize with your effort to make the lede clearer, the two cited sources by Gerard Béhague say precisely what the original phrasing had, and not quite the same thing as your revision. I'm not sure what Dr. Ortiz's opinion is of the late Prof. Béhague's work, but in general he is regarded as one of the most authoritative voices in the subject of Latin American music in general, and on Villa-Lobos in particular.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Further thought: Rereading the lead, I see no reference at all to "procedural music" (by which I suppose you mean "process music"). Instead, I see "a number of Baroque harmonic and contrapuntal procedures" mentioned, with blue links to "harmony" and "counterpoint". I imagine that Béhague had in mind such contrapuntal techniques as canon and fugue, and harmonic devices such as the sequences found (especially) in Bachianas Brasileiras No. 4. Of course these have little or nothing to do with Latin American regional folk traditions, but they have a great deal to do with the music of Bach. The context of Béhague's remark (which perhaps should be expanded on in the body of the article) is the repudiation of the idea that these nine compositions are truly neoclassical, as is often stated by other writers who (in Béhague's view) are not probing very deeply beneath the surface appearances.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to the Introduction 

message: The phrase "Teddy boy" here appears to be nonsensical:
> Despite the five translations—French, English, Italian, Spanish, and German—printed in the score, the composer's own notes on this movement make it clear that the meaning of capadocio is not "campagnard", "countryman", "campagnolo", etc., but rather "Teddy boy" or "layabout".
The cited source is the book by Michael Round cited elsewhere in the article, and I don't have a copy, so I can't check if Round actually uses the phrase "Teddy boy". But the linked Wikipedia article refers to a British subculture that started in the "early 50s," and the name apparently comes from "Edwardian," so it's certainly not the correct link. There's a Teddy boy disambiguation page, but none of the entries there seem relevant either.
I've never heard "Teddy boy" as generic slang meaning anything like "layabout," either. BatmanAoD (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Teddy boys"?