User talk:Furrykef

Welcome to wikibooks! Are you a wikipedia user as well? I hope you like the peaceful coexistance of users here. Perl 14:27, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Music
I have no problem with the move from "Music theory" to "Music" but I'm curious as to the reason. Taking a quick glance at your work so far, I would say most of my concerns may be with your meta-theory, not your theory (as would be expected as accurate basic theory sources abound). For instance: "Theory is the underlying foundation that unites every song. It explains everything." First, you are partly talking about analysis, but this is a fine point. More importantly "musicology fastidiously declares issues of musical signification off-limits to those engaged in legitimate scholarship." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_musicology) I would have taken the following paragraph from Wikipedia: "Music theory is a set of systems for analyzing, classifying, and composing music and the elements of music. Narrowly it may be defined as the description in words of elements of music, and the interrelationship between the notation of music and performance practice. The academic study of music is called musicology." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory) And I would have added, "Broadly, theory may be considered any statement, belief, or conception of music." (which I'm doing now).

Hopefully I don't come off as disapproving of this project or your efforts. For now I think I'll talk before I edit, as I don't want to paste of your meanings and intents. Hyacinth 18:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Heya! I didn't really write that introduction; somebody else did and I revised it (view the history for details), though it is possible, perhaps not unlikely, that I have made a few dubious revisions. I'm not sure about using the longer Wikipedia quote ("Music theory is a set of systems...") because it doesn't really get to the essence of what I feel music theory to be, essentially, a meta-language of music.

Anyway, you don't need to Talk before editing (unless it's something really drastic), just go ahead and do it. :) It's not as though I own the book, after all. If I wanted to, I wouldn't put it on a wiki. ;)

By the way, since you asked, I moved it to Music since that's where I would have put it myself (in fact, that's how I found out that you already started the book). The reason for that is I would use the "Music" namespace for chapters, and I think it'd be most consistent if the name of the book, as far as the wiki page title goes, matched the namespace. I might reverse it, though, i.e., have Music redirect to Tonal_Music_Theory, but the chapters would still use the Music namespace. The issue is further confused because Wikibooks still hasn't settled on a convention for chapter titles of books.

--Furrykef 01:42, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Admin
You are now a Wikibooks Admin. Congratulations! TUF-KAT 21:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your De-Adminship
Hello. I would like to inform you that you will have your sysop rights removed here on 1 Nov 2006 due to inactivity. If you would like to discuss the matter, please see WB:RFA. You can re-apply for adminship at a later date if you wish. Thanks. -within focus 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)