Kez - Just got back on the computer after doing some upgrades to my laptop yesterday and just want to clarify what you intend on the Campbell pieces. It appears to me that you want the review posted first and then the discography later? I assume it's not a problem for the posts to be a couple/few days apart?
@Craig - I am fine with however you decide to post the Campbell pieces. Originally, I had it all in one piece but GP pointed out that it was quite lengthy and that it was a little unusual to have a discography overview mixed in with an album review. I did have second thoughts about its length when I originally submitted it, and GP's comments seemed to confirm that so I took his suggestion and split it into two parts, although it seemed a little awkward to me.
If we have two linked parts published a few days apart (which is okay with me if the editors decide to do that), I will need to take out the reference to the discography in the review piece and somebody would have to add a statement and link to the 2nd discography piece later when it goes up. But that might be more trouble for everybody, so it is also fine with me if the editors want to just scratch the whole discography piece. If so, I will still have to revise the review piece to take out the reference to the discography, and try to revise the review piece some more to include a little more specifics about the music (without getting too lengthy again!) because as a standalone piece I don't really like it very much.
Let me know how you want to handle this. Sorry I made such a mess of the thing to begin with.
BTW, I was just suggesting - Kez, if you like it better together, or if others think they belong better together I am fine with that. And it was far from a mess to begin with.
After thinking about it, I decided to revise the Kate Campbell review article to make it just one piece and avoid the need to link to a separate article, which I think will be better.
Revising now and will post a comment here on the forum when I'm finished with it.
I managed to connect to MiG but when I tried to sign in, I lost the connection and can't re-connect again. I was trying to post a message to correct a couple of broken links in my "Music that has influenced me" piece, so I thought I'd post the fix here instead:
In my "Music That Has Influenced Me" article, please replace the Varttina link with:
@Craig, @Kez,
There is no personal desire on my part to queue jump here, I'm just the messenger in what follows: I received this request from Sebastian Plano: "I want to ask you if you think it will be possible to publish this interview today, I am asking because I will be contacting different music blogs and I would love to add this review/interview to it. Since the videos were uploaded today I would aim to send out this emails today"
I am waiting for him to send me one last video link, which I hope will be tonight, and then I can submit the piece, so it could be ready to go tomorrow (Tuesday). Your call whether to move it up. Main argument in favor is that it would be nice to have our blog going out in his publicity emails. I have told him the process and that it might not go up right away.
What do you think about creating a "Neo-Classical" genre? I am in two minds. I've tagged the Plano piece as "classical" and "electronic" at the moment, and maybe that's cleaner in a way and avoids us drifting into subgenres. As I've said before there's a swathe of stuff these days ranging from Johann Johannson to Nils Frahm to Deaf Center that I am unsure how to genre-tag in my own collection.
I'm a fan of using the fuzzy sub-genres. If MiG can parent-child them (ie, parent=classical, children=neo-classical, soundtrack, baroque, etc), then that would be nice, too.
But if MiG's crowd is the discerning listener, then those distinctions will mean something and be helpful.
But I can appreciate the hesitancy to add clutter.
P.S. As just a reader of MiG, I would be someone who probably would never click on the Classical button, but I would likely return to hit the neo-classical quite often. Just by way of an example.
OK it's ready to go. I added Neo-Classical and nested it under Classical. We have a scoop on two new tracks from his next album, posted today on Youtube.
To-do list when I invent the time machine:
1. Kill Hitler.
2. Prevent the misappropriation of the term "neoclassical music".
Oh well, I know it's a well-established genre name by now so I'll have to put up with it.
Sorry Nereffid! After reading your histories, though, surely you could fit "find out what the chant and troubador music originally sounded like" before your misappropriation mission.
I'll set GP's post to go up today at about 9:30 CST (that's the time of day when all MiG posts go up for those that haven't noticed).
Craig
ETA: I also added the neo-classical category to the Bang on a Can post. Let me know if there are any others it should be added to retroactively.
@Nereffid, I'm actually with you, hence my own confusion about what to call some of this stuff. Even with my dim level of classical music history expertise, it seems to me that some of this new stuff is much more neo- or post-romantic than neo-classical. But no-one calls it that.
Did somebody make Bang on a Can "Neo-Classical" or did that happen automatically because Neo-Classical is nested under classical (which would not make sense as an automatic behavior)?
My sense based on usage is that "neo-classical" means "music with violins and cellos and stuff that has electronics in it as well and is made by people under 35".
Comments
The Sebastian Plano piece should be ready by midweek - he's checking the final text.
Thanks.
Please confirm and I'll put the review up.
Craig
If we have two linked parts published a few days apart (which is okay with me if the editors decide to do that), I will need to take out the reference to the discography in the review piece and somebody would have to add a statement and link to the 2nd discography piece later when it goes up. But that might be more trouble for everybody, so it is also fine with me if the editors want to just scratch the whole discography piece. If so, I will still have to revise the review piece to take out the reference to the discography, and try to revise the review piece some more to include a little more specifics about the music (without getting too lengthy again!) because as a standalone piece I don't really like it very much.
Let me know how you want to handle this. Sorry I made such a mess of the thing to begin with.
Revising now and will post a comment here on the forum when I'm finished with it.
Thanks.
In my "Music That Has Influenced Me" article, please replace the Varttina link with:
http://realworldrecords.com/artists/varttina
For the Vihma link please use this:
Disregard my previous message I posted on MiG about replacing the Varttina broken link because I did not realize there were actually 2 broken links.
Thanks.
(P.S. That new youtube link I found to replace the Vihma broken link is quite nice!)
Craig
ETA: Both changed.
There is no personal desire on my part to queue jump here, I'm just the messenger in what follows: I received this request from Sebastian Plano: "I want to ask you if you think it will be possible to publish this interview today, I am asking because I will be contacting different music blogs and I would love to add this review/interview to it. Since the videos were uploaded today I would aim to send out this emails today"
I am waiting for him to send me one last video link, which I hope will be tonight, and then I can submit the piece, so it could be ready to go tomorrow (Tuesday). Your call whether to move it up. Main argument in favor is that it would be nice to have our blog going out in his publicity emails. I have told him the process and that it might not go up right away.
Craig
I guess I'm in favor of it, though.
Craig
But if MiG's crowd is the discerning listener, then those distinctions will mean something and be helpful.
But I can appreciate the hesitancy to add clutter.
P.S. As just a reader of MiG, I would be someone who probably would never click on the Classical button, but I would likely return to hit the neo-classical quite often. Just by way of an example.
1. Kill Hitler.
2. Prevent the misappropriation of the term "neoclassical music".
Oh well, I know it's a well-established genre name by now so I'll have to put up with it.
I'll set GP's post to go up today at about 9:30 CST (that's the time of day when all MiG posts go up for those that haven't noticed).
Craig
ETA: I also added the neo-classical category to the Bang on a Can post. Let me know if there are any others it should be added to retroactively.
Great to us linked!
Craig
Craig
Craig