lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 27 (Beethoven)

message: Where was this? And it sounds more like something that Donald Francis Tovey would write, in his series of program notes later published in several - at least five - volumes, "Essays in Musical Analysis" (and often just referred to, simply, as "Tovey" wrote this or "Tovey" wrote that for a number of years after - this was, for awhile, a rather well-known series of books in some circles; they show up not just in larger library collections but in quite a few used bookstores. Some volumes of this 1930s series of books were reprinted starting apparently - according to Worldcat... around 1978 and through the 1980s - by Oxford University Press, and I think more recently... It also could be from something else he wrote, as he seems to have been a prolific music critic as well as composer. And, of course, it might be by Bramwell Tovey...) 
Did someone see "Tovey" and do an incorrect disambiguation, or was the passage quoted in fact written by Bramwell Tovey? Then where? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it was Donald Francis. I've corrected the passage and provided a reference. That the question remained unanswered for 7 years is a shame – I guess nobody cares about this beautiful little sonata! What a pity. --Jashiin (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bramwell Tovey

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: So many of Beethoven's sonatas contain only 2 movements that the "typical sonata" reference, used in several Beethoven sonata articles, can at least be dropped here... Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick survey shows that of 32 piano sonatas, 26 are in three or four movements and 6 in two movements, so the "typical sonata" reference is not out of place. Gyan (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical sonata?
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 3 (Beethoven)

message: I'm removing the "citation needed" after the sentence that refers to the "numerous demanding piano techniques."  No authority is needed, in my opinion; this is a simple fact.  129.79.132.127 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Who else thinks this article has enough sufficient content to not be considered a stub? I think it's long enough to be not considered one. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the boiler plate movement list, external links and template there's very little else.  Expansion of the article would help.  What's the rush to remove the tag?  Most readers don't notice the stub tags, its mainly to encourage expansion from editors.DavidRF (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's expand it. --Bryce (talk | 
contribs) 05:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: I can't verify the sentence 'Some believed Beethoven was influenced here by the Weiner ideals of expressionism.' in the section about the first movement. This sentence was also vandalized and also starts with a vague attribution. Can someone find the source and deal with the beginning of the sentence?  JamesC101 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverifiable Information
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 4 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.1

message: The ailerons are described as providing lateral control. This is ambiguous and not a conventional term regarding flying of aircraft.
The ailerons conventionally provide roll control and the rudder provides yaw control. When an aircraft is required to turn onto a different heading (direction), the standard method is to provide some roll with the ailerons and correct any out of balance  with the rudder. Loss of height in a turn is corrected with pitch and speed is maintained above stall speed with engine power.
Early aircraft were not always flown with modern conventional control and flying techniques, so describing the ailerons as providing lateral control is ambiguous.
The photo appears to show a vertical fin at the rear with rudder and from other unverifiable sources I found what looks like an original drawing of the F.E.1 showing a rudder. Farman III type aircraft also had rudders. 
I would propose changing the text about the ailerons to say "Roll control..." rather than "Lateral control..." unless anyone has a reasonable objection. Lkingscott (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aileron description
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 5 (Beethoven)

message: "Indeed, this sonata has been christened 'The Little Pathétique'"
By f%$*$#ing WHO?!?!?!?! -- (Special:Contributions/149.4.111.77)
:OKAY, SERIOUSLY?! There is no citation. It is completely subjective. The comments, in general, are so general they could be said about ANY Sonata (not even just by Beethoven). And yet, when it gets removed it just arbitrarily gets called "vandalism." Does anyone actually fucking read??? -- (Special:Contributions/4.172.204.214)
::I'm inclined to side with the anons here.  I've never seen this nickname.  If its a real nickname, then someone should have used it.  There are many books on the Beethoven sonatas available for citing.  Wikipedia is the #1 google hit for this topic now, and we owe it to people to back up the facts here with citations.  Yes, there are similarities between the C minor works but they don't apply to just these two sonatas.  The slow movement of the 5th symphony is also in A flat. DavidRF (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Patethique nickname"

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 6 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 7 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: the-royal-soldiers 2A01:4C8:60:5945:1:2:D077:FE10 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  in-place-discovery
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 9 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: User:Lawrencegordon changed the description from "a lively rondo" to "in a lively sonata-rondo form". This makes no sense: it is not the "sonata rondo form" which is lively. The movement is described (in the existing references) as a "rondo"; so calling it a "lively rondo" is appropriate. User:Jasper Deng said: "apparently ABACABA is also considered "sonata rondo form"; but no -- the article is not the most readable, but A(xA)^n (i.e. alternations of A with any number of other themes, often in different keys) makes a rondo. The distinction of "sonata rondo form" is (as best I can see) copying the sonata form idea of themes AB' and in the recapitulation AB (i.e. the 2nd subject reverts from the dominant to the tonic). In an expanded analysis it might well be possible to describe this as sonata rondo form, but this is neither necessary, nor grammatically convenient for the current text. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've played this sonata and in my opinion, the fact that the B section returns in A major rather than E major to me doesn't seem to be a disqualification. Sonata rondo form would seem to be a subset of rondo form in general. Note that the final iteration of the A section, however, is not at all similar to the first, and to me really constitutes a part of the coda. I feel like an argument can be made either way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best to leave descriptions of form to the professionals. To that end, there is a detailed analysis of this movement from page 169 of this thesis - after https://www.google.com/ type url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiru8CjhbXSAhUaS2MKHYveAUIQFghLMAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Furresearch.rochester.edu%2FfileDownloadForInstitutionalItem.action%3FitemId%3D30377%26itemFileId%3D166517&usg=AFQjCNGmg-m57xC-SBTEWViuM4DZzUi6rQ. The author is quite comfortable with the "sonata rondo" label. Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced my copy of Charles Rosen's analysis. Syek88 (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of 3rd movement
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 13 (Mozart)

message: Nice introduction to the piece, but it's the first time I've ever read anything about it that used neither of the words "concerto" and "cadenza." If, as Alan Tyson argues, the piece is from Vienna 1783-4, it comes during a period where Mozart was writing piano concerti and expanding the possibilities of the genre. 
Our first clue in this regard is the rubric at m. 170 of the last movement: "Cadenza in tempo." What follows would be entirely suitable for a piano-concerto cadenza. There are many other bits that remind one of a concerto as well.
The description of the 3 movements is baffling, and leaves one with no more information than one started with, especially for the 3rd movement. At the very least, events should be referred to with measure numbers. Phrases like "the mood slowly softens but a difficult melody is quickly established" should be reworked to give the reader an idea of what is meant. Is "the mood" the original "playful" one? How does it soften? Why "but" when the difficult melody is established? And so on.
Will attempt it myself when I can. In the meantime, anyone who wants to should tackle this.Roger.Lustig (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing?
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Mozart)

message: there's slight issue with POV:
"It is said that Mozart wrote the Fantasy as a reconstruction of the improvisation he made before writing the sonata." I removed this for various obvious reasons.
Significance of key: 'The key of C minor is generally associated with tragic, violent emotions and the battle with fate." This is highly subjective. Different key meant different things to different composers (if it held any meaning at all). This will also be removed if there are no objections.
"Since the second movement is in rondo form and slower than the others, it could exist independently from the sonata more easily than the other movements." the first phrase and the second phrase have no relationship, and the second phrase is again subjective.
"Other significant compositions in C minor (which have strikingly similar main themes) are Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto, opus 37 and Mozart's own Piano Concerto No. 24, K. 491." use of language is problematic.
If there are no objections to the removal of the final three statements, it will be removed. Chanhee920 (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the last one.  There's nothing similar about the themes other than a rising arpeggio.  The first bit about C minor, I'm indifferent about.  As for the second statement, I agree its quite odd, but I'm a bit concerned it might be part of the Wolf footnote from the previous sentence.  Should it be reworded to say that's Wolf's opinion or should it be cut out completely? DavidRF (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: To me, "Since the second movement is in rondo form and slower than the others," sounds like the contributer's opinion. I just cannot imagine a professional musicologist saying that a movement in a sonata could more easily be independent because it is slow. Every sonata has slow movement, and a lot of sonatas use the rondo form as well (Beethoven pathetique). I don't know what should be done with it. Perhaps we should message the person who added this,and get him to quote the exact statement here. Chanhee920 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV
Talk:Sonata for Two Pianos (Mozart)

message: I have included a short paragraph regarding Yanni's composition determined to have the "Mozart effect" because it is similar to the K448.  I think the sound sample is relevant, but if consensus says its over the top, no problem.  It would be nice to have a sample of Mozart's K448 as well to compare, but I'm not equiped for that.  Also, the K448 is at times slow (andante) and at times fast (molto allegro).  The Yanni sample I have included is an exerpt from just a fast-tempo ("galloping") part of the song but there are slow parts as well.  So I'm wondering, if the sample is deemed desireable to stay, should I rework the exerpt to include both slow and fast tempo parts?  ♫ Cricket02 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I endorse the addition. This is not a high-traffic article, so the networking doesn't add much, but I had never heard of it before. I suppose you should have both parts in the sample to show exactly what fast and slow mean (absolutely or relatively). ALTON .ıl 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, I'll work on that.  ♫ Cricket02 12:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Could we have an ogg file for the sonata as well?  I don't mind the extra Yanni link as long as there is also one K448. DavidRF 15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  Will try and locate a file.  ♫ Cricket02 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Alton, no - I haven't found a file yet, and there's not a sample on Mozart's page either.  I knew that UninvitedCo has contributed a good many classical sound files, and asked him if he knew where I could find one, but haven't heard and assume he's very busy.  I am impressed that you have recorded it and I'll bet it would be just fine.  ♫ Cricket02 12:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sufferable?  No.  I think its excellent.  Really.  I had never heard it before and it is a beautiful piece.  On another note, although I added it, I am doubting the Yanni sample as being relevant to this  article in particular.  I am thinking it best to remove it here but leave it up on the Mozart effect article, and adding your audio there too.  Thoughts?  ♫ Cricket02 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's best to leave the sample if it really does apply to the K448, but if there were any sections of Yanni's piece that stood out as prime examples of the Mozart Effect, or were comparable to the sonata, I'd add those in. ALTON .ıl 07:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mozart effect of the K448

message: Do we need to mention "in D major" in the title?  Did Mozart write any other sonatas for 2 pianos?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the key in the article's title is unnecessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Key in title
Talk:Orsett Hall

message: I removed the  tag which I didn't understand. If you reinstate it, pleas put a note here to explain what you are looking for. Rjm at sleepers 07:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add it but it should've been Template:Orphan (which I did add). Be careful about using templates on talk pages since it tends to categorize the talk page. I changed it for you. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 09:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: orphancat

message: I have removed the expand tag since the article is now significantly longer than when the tag was added. If you reinstate it, please note here what you think needs expansion. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand tag 

message: Under the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, the image should be attributed to its author. I will therefore revert the removal of the author. If this is unnaceptable, then perhaps the image should be removed. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image author
Talk:Duetto buffo di due gatti

message: I've found the following comment on Youtube, 
The correct title is "Cat Cavatina" and was composed by the Danish opera and song composer Christoph Ernst F. Weyse, not Rossini.
If someone could confirm this from a more reliable source, it can be added to the article. 84.121.137.200 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article, you'll see that the "Katte-Cavatine" by the Danish composer C.E.F. Weyse is already mentioned there ("Katte" being Danish for Cat).  However, this piece also includes some genuine tunes from Rossini's Otello, as the article also says.  The article already quotes reliable sources, so no alteration is required. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now cleaned up the article to try and make matters clearer! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author? 

message: Without confirming that (as i presume)  was correct in changing the order of the movements, i have fixed their having inattentively made nonsense of the wording "same act".--Jerzy•t 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which "same act"?
Talk:Zart

message: What type of composition is this?  When the only category is a "stub" category, its really uncategorized.  DavidRF (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to categorize? 

message: I've decided to merge this content into the Linda Catlin Smith article. -- œ™ 01:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Islamey

message: Anybody have any idea of where Balakirev got the title from and what it means? 65.206.122.30 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the name of a village - .  Presumably the village's name was in honour of the religion of the inhabitants, Islam, but that's just a guess.  Thanks for the question: I had no idea there was such a place as Islamey.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah.  That makes sense.  Thanks.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title
Talk:List of string quartets by Béla Bartók

message: We currently have both List of string quartets by Béla Bartók, :Category:String quartets by Béla Bartók, and Template:Bartok string quartets. Hyacinth (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Quartetss
Talk:Farlingaye High School

message: I am not at all sure that the Rape Allegations section is true. It is written by an IP address from PlusNet Technologies, which has nothing to do with Farlingaye. It is in London, not Woodbridge. Smaug123 10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-reference 
Talk:String Quartet No. 7 (Shostakovich)

message: Hi, I'm Clarissa Tamara and I will be revising this article as part of my class on chamber music literature this spring. Since currently, this string quartet has very little information and no details, I would love to do research as part of my class as well to improve this page. I look forward to your feedback on my revisions! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarissa Tamara (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2022
Talk:Pathogen transmission

message: The article claims that transmission strictly refers to the transmission of microorganisms. But then the article points to cases involving the transmission of complex infectious organisms, such as the indirect transmission of helminths (as in the case of the infectious schistosomes responsible for schistosomiasis). The latter is correct, the former is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.5.52.96 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of 'transmission' 

message: Is it possible to include brief discussion of these related terms or to link to these wikipedia pages – infection rate, transmission rate, basic reproductive ratio?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D154:79A0:F8BF:21DB:CDEC:AA55 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infection Rate, Transmission Rate, Basic Reproductive Ratio 

message: The article provides a thorough explanation of modern-day tracking in regards to pathogen transmission, but doesn't provide a history or detailed look into the real-world practices, both in terms of recent history and in general. It might be a good idea to add a section covering how the COVID-19 virus was tracked as a pathogen, as it would provide the most accurate depiction of what pathogenic tracking has looked like in modern times. — ~~~~ Noahjdengler (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking
Talk:String Quartet No. 9 (Shostakovich)

message: Apparently he did not burn it in the stove; a reconstruction of the original was performed this summer, as I recall? Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Destroyed?

message: The Bretano String Quartet has been performing over the last few months a program entitled "Fragments: Connecting Past and Present", which involves modern composers either completing or adding addtional movements to incomplete works. One of the works in question is an Allegretto movement that supposedly comes "...the time of the 9th Quartet". I've been able to find nothing online. This is obviously an area for further offline research. Graham1973 (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Surviving Movements of the First Version?