Talk:György Ligeti

message: it would be very useful to show the correct anglicized or native pronunciation of ligeti's name. "g" hard, soft or fricative? accent on first, middle or last syllable?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macevoy (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is this "forvo", and does he speak Hungarian? I think not. In that language, all words are accented on the first syllable, including "spagetti" (= Italian "spaghetti" which, of course, does not stress the initial syllable as Hungarian does).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is your friend: it is http://www.forvo.com/search/ligeti/ but I have no idea about its authority as a source. I'm also not sure that "spaghetti" is all that useful a reference anyway, because I suspect that that too depends upon who is saying it. Even so, I don't find the Forvo examples all that compelling - there's a bit of stress on the second but plenty on the first in most of their examples so it is not cut-and-dried. Finally, I'd also always thought he was first-syllable-stressed too. I have good reason to believe that this is correct, but my reasons are not citeable and would be WP:OR if challenged! (They're still right, mind you ...) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know what you mean. This unreliable source, for example, cannot be cited here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Yes, quite! :) DBaK (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not George! d͡ʒ is too hard, d͡ʑ too. It's ɟ. These three sounds are very easy to distinguish if you really want and put some effort into it. Don't be ignorant and pay respect to the original pronunciation. It's possible for everyone. --2.245.161.247 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: "The first movement of the Cello Concerto was also used in the Michael Mann 1995 crime film Heat." ( - Anon. n.d.... Amongst others, this website gives the Wikipedia article on Ligeti as a link. No specific source for the claim about Michael Mann's film is given, which leaves open the possibility that it was taken from Wikipedia and is therefore a circular self-reference.)
That Anon n.d. source was in fact this. The suggested IMDB source has been discounted as unreliable. Curiously, the excerpt is not included in the film soundtrack. Is this source any better? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that Pytheas site, which is why I asked for another opinion, rather than just deleting it (and I put the same flag on this linked entry in the list of sources). It does not say where it got the information, for this or anything else in the article, but becuase it lists this Wikipedia article amongst the external links, it looks like it might be tainted. The Mooviees site is repulsive in appearance, but at least gives its source of information as the film credits. I would say it is the preferable source under the circumstances, though I'm not sure whether it might be tarred with the same brush as the IMDb.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes hard to tell , isn't it. Unless we get a copy of the film and watch the credits. Next time I see Michael, I'll be sure to ask him.... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is very naïve of me, but I have never understood why movie credits cannot be cited on Wikipedia. I mean, we can cite magazine articles, books, and all sorts of other print media, and even documents on online websites—heck, we can even cite the New York Times—but evidently it takes special skills to read the type in movie credits, so we need the help of professional film critics, academics, and the good folks at Mooviees to interpret them for us.  On the other hand, how is reading movie credits different from getting a copy of a book and reading it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. It's quite an anomaly of Biblical proportions! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Well, I have sometimes experienced similar anomalies while squinting at teeny-tiny lettering in film credits displayed on my home television screen instead of the cinerama-theater screens for which they were evidently intended. As long as I have got your attention, you asked in your most recent edit summary how it is that "widely regraded as" should be thought of a WP:PEA. Perhaps you are right, and I should have described it instead as weasel wording. My point was that the source only spoke for itself, and did not assert that anyone other than the writer held that opinion. Of course, I have no way of knowing either what Cummings's girth might be or how far he casts his gaze, so perhaps it was meant as an objective literal description rather than a metaphoric one, but I don't think that we Wikipedia editors are permitted to assume any such thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine his girth might also be of Biblical proportions, but you are quire right, again - that's no excuse! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the evidence. I rest my case!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was wondering if imdb could be used as a source? I noticed Ligeti given credit in the soundtrack section: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113277/soundtrack  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overhere2000 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Heat (1995 film)|Heat]]'' 

message: I see that you've removed the template  using the justification "-Ligeti is cited as a postmodernist, not a modernist". While this is true, Ligeti is cited as a postmodernist, he is also cited in sources as a modernist, for example in "The Pleasure of Modernist Music: Listening, Meaning, Intention, Ideology By Arved Mark Ashby". And this is true of a lot of avant-garde composers, such as Berio, Cage, Reich, Stockhausen etc., who are also cited as being both modernist and postmodernist. See Postmodern music. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are quite right. Since I am the editor largely responsible not only for the Postmodern music article, but also for the one on Modernism (music), and most of the entries in the List of modernist composers, I am fully aware of the fact that nearly every composer working since about 1930 has been pigeonholed in both camps at one time or another. Since I see that there is now a new List of postmodernist composers (with exactly one name in it), and there are now categories for both modernist and postmodernist composers (as of last week there was only the one for modernists), I propose that both categories be added to Ligeti's biographical article, as well as to the articles for all the composers found (with reliable sources, of course) on both of those lists. It was the imbalance I was objecting to, not the foolish category.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed template

message: Substituted at 16:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I think that the lead section should mention more than Atmosphères, Le Grand Macabre, and Stanley Kubrick's use of his music. He is also renowned, after all, for works such as Poème symphonique, the Requiem, Continuum, String Quartet No. 2, the Viola Sonata, and of course the études. AndrewOne (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I would use the word "renowned" in connection with the Poème symphonique, but I agree that the Requiem, Second String Quartet, and the Études should be mentioned. Continuum and the Viola Sonata do not strike me as being in quite the same category. In fact, I would say that the Bagatelles for Wind Quintet (and perhaps Musica ricercata, from which they are drawn), the Horn Trio, and the Chamber Concerto are more familiar to most listeners. Perhaps Artikulation also deserves mention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increase the number of notable works mentioned in lead section, perhaps?